Christian names

3,465 Views | 56 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Zobel
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll be back in a few weeks hopefully to pick up. Thanks for asking good questions!
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

From what I remember they had some tests that when all together paint the picture.

Hahah. So you mean there is a traditional approach to determine scripture?

Who is they and who taught them these tests? Where do you see this in history?

Your whole approach is unsupportable. You follow tradition. Tradition gave you scripture.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Your whole approach is unsupportable. You follow tradition. Tradition gave you scripture.
Google: What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?

Biblical Training.org
Blueletterbible.org




This sort of summaries my view with a few qualifications: The church will continue because of Jesus and the work of His Spirit within the lives of believers. The church thrives with the availability of the canon in their language and sound biblical teaching and application.

The church is the servant and bride of Christ not the canon however it's through the canon in which we grow in love for the one whom we serve.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your view doesn't work. It's anachronistic and doesn't explain how the church existed just fine without the NT canon.

All that opinion is just a different tradition. And its not the ancient tradition, so it's not apostolic or trustworthy.

And all that below is fine, but not really relevant. Wait. It's through the canon we grow to love Christ? Where's *that* in the Bible? Haha.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also - don't you think it's kind of strange that given your faith is wholly based on the assumption of the reliability on scripture you don't even know how they were determined? You had to google that?

"What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?" Is the wrong question, or at least an incomplete one. You also need to know who did it, when, and under what authority.

I encourage you to actually find out the answers to those questions, because it will show you how untenable the basis of sola scriptura is as an apostolic tradition or historical Christian belief.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Your view doesn't work. It's anachronistic and doesn't explain how the church existed just fine without the NT canon.

All that opinion is just a different tradition. And its not the ancient tradition, so it's not apostolic or trustworthy.

And all that below is fine, but not really relevant. Wait. It's through the canon we grow to love Christ? Where's *that* in the Bible? Haha.

It's a little loose to say that the the Church operated just fine without the NT canon.

It operated, but there were certainly many writings that were in circulation prior to the NT Canon that did not make it in because of validity issues.

So while things were "operating" at that point, they were certainly headed down a bad path.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not sure what you mean by headed down a bad path. Heresies are just as prevalent today as they were then. Those in the church hold only to what they were taught - that is the only guard against heresy.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Not sure what you mean by headed down a bad path. Heresies are just as prevalent today as they were then. Those in the church hold only to what they were taught - that is the only guard against heresy.

Heresies are prevalent today because people ignore the history of the sources, not because they question the sources. Most would be avoided if they simply read the Church Fathers.



Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Truth. But the same could be said for the heresies of St Irenaeus' time. He said, paraphrasing, that the apostles deposited the teaching in the church like a bank, and anyone who wanted to learn could come. It's not different today.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Truth. But the same could be said for the heresies of St Irenaeus' time. He said, paraphrasing, that the apostles deposited the teaching in the church like a bank, and anyone who wanted to learn could come. It's not different today.

It has to be different today. We have far more Church history written by far more people that say many different things.

It's a repetitive point from me, but both the Orthodox and Roman Catholics cite Church Fathers and history to prove or disprove the Pope's role in the Church. Both claim to be right and both claim to cite sources well before any schism.

But even in the case of St. Irenaeus; he's credited with referencing to 21 of the 27 NT Books. So even at that time, the Theologians were having to find something to reference.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
St Irenaeus makes a sufficiently strong argument sans scripture, which makes sense given that he was defending in part against people who either denied or added to the gospels. And his defense is public teaching.

Rome's claim to papal supremacy does not stand up to any rigorous patristic scrutiny. At best it's nebulous. And papal infallibility enjoys no patristic support whatsoever. Making claims isn't the end of a discussion, it is the beginning.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow. What a great thread. Lots of thoughts here. Gonna start with the names, then turn to the meat if the matter.

BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I don't think the Lord cares if a person is named, Apple, John, Little Bear, Yellow Hawk, Burt, Egor, Matilda, Kate, Ernie, etc. The Lord does care about that person's name being written in His book.


OK. Sure. I would never judge a child by his or her name, but I might think differently about parents.

