/ Subject > Re: Romans 5:13 / 9 Nov 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /"So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned; for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law." -- Romans 5:12-13> On 4Nov99 Ross Evans wrote: Can anyone explain what Paul is getting at here?
.
textman answers: Dear Ross, what Paul is basically saying here is that although it is our nature to sin, we are unable to recognize sin *as* sin until we hold it up against the will of God (as given in the Torah/Law). Thus Paul asserts elsewhere that the main function of the Torah is to make us aware of just how far we fall short (ie. because of sin). Yes, there was sin in the World before the great I AM revealed himself to Moses, but there was no awareness of this because sin was the norm, and virtue the exception. Today the Torah/Law is widely discarded as the corrupt politics of a patriarchal, violent, and narrow-minded society having no relevance to anyone anymore; (this opinion can be found even on the lips of Christians). In this way the enlightened and progressive leaders and teachers of the churches have banished all evil out of the world, and made sin a very small thing of no real consequence. Thus, in the post-modern world of today, it is *still* our nature to sin, but now we no longer have the Torah/Law to measure it against; and so spiritual death has spread to all people ...
/ Subject > Re: Romans 5:13 / 10 Nov 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
> On 9Nov99 Marc wrote: quote: RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
> and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13 for before the
> law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14
> Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did
> not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
.
> Textman, a very good exegesis on 5:13, yes the world does not recognize sin anymore. If you look
> at the entire passage 5:12-14 you also get a clear picture of Paul's argument. <snip remainder>
.
textman say: Dear Marc, yeah sure; but the problem is that Paul's argument is fatally flawed in one very important respect. Paul claims that death came through sin, but, in fact, death long preceded the genesis of sin; which (as the book of Genesis teaches) was the result of the knowledge of good and evil. Before knowledge, however, sin could not be known, and therefore had no meaning. But death was nevertheless a part of their world because it is an essential element in the life cycles of all creatures of flesh and bone (ie. mortality is written into our genes). So unless you are prepared to assume the absurd proposal that the first humans were created immortal, and subsequently 'cursed' with mortality (because they failed to obey), then you must concede that the most basic premise of Paul's argument is not only wrong, but actually *very* horribly wrong!
.
However, all is not lost by thus admitting the truth of our shared reality (ie. that we were all of us created *mortal*; even from the very beginning). Paul's argument retains its compelling force if you follow my lead in understanding the term 'death' as Paul uses it here to mean 'spiritual death'. Now this meaning is not necessarily what Paul intended exactly, *BUT* it is fully in harmony with the rest of scripture (and therefore a justified and *biblical* interpretation). If we elect not to understand 'death' in just this special way, then Paul's entire argument crashes to the ground in a glorious blaze of nonsensical fantasy!
P.S. "Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God." -- Marlin Books Kreider (physiologist)
/ Subject > Re: Romans 5:13 / 13 Nov 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
> On 10Nov99 Marc replied: Textman, Unless you can offer some scripture to back up your claim that death
> did not enter with the curse, you stand on very thin ice. The bible is very clear that Adam was not subject
> to death until after he sinned and was subject to the curse.
.
textman say: Dear Marc, I find it somewhat amusing, and somewhat sad, that you should claim that I stand on "very thin ice". The hard sciences (especially biology and molecular biology) make it quite clear that the death of individuals is as much a part of life as the evolution of species, and existed from the very beginnings (ie. long before the appearance of hominds). Therefore it is obvious that it is those who reject the fundamental facts and realities of our shared universe who are standing on very thin ice.
.
For you see, Marc, the thing is that the scriptures are NOT sundered and divorced from the various truths and realities that obtain in this universe we all live (and die) in. Therefore, universal laws are, by definition yet, just that (ie. universal); that's why they call them 'universal laws'. And the death of individual mortal creatures is as universal as gravity and light. This is just the way that God created the Cosmos. Thus it is nothing less than wholly irrational and blasphemous to deny all this because our scientifically ignorant forefathers once told fabulous and mythical stories explaining the origins of all things.
