/ mapleleafweb.com > Political Forums > Moral, Religious and Political Philosophy > Religion & Politics /
/ Thread > The Bible: Science(s), Prophecies, Studies/Interpretations, etc. / Date > 14 Sept 2011 /
.
] In 'Word of God' author Charles Price say: ... It was written in numerous styles; in fact, almost
] every literary style you’ll probably find in this book. There’s history, there’s poetry, there are
] songs, there is law, there is biography, there is autobiography, there is prophecy, there is
] parable, there is allegory, and probably other things.
.
netspawn say: Yeah, other things including FICTION (eg. book of Jonah) and historical-fiction (eg.
Lk-Acts). Christians ought not to be embarrassed that their sacred library includes fiction, and yet
many are not only extremely reluctant to admit it, but even go out of their way to deny it!
.
] CP: ... and a little bit of it was written in Africa
.
Including several NT books; such as the gospel and epistles of John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and
2Peter. Here again Christians are extremely reluctant to face the facts and admit the truth.
.
] CP: ... And when they wrote it by hand, they wrote it with incredible accuracy.
.
What Mr Price here means to say is: 'And when they COPIED it by hand, they COPIED it with incredible accuracy.' Which strikes me as a very deliberate deception, since the majority of scribes had no qualms about changing the text if they imagined that there were 'errors' that had somehow crept into the text, and thus required correction. I am, of course, here referring to *Christian* scribes only, since the Jewish scribes had sufficient respect for the text of the Tanach (OT) not to make random and unjustified changes.
.
> betsy say: ... There is no doubt that Science does not contradict,
> but rather supports the Bible.
.
This is a very sweeping generalization, betsy. The situation is rather more complex than that. For example, the bible claims that before sin there was no death, that death was the result of sin. Science, on the other hand, shows us that death LONG preceded sin; that death is the result of life, and that "sin" is a human invention that has nothing to do with physical death; although it has nothing to say about the relation between sin and *spiritual* death.
.
> b: ... Then, thousands of years later, along came science.
.
Actually, science "came along" with philosophy centuries before the advent of Joshua of Nazareth. Indeed, Aristotle was as much of a scientist as he was a philosopher. If you'd spend some time reading the literature of such intellectual giants you may be less inclined to make such absurd statements as this:
.
> b: Science found out that we have these building blocks called atoms.
.
Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ...
.
> b: Therefore, this verse had become literal in meaning. Uttered in the right context. Supported
> by science. "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that
> what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
.
Is there a problem with a biblical author having some knowledge of the great philosophies of his day?
.
> b: ... And I won't budge ... because I know I'm right.
.
Oh betsy, such vanity is most unbecoming in a believer. :D
Is it not apparent by now that you do not know nearly as much as you think you do?
Are you open-minded enough to admit that maybe you're NOT always right?

/ mapleleafweb.com > Political Forums > Moral, Religious and Political Philosophy > Religion & Politics /
/ Previous Thread > The Bible: Science(s), Prophecies, Studies/Interpretations, etc. / Date > 18 Sept 2011 /

 Now the first thing I want to do is to inform the Reader that I have NOT consulted any commentaries upon Hebrews. This means that I have no idea whether or not the things I am about to say are known to the exegetes, or to what extent my interpretations agree or disagree with the general scholarly consensus. I say this so that the reader will know that the only authority at work here is my own feeble reasonings, assisted (I hope) by the spirit of truth.
.
 Having said that, I will begin by reiterating my previous observation that the author of Hebrews was a literate and educated man who had a wide knowledge of the literature available to a scholar within walking distance of the famous library in Alexandria (ie. it was still in operation during the last decade of the first century, when Hebrews was written). Thus the author not only had knowledge of early christian literature, such as Paul's epistles (see eg. 5:11-14; which is doubtless the primary source of the mistaken notion that Paul was the author) and the gospels of Mk and Mt (ie. Lk-Acts was not yet written), but also of classical Greek philosophy, as in this verse from 2:15 :
.
 "... and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives." -- NASB
.
 This verse shows us that the author had a good knowledge of, and perhaps even some admiration for, the otherwise much-hated Greek philosopher Epicurus; who taught (among other things) that we ought not to fear death (for fear of anything is a form of slavery) or the gods.
.
 The author of Hebrews also demonstrates an intimate (even essential) knowledge of the gospel of John; as evidenced by the use of the phrase 'the Word of God' in a way that would have been quite impossible prior to John's gospel:
.
 "Indeed, the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account." -- 4:12-13 / NRSV
.