If you gave little to zero thought about the name of your child, I would not have much help respect for you. There is some unnecessary callousness in something like "what day of the week is it? Tuesday? Yeah, that will work for a name."

What value are you ascribing to your child through such a careless process? I argue that the naming of a child carries some significance. My wife and I contemplated many names for our two sweet girls.

We just went through a spell where our youngest was acting out because she really believed we love our oldest better. Of course, that is silly. Our oldest has more freedom because she shows more responsibility. It's tough for a 10 year old to get that. It would be even tougher if the oldest was named Perfect and the youngest named Moon Unit.

Given that names are important, why not embrace the spiritual? Nothing but good can come from that.

Im not at a place where I will judge those that name their kids after something meaningful that is not spiritual, but I do see the wisdom in the teaching, enough so that I will back it as probably the best course, knowing that there are some pretty smart theologians that agree with me.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:


What benefit is there in honoring the memory of a deceased ancestor (part of our earthly, fleshly family) versus a deceased saint (part of our spiritual, heavenly family)?


This is an easy one.

The decisions and actions of my very spiritual grandfather are having tangible impacts on the lives of my children today. Yes, John wrote down a lot of great teaching 2000 years ago that has had a profound impact on the world today.

But, my grandfather believed John, and he believed Jesus. And the decisions he made, about how to raise his kids, about teaching love, about how to respect people you don't know, is having an impact on who my kids are turning out to be. He directly, through discipline and love, shaped who my father was, which impacted me, which is impacting my parenting.

When you can point to the decisions in a person's life, and trace down how exactly those decisions impacted your life, these are things worth teaching and venerating.

BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
k2aggie07 said:

Also - don't you think it's kind of strange that given your faith is wholly based on the assumption of the reliability on scripture you don't even know how they were determined? You had to google that?

"What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?" Is the wrong question, or at least an incomplete one. You also need to know who did it, when, and under what authority.

I encourage you to actually find out the answers to those questions, because it will show you how untenable the basis of sola scriptura is as an apostolic tradition or historical Christian belief.


Is it possible to take this idea too far? Couldn't one spend his or her entire life trying to understand whether or not a verse meant x or y, only to miss the real news of salvation of the gospel?

I believe in Christ, the Son of God, crucified for me. There is ample evidence. Regardless of literary authority, I have faith.

I find your position to be too strong here. Sola Scriptura is tenable. The teachings I the gospels on how to live are simple, yet impossible to perfect. Narrowing things down to the Canon seems a bit arbitrary, but not, in my mind, over cautious. There is enough there to spend a lifetime striving for.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

St Irenaeus makes a sufficiently strong argument sans scripture, which makes sense given that he was defending in part against people who either denied or added to the gospels. And his defense is public teaching.

Rome's claim to papal supremacy does not stand up to any rigorous patristic scrutiny. At best it's nebulous. And papal infallibility enjoys no patristic support whatsoever. Making claims isn't the end of a discussion, it is the beginning.

Rome's entire belief structure is predicated on the Pope and his Supremacy.

I think they might defend it a bit more vigorously than what you've described.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They can. I've read it. Most of it is inferred, not outright. And we have as much evidence that while Rome has always thought highly of herself, the rest of Christendom didn't agree.

They kicked it up to another level with infallibility and the accompanying anathema.
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is the problem though. They make a claim and call it Church Tradition and since Tradition is on par with the Bible, they are able to claim that they are correct.

When Luther was still a monk, he began to simply question the sources of tradition and he found things such as the Donation is Constantine which were complete forgeries.

Even when pressed, Rome could simply fall back on Tradition regardless of any findings.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We don't have a vague notion of tradition for tradition's sake. You can't just say "well, that's the way we've always done it, regardless of the evidence." We don't do that.

None of the fathers argue for this, none of the ecumenical councils argue like this. The Orthodox Church doesn't argue like this - and, to their credit, neither does Rome.

Patristic consensus is the litmus test. Again, these are not new questions. If we follow St Vincent of Lerins advice from way back in 440s, we will be very safe from error.


Quote:

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason -- because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
The guard against heresy is to adhere to the faith which is taught publicly. This is scriptural advice, given by St Paul to St Timothy, and has been the litmus test in practice for as long as we have records.
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Your view doesn't work. It's anachronistic and doesn't explain how the church existed just fine without the NT canon.