.
The fact is that a simplistic and literal interpretation of the Genesis mythology is a luxury that post-modern believers can no longer afford; unless (of course) they sincerely wish to be known as ignorant baboons, or earnestly desire to make the Faith as utterly irrelevant and meaningless as possible. Is that really what you want, Marc? To make the scriptures as silly and ridiculous as possible, such that no sensible person could possibly accept them as true in any way, shape, or form? You had best think long and well on all this, because it is precisely where a childish reading (eg. the beloved "literal interpretation" of fundamentalism) of the Word of God ultimately lands us!
.
> On 17Nov99 Hopetocome wrote: Hello, Definitely a topic for the evolution part of the forum since it is
> apparent textman that you believe in the evolution of all things.
.
textman say: Dear Hopetocome, since the evolution of all living things is a basic feature of how our universe works, I think it more than a little absurd to bracket this fundamental reality and banish it from all consideration of scripture as if it has no bearing on how we are to read the Word of God.
.
> Here is my explanation of Rom. 5:13 Sin entered the world through Adam because of his disobedience.
.
This is the traditional view because this is what Paul claims actually happened at some specific point in the past. However, myths are not scientific accounts of actual events in prehistory. Rather, myths are (of their very essence, as it were) symbolic expressions of ongoing spiritual realities. Those who insist on reading Genesis the same way as they read their morning newspaper are fools beyond measure!
.
> Death is the result of that sin.
.
Death is the result of life.
.
> Because of Adams sin all mankind suffers the penalty of sin which is death.
.
Because all of us *are* Adam (in that we all sin and disobey God's commands), we each suffer the penalty of spiritual death that logically follows our turning away from the Great Spirit. Physical death, on the other hand, is a property of all living creatures, and has nothing to do with our capacity to sin. The proof of this is made apparent in the death of infants who are incapable of sin; because they lack the knowledge and will to do so.
.
> Adams sin is imputed upon all people
.
And just exactly HOW is sin "imputed upon all people", eh? Is it written deep into our genetic code, perhaps? ... Do you see how silly this line of reasoning becomes when we follow it to its logical conclusions?
.
> because we were in Adam when he sinned.
.
I don't know about you, Hopetocome, but I for one was not in Adam. Not before he sinned; not during his sinning; and not after he sinned. Adam was his own man; he was not me *also*. Since I did not exist until God created me, it is ridiculous to make meaningless theological statements that have no bearing on reality as it is (as the Creator made it)!
.
> That is why though the law hadn't been given yet people died before the law was given because
> there was sin in the world.
.
People died millions of years before there even emerged the species of large-brained hominids called homo sapiens. It is absurd in the extreme to claim that our distant ancestors sinned when the life they led offered them scant opportunity for spiritual life. Hunt, eat, sleep, procreate. That about sums up the substance of the lives of our smaller-brained progenitors. Nasty, brutish, and short (as Hobbes puts it)!
.
> Death is the result of sin.
.
Spiritual death is the result of sin.
.
> The law was given that sin would abound more.
.
That's not what Paul says. Paul says that the Torah/Law was given to make us aware of our sin; because prior to that revelation, people sinned but simply did NOT know it!
.
> Not that sin wasn't already at work, just that it would increase even more and we would see
> we can't save ourselves.
.
So the purpose of the Torah is to increase the amount of sin in the World? I'd like to see you forward that notion in any synagogue anywhere in the World! :)
.
> Yeshua is the only one that saves. If you see fit to argue with the Almighty,
> Marc is right you are on thin ice.
.
Who is arguing with the Almighty? It certainly isn't me! For the Word of God is NOT confined to the pages of the Holy Bible, Hopetocome. The Logos speaks the truth of things in the heart of every righteous man and woman; in the cycles of the seasons; in the evolution of every living species; and in the countless stars and galaxies scattered throughout the void of space-time. ... How small and narrow-minded are those who would confine the infinite and eternal Truth within the pages of a small and imperfect book?!