 Moreover, the significance of Hebrews' literary and theological dependence upon John is further demonstrated by the nature and structure of the all-important opening verses. Compare then the first three verses of these two books:
.
 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and divine was the Word. This one was in the beginning with the God. All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being." -- John 1:1-3 / Prophet Version
.
 "In many and various ways God long ago spoke to the fathers by the prophets, [and now] at the end of these days he spoke to us by the Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the ages. He [the Son] is the radiance of the glory, and the representation of the essence of Him [God], and he [the Son] sustains everything by the power of his Word." -- Heb.1:1-3 / Prophet Version
.
 The significance of the author's literary and theological dependence upon John's writings is that it allows us to grope our way toward a better understanding of where, when, and why this essay or extended homily (it's quite obviously not a letter as such) was made. Since John's gospel was written during the crisis that tore the Faith away from its mother religion (ie. Judaism), what church-historians have called the 'Parting of the Ways', we can confidently place the gospel's origin at Alexandria round about the years 85-90CE. And since Hebrews is still very much concerned with the relevance of the Hebrew scriptures, it too can be pegged to the same area, say round about the years 90-95CE. As further evidence for this date I will point out that the text itself frankly admits to a second generation origin:
.
 "Therefore we must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it ... It was declared at first through the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard him." -- Hebrews 2:1&3 / NRSV
.
 That is, "those who heard him" are the first generation of greek-speaking believers who were driven out of Jerusalem (c.40-45CE), some of whom went north to Antioch, and some of whom went south-west to Egypt. Thus there were, in the first century, three great centers of the still emergent Faith: the original Aramaic church in Jerusalem, and the two hellenistic daughter-churches in Antioch and Alexandria. In the gospel of Mark and Peter these churches are identified through their apostolic leaders: Jacob (James) - the head of the Jerusalem assembly, Peter - the head of the Antioch assembly, and John - the head of the Alexandria assembly. Just a few years after the original gospel was written (c.60-65CE), a Roman army marched on Jerusalem and leveled the place to the ground. Thus ended the mother-church in violence and flames.
.
 So even though the jewish-hellenistic prophets Paulos and Silvanus had already taken the Faith to the Gentiles of Asia Minor and Greece, the assemblies of Antioch and Alexandria remained very much within the Jewish element within these cities; such that the majority of believers (in the first century) were Greek-speaking Jews, and the Faith was still very much a form of Judaism (ie. a reform movement within Judaism). But after the destruction of the Holy City and its Holy Temple (in year 70CE), the Jews were suddenly bereft of the very core and center of their religion. And the result of this shocking loss was nothing less than a revolution within Judaism that radically changed its nature and structure. Gone were the bloody sacrifices and the priesthood who managed them. How could the Rabbis fill this massive void? Chiefly by changing the focus of Judaism away from the Holy Temple to the Holy Scriptures. Thus it was the Rabbis (at the council of Jamnia) that created the canon of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah/Law, Prophets, and Writings), and it was this unique achievement that saved Judaism from utter dissolution.
.
 Unfortunately for the jewish-believers in the Christos, the salvation of Judaism required the rejection of all radical fringe groups, especially those who believed that Joshua of Nazareth was the Messiah. Thus the jewish-believers found themselves no longer welcome within the synagogues. Hence the 'parting of the ways' which forced these Jewish-believers into a position where they had no choice but to make a truly agonizing decision. If they wished to remain with their friends and families within the bosom of the religion of their ancestors, they would have to renounce their Lord and Messiah. On the other hand, if they could not bring themselves to 'turn away' from Jesus, then they would have to give up their heritage and identity, as well as the people that they have loved all their lives.
.
 But since most people are by nature change-hating conservatives, we may well suppose that a good many of the greek-speaking jewish-believers reluctantly returned to the synagogues (some with their heads bowed in shame, some not). In any case, the loss of these believers was a very bitter pill for the 'pillars' in Antioch and Alexandria to swallow. John reacted with considerable hostility toward 'the Jews' (as is evident within the pages of his gospel), while in Antioch a midrashic expansion of the original gospel had been composed (c.80-85CE) for the jewish brethren, and making a strong case for Jesus from out of the pages of the sacred Hebrew scriptures (albeit in greek translation). In Alexandria this same noble crusade (and specifically targeting the wayward and undecided jewish-believers) was soon taken up by the author of the essay that would later become known as 'Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews'.
.
 So now that we know when and where and why Hebrews was written, as well as who the essay was written for, we are in a much better position to understand the intentions and teachings of its inspired author. Moreover, we can now more effectively deal with the many misunderstandings surrounding the essay, as well as with the unfortunate corruptions to the text that only increase and intensify these misunderstandings ...