Again, which "church" are you referring to? The church in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, the churches in Rome, the ones mentioned in Revelation?
Also remember that the 'church' is people.
When do you believe the church began? How soon was scripture written after the fact?

Summary of my view: The 'church' is believers and/or groups of believers. A person becomes a part of the 'church' the moment they believe in Jesus, when He credits their faith as righteousness unites them to the 'body' through the Holy Spirit. The 'church' was born at Pentecost and is growing to this day. The church will continue to grow through the work and power of the Spirit and through the gospel, not because of traditions or a view of inspiration. God gave "the church" the scriptures to build, grow, and nourish faith, discern good and evil.

14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long;15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 1 Tim. 3:14

Traditions are fine, however if not biblical I would say they are non-essential.


Quote:

All that opinion is just a different tradition. And its not the ancient tradition, so it's not apostolic or trustworthy.


The way the early church fathers evaluated the canon was a historical fact/test vs a tradition. Part of that test included the tradition of scriptures used/read in church but remember, they were written over a period of time in different locations, countries and not in the information age. Part of the testing criteria is, "was it written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle"? I don't know how it could be considered not apostolic given that test.


Quote:

And all that below is fine, but not really relevant. Wait. It's through the canon we grow to love Christ? Where's *that* in the Bible? Haha.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him
9 Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
4 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask You to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.

Were the NT scriptures given to the church by God through the apostles or are they mere commentary in the likes of Joel Osteen? There's no middle ground. They are either the given by God or simply some mans opinion which is irrelevant.
How did Jesus view the OT Scriptures?
Should the NT be viewed with the same authority and vigor?

Quote:


Also - don't you think it's kind of strange that given your faith is wholly based on the assumption of the reliability on scripture you don't even know how they were determined? You had to google that?
My faith was born at a young age when I realized my own sinfulness and rebellious heart and put my faith in Jesus' death and resurrection for my own sins. My faith is based wholly on Him alone before I knew anything about the canon, inspiriation, etc. My faith in the reliability of the scriptures comes through years of reading, questions, and study. My reference to google was simply showing you how many quick searches corroborate my claims.


Quote:

"What criteria were used to determine the canon of Scripture?" Is the wrong question, or at least an incomplete one. You also need to know who did it, when, and under what authority.
The who did it and when is easily answered. The authority is really irrelevant. Are the scriptures the 'breath of God" and do they exist regardless of who's in authority namely given that they were written by the apostles and their associates.


Quote:

I encourage you to actually find out the answers to those questions, because it will show you how untenable the basis of sola scriptura is as an apostolic tradition or historical Christian belief.
Considering the following:
  • That Jesus viewed the OT scriptures as the 'words of God"
  • given that the apostle Paul claimed all scripture is the breath of God
  • all NT scriptures were written by an associate of an apostle or an apostle.

I don't know what hire authority could be appealed to for validity.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Again, which "church" are you referring to? The church in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, the churches in Rome, the ones mentioned in Revelation?
The Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. There is only one Church. Your view is just, like, your opinion, man. It is not the historical view, and it is not scriptural.

Did you notice that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? And not the scriptures?


Quote:

The way the early church fathers evaluated the canon was a historical fact/test vs a tradition. Part of that test included the tradition of scriptures used/read in church but remember, they were written over a period of time in different locations, countries and not in the information age. Part of the testing criteria is, "was it written by an apostle or an associate of an apostle"? I don't know how it could be considered not apostolic given that test.
Please detail where you learned of this test and how, I'd love to know.


Quote:

Were the NT scriptures given to the church by God through the apostles or are they mere commentary in the likes of Joel Osteen? There's no middle ground. They are either the given by God or simply some mans opinion which is irrelevant.
How did Jesus view the OT Scriptures?
Should the NT be viewed with the same authority and vigor?

You seem to be making an identity relationship between the word of Christ and the scriptures. But on the face this doesn't make any sense at all, because as your quote knows, Christ gave the Apostles the word before the scriptures were written. Therefore the scriptures reflect the Word of Christ, but unless Christ handed them the canon as we know it today, they cannot be the same thing. Unless, perhaps, you believe that Christ told them the scriptures word for word before His Ascension? This would be a very interesting take!

The NT scriptures were written by men, inspired by God. They were not word for word dictated by God, which is why we don't see the voice of God in which case there would be a uniform writing style, diction, and so on. Instead we see and can know St Paul, St Peter, St Mark, St John, all by how they write and what they say. Because they wrote as their own, with their own words - but they wrote as ones enlightened by Christ, from within the Spirit.


Quote:

The who did it and when is easily answered. The authority is really irrelevant. Are the scriptures the 'breath of God" and do they exist regardless of who's in authority namely given that they were written by the apostles and their associates.
Is it easily answered? Then answer it. If the authority is irrelevant, how do you know they're true? How do you know which are scripture and which are not? How do you know they were written by the apostles and their associates? How do you even know if that is a reliable test?


Quote:

Considering the following:
  • That Jesus viewed the OT scriptures as the 'words of God"
  • given that the apostle Paul claimed all scripture is the breath of God
  • all NT scriptures were written by an associate of an apostle or an apostle.

I don't know what hire authority could be appealed to for validity.
Let's be clear here, no one is arguing the usefulness of scripture.

To your bullet points:

-The NT scriptures quote from the Septuagint far more often than the Masoretic text (something like ten times as much), which has several books you probably reject. There are several indisputable deuterocanonical references in the NT. The NT has Christ quote from the LXX (for example in Mark 7:6-7). Do you think those books are scripture? If not, why?

- When St Paul wrote that all scripture was God-breathed, it is likely that most of the NT had not yet been written. So either this is a bit if prophecy, in which case anything which would later be called scripture gets covered by his description, or he's writing about the OT. Even if it is the former, he would not have knowledge over what would be called scripture in the future (even perhaps his own writing) without again some kind of prophetic insight. So who decides what is and isn't scripture? St Paul left no canon.

- There are several ancient texts purporting to be written by Apostles or associates of Apostles, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of John, etc. Are these scriptures? Why or why not?



DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

The Church founded by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. There is only one Church. Your view is just, like, your opinion, man. It is not the historical view, and it is not scriptural.

Did you notice that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? And not the scriptures?
I agree with you that the church was founded by Jesus Christ through His apostles. That there is only one Church (which are human believers who make up the body of Christ).

I disagree, because I believe that Jesus and His Word (all NT and OT Scriptures) are the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church should be a minister and distributor of His words (scripture) and the measure of truth and error of each local church can be measured against the scriptures.


Quote:

Please detail where you learned of this test and how, I'd love to know.
I sat in a class for a semester taught by Dr. Ken Wilson. In digging for reference to this I've found a few in other places:
Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible. pp. 137-144).
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures by R. Laird Harris


Quote:

You seem to be making an identity relationship between the word of Christ and the scriptures. But on the face this doesn't make any sense at all, because as your quote knows, Christ gave the Apostles the word before the scriptures were written. Therefore the scriptures reflect the Word of Christ, but unless Christ handed them the canon as we know it today, they cannot be the same thing. Unless, perhaps, you believe that Christ told them the scriptures word for word before His Ascension? This would be a very interesting take!

The NT scriptures were written by men, inspired by God. They were not word for word dictated by God, which is why we don't see the voice of God in which case there would be a uniform writing style, diction, and so on. Instead we see and can know St Paul, St Peter, St Mark, St John, all by how they write and what they say. Because they wrote as their own, with their own words - but they wrote as ones enlightened by Christ, from within the Spirit.

This greatly helps me to understand where you are coming from.

How does "inspiration" work?

This would be like trying to definitively answer, "How did Jesus walk on water?, Jonah live in the belly of a fish?, or scientifically how Jesus was dead and then not dead 3 days later.

A better question is, "What do we know about inspiration?"
  • The english word doesn't do the original word justice as it's too week. Humans are inspired by a thought, memory, beauty, etc. This is NOT what the scriptures claim to be.
  • The scriptures also do not claim to be writings from 'humans inspired by their love for God"
  • God claims the authorship of all scripture, OT and new

When we read the scriptures we see Moses writing style, David, Peter, Paul, and Luke's individual writing style but we are not reading words that originated from their brain. We are reading God's words delivered through these human vehicles. A few weeks ago my nephew was on his boogie board, the water was rough and he was getting carried out to see. Being carried like this is the word picture God uses to describe the 'inspiration process".