.
>> netspawn previously said: ... Sometimes what the biblical authors DON"T say
>> is just as important as what they do say.
.
> CANADIEN replied: ... Indeed. That being said, what we have here is one verse in
> a larger text. Hebrews was likely aimed at a Greek-speaking community, familiar
> with judaic religious practices.
.
netspawn say: And also with the jewish scriptures in greek-translation ... as befits a community of hellenistic jewish-believers. :)
.
> C: It's main themes are the divinity of Jesus, His priesthood, and holding fast
> in the face of persecution.
.
 Actually, the one main theme of the entire essay, the one central and over-riding concern (if you will), is to convince those who are considering it *not* to "turn away from Him' (12:25). Everything else is subordinate to this primary directive. Moreover, you are way off base if you think that the so-called "divinity of Jesus" (in the Trinitarian sense) plays ANY part in the thinking and theology of the author. For him Jesus is Lord and Logos, "Apostle and High Priest" (3:1), the Son of God (note - not to be equated with 'God the Son'), and even Shepherd; but above all of these Jesus is primarily "the mediator of a new covenant" (12:24).
.
 However, I can certainly understand your confusion regarding this important matter. The author does in fact lay it on rather thick in the opening chapters; but he never really takes it to the extreme point of actually referring to Jesus as 'God' or 'God the Son'. To do something so incredibly stupid would be to deliberately alienate his intended readers, and thus totally undermine the entire purpose of all his efforts! Remember who he's talking to, CANADIEN, and what he's trying to accomplish. His intended audience consists of waffling jewish-believers, and the fastest way to drive them all out of the assembly, and back to the synagogue, would be to say, suggest, or even vaguely hint at, the possibility that Jesus is actually God himself. Divine, yes; but equal to the One Living God? Hardly. The author of Hebrews (like John and all the other NT writers) was a staunch monotheist, and not at all a Trinitarian; for this vile heresy of episcopal invention would have to wait until well after the NT period (ie. 50-150CE) had ended. Think about all this as you re-read the text of Hebrews, and you will see why this MUST be so.
.
 But now you will object, saying: 'But netspawn, are you blind as well as stupid? Look at chapter one again. The author clearly calls the Son (ie. JC) 'God' not just once, but twice (1:8&9)!' ... Well yes, the word is indeed twice there in the text, BUT it certainly wasn't put there by the inspired author. Rather, these grossly uninspired additions were inserted into the text decades after the original autograph was finished (and therefore have no authority whatsoever over truth-loving believers); placed there by some overly-pious and incredibly ignorant scribe who doubtless imagined that he was only adding to the greater glory of God.
.
 'How do I know this', you ask? Well, my friend, the answer is that it is perfectly OBVIOUS. So obvious, in fact, that I'll go out on a limb here and predict that if you check some of the better commentaries on Hebrews you'll doubtless find at least a few bible-scholars making the same observation. In other words, it's so obvious that even the bible-scholars couldn't possibly miss it; unless of course they are fundamentalist bible-scholars, who pride themselves on being blind to such subtle textual distinctions. Moreover, I can even tell you what sort of scribe committed this textual sodomy; he was a Romish scribe! We know this because he foolishly identifies himself in yet another pointless addition at the very end of the text (ie. 13:22-25), where in the course of a very feeble attempt to make the essay seem like a letter from Paul, our idiotic scribe tips his hand by saying 'Those from Italy greet you' (v.24).
.
 And Hebrews is not the only document to be thus sodomized by Romish scribes. Even books outside the canon were not safe from the lies and deceptions of the Romish church. One famous example is First Clement whereby this work of an Egyptian prophet was callously hijacked and falsely attributed to the fictional "pope" Clement! Thus we see that right from the beginning the Lying Romish Whore was far more concerned to advance the greater glory of the Romish church than to glorify God. Is it any surprise then that these arrogant Romish scribes should sodomize the text of Hebrews by inserting lies and deceptions?
.
 Also, IF Paul had written the "epistle" it is inconceivable that he would not identify himself directly by name: 'Paulos, an apostle of Jesus Christ'. Paul was simply not the type of prophet to beat around the bush regarding matters of such overwhelming importance as his apostolic authority and authorship.
.
> C: I do not see how an unspoken reference to the atomism theory (the idea, developed
> in India 6 centuries before Hebrews, then in Greece by Leucippus 5 centuries before
> Hebrews, that the universe is composed of indivisible particles and empty void) would
> fit with the rest of the message.
.