Furthermore, Christ taught for roughly 3 years. in the scriptures we learn what Christ taught and even how much the 12 were paying attention. These guys were clueless, argumentative, forgetful, scared, weak, etc. A don't believe that there's this sacred "word" or "tradition" that is so important that it was left out of the scriptures.

God spoke creation into existance
God spoke from a burning bush,
God spoke at the baptism of Jesus
God spoke through the apostles and prophets.

This are all His word, with equal authority. No single instance invalidates the other.

Quote:


-The NT scriptures quote from the Septuagint far more often than the Masoretic text (something like ten times as much), which has several books you probably reject. There are several indisputable deuterocanonical references in the NT. The NT has Christ quote from the LXX (for example in Mark 7:6-7). Do you think those books are scripture? If not, why?
I think the point was missed about the quotes. The significance of Paul quoting Luke is the context. He specifically lumps Luke's writing with Moses writing and calls them both scriptures, on equal footing. Peter calls Paul's writing scripture.

When Paul quotes the poet in Acts, he's not validating their texts or calling them scriptures.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I agree with you that the church was founded by Jesus Christ through His apostles. That there is only one Church (which are human believers who make up the body of Christ).
Mmhm. And how are we to know the Church? St Paul tells us: "one bread," and in another place, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." If there are two faiths, two breads, two baptisms... are there two churches?


Quote:

I disagree, because I believe that Jesus and His Word (all NT and OT Scriptures) are the pillar and foundation of truth. The Church should be a minister and distributor of His words (scripture) and the measure of truth and error of each local church can be measured against the scriptures.
You are welcome to believe, but the scriptures do not say that. This is just your opinion, based on nothing.


Quote:

I sat in a class for a semester taught by Dr. Ken Wilson. In digging for reference to this I've found a few in other places:
Norman L. Geisler & William Nix, A General Introduction To The Bible. pp. 137-144).
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures by R. Laird Harris
So, not the scripture? Just a tradition of men, made up by some guys who are alive now, but were not alive when the canon was formed?
Quote:

  • The english word doesn't do the original word justice as it's too week. Humans are inspired by a thought, memory, beauty, etc. This is NOT what the scriptures claim to be.

"The original word"? Are you talking about theopneustos? It means God-breathed, literally theo (God) + pneo (to breathe out), breathed out by God. But again, you haven't established any way to test which scriptures are scriptures, or even which scriptures St Paul was talking about.

Quote:

God spoke creation into existance
God spoke from a burning bush,
God spoke at the baptism of Jesus
God spoke through the apostles and prophets.
"One of these things is not like the other"

You didn't answer any of the questions, just talked about your opinions not founded in scripture based on some class you took and then made up some things about inspiration with - shocking - no scriptural quotes to support your position.

Again, please -- stay focused here -- how do you answer these questions?

-The NT scriptures quote from the Septuagint far more often than the Masoretic text (something like ten times as much), which has several books you probably reject. There are several indisputable deuterocanonical references in the NT. The NT has Christ quote from the LXX (for example in Mark 7:6-7).

...By way of explanation, because you do not understand my point. Christ quoted from the LXX, most of the quotes of the OT are from the LXX. Not some random books, when they quote Isaiah, for example, they use the LXX. So the LXX is indisputably scripture, because it is used in the NT)

So again, do you think those books are scripture? If not, why?

- When St Paul wrote that all scripture was God-breathed, it is likely that most of the NT had not yet been written. So either this is a bit if prophecy, in which case anything which would later be called scripture gets covered by his description, or he's writing about the OT. Even if it is the former, he would not have knowledge over what would be called scripture in the future (even perhaps his own writing) without again some kind of prophetic insight. So who decides what is and isn't scripture? St Paul left no canon.

- There are several ancient texts purporting to be written by Apostles or associates of Apostles, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of John, etc. Are these scriptures? Why or why not?
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.