It's simply a minor detail, made in passing, and of no great significance either way. After all, our hellenistic-jewish author has a very odd manner of discourse. And his logic also leaves much to be desired. As to his rhetorical style, he flutters about like a nervous butterfly, not landing anywhere for more than a brief moment, and then hurrying on. His sense of urgency to convince his jewish brethren not to return to the synagogue is palpable. To this end he'll gladly throw anything and everything into the mixture.
.
>> netspawn previously said: ... Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers
>> who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that
>> the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ...
.
] g_bambino replied: Right on the first point, because the evidence that supports it is still
] there. Nothing, though, to prove the second point to be true; it rests on two assumptions:
] first, that the passage in Hebrews about what is seen being not made out of what was
] visible is actually speaking about atoms ... and, second, that the author of Hebrews was
] inspired by the Ancient Greek theory.
.
Neither 'assumption' strikes me as being beyond the realm of possibility. Indeed, I still think that Betsy's atomic interpretation of 11:3 is, at the very least, plausible. In any case, I don't believe I've seen a MORE plausible interpretation on the other thread ... unless I've over-looked something? ARRRG! I hate it when that happens.
.
] g: ... (despite, as has already been shown, atoms are not, nor ever have been, invisible) ...
.
I have no idea what any of this means. Color me confused ...
.
And so concludes today's lesson in biblical hermeneutics! 

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.pentecostal, alt.religion.christian.episcopal /
/ Thread was > "Behold, These Are The Ungodly!" / Date > 20 Dec 2011 / Topic >

> On 19Dec vince garcia wrote: Notice how demon-inspired false teacher, elder child, does the
> first thing most every heretic does? Makes Jesus a created being,
.
wurm say: All men are created beings. Joshua was a man. Ergo: Joshua was a created being.
I see no problem in this. Why do you, vince?
.
> and deny His deity.
.
The New Testament is clear on this point; ie. once you ignore the later priestly corruptions of the text (eg. like those in the opening chapter of Hebrews): God is the one and only, and there is no other. The trinitarian fantasy came *after* all the NT documents were finished (c.150 CE); and it came from the bishops and theologians who considered that Jesus being Lord was not good enough, so they claimed that the 'Son of Man' was "really" the 'Son of God' (by which they  meant 'God the Son'). You, vince, are therefore the faithful son of ignorant theologians and lying bishops.
.
> And why does Satan want that teaching out there?
.
Why does Satan want the LIE of the Trinity out there? Because it prevents believers from
seeing the truth. You, vince, are the faithful son of Satan's lies.
.
> Because a created being is not a perfect enough
.
Perfection is not a requirement of created beings.
.
> sacrifice to atone for sin.
.
The only sacrifice God requires is a contrite heart. God does not want "atonement", He only wants
love. For love, as the prophet says, covers a multitude of sins. Your "perfect" theology, vince,
blinds you to the truth of things.
.
> vg: There isn't one cogent relationship to any legitimate plan of salvation in this or ANY
> of your posts; just a lot of disjointed verses from here and from there that in no way
> speak of the plan of salvation.
.
Here is the only "plan of salvation" that is needed: love your neighbor as yourself.
.
> You didn't post one word on the cross or the redemption of Christ. NOT ONE WORD!
.
It's not necessary, vince. The cross is merely a distraction that diverts attention away from the truth.
.
> Just the typical tirade against the church being corrupt <snip>
.
Which it is ...
.
> vg: That's why you spam out all these crap posts that go on about spiritual-sounding things
> that are a mixture of truth polluted by your lies, that have an appearance of godliness, and
> quote lots of verses, BUT YET LEAVE OUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL
> --THE CROSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
The cross is the "MOST IMPORTANT THING OF ALL"?
Really, vince? Perhaps you're the one who's deluded, eh?
.
> <snip> Translation: rejection of justification through faith in Christ in favor of
> salvation by works and philosophy as taught by elder child.  * spits *
.
Justification is not necessary. Even faith is not necessary.
The only thing that is *necessary*, vince, is LOVE:
.
"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1Cor.13:2).
.
And if that's not clear enough for you, see this:
.
"So faith, hope, and love abide; these three. But the greatest of these is love" (1Cor.13:13).
.
There is all the *perfection* we need. The prophet obviously has his priorities in order. It's just a shame that christians can't do likewise. If only they could open their hearts to the truth, then they might be able to see that next to love, theology is a very small and petty thing. So maybe you should stop ragging on elder-child's many many flaws and faults, and consider that at least the man is trying. What are you doing besides defending an out-dated and obsolete theology?