.
> All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, instruction in
> righteousness. God bless, Hope
.
And when did "instruction in righteousness" become equal to "a scientific account of prehistoric events", hmmmm?
.
> Jesus said "I am the vine you are the branches, He that abides in me and I in him the same
> brings forth much fruit, for without me, you can do nothing. John 15:5
.
Since the cyber-prophet is also one branch of that very same Vine, it is our Lord Jesus who abides in me, and brings forth all the good fruits of my prophetic scribblings. And since I can do nothing without Him, it ought to be apparent that by rejecting and dismissing me, you also reject He who sent me!
/ Subject > Re: Romans 5:13 / 25 Nov 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
> On 21Nov99 Marc wrote: Textman: Its getting warmer under you, isn't it the very verse you started
> this with thread with proves the ridiculous nature of your rantings. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
RO 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Please read, Sin entered through one man, death entered through sin.
.
textman say: Dear Marc, I read it just fine. The problem is not with my reading, but with the fact that Paul is wrong (ie. *IF* he is here interpreted literally). What can I say? Wrong is wrong. Just because Paul says it, doesn't automatically make it right; (in fact Paul does err in several other places, but lets NOT go there!). In any case, the truths of scripture MUST be in harmony with all the extra-biblical truths; for the source of all truth is the one and the same Father of Lights.
.
> You still have yet to come with a single verse of scripture to back up your absurd claims.
.
Which absurd claims are you refering to? My claim that physical death preceded Adam, maybe?
I should prove this with verses from scripture? ... Good Grief!
.
> Original Sin is part of your nature.
.
If you say so ...
.
> JER 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
.
Not this guy!
.
> As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands,
> no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there
> is no one who does good, not even one." Rom 3:10-12
.
I tend to agree wholeheartedly with Paul here ... :)
.
> RO 3:13 "Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit."
> "The poison of vipers is on their lips."
.
Sounds like he's talking about those nasty Catholics.
.
> "Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
> "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace
> they do not know." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." -- Romans 3:14-18
.
Yup. Definitely Cats!
.
> Romans 3:19-26 <snip large quote due to irrelevancy>
> and your tag-line speaks monuments of your heresy: "the one who speaks for the Eternal Logos"
.
How's that again? Is not a prophet one who speaks for the Lord? But you say that a prophet is a heretic!
Or are you perhaps of the opinion that there are no such creatures?
.
> So not only can you not back up your claims with scripture, you can not even back it up with science.
.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean, since it is science that teaches us that human beings have always been *mortal* creatures. I take this to mean that we (or Adam, if you prefer) were NOT created *immortal* and then later became mortal. Since both of these assertions cannot be right, I will allow reason and sanity to decide the matter. And if that means re-thinking Paul's theology, so be it!
> On 23Nov99 Vic wrote: Bring the Marshmellows, there's a fire building over at Textman's place..!
> Textman, you assume that God has to conform to man's science, WRONG"
.
tx: "WRONG" is right. I assume no such thing. What I do assume is that "God does not play dice with the universe" (Albert Einstein). In other words, God created this universe some 12 billion years ago, and gave it the specific nature that it has retained from the moment of birth to the present (eg. universal laws). Now universal laws do not change. Neither are they here today but gone tommorrow. If they were "sometimes" or "maybe" then they would not be *universal* laws. You see how this works? Science does; for that is the nature and purpose of science (ie. to see things as they really are).
.
> and you also assume that before the fall of man all "universal laws" were the same as they are
> today, WRONG! A lot more took place at the fall of man than just Adam and Eve spiritually dieing,
> the whole universe entered into a "death of decay" -- Vic. ... Yes, I'm still out here.
.
Oh yeah? You mean just because we have gravity today, we can't assume that the universe had it before Adam and Eve? You mean that just because the speed of light is constant throughout the universe today, we can't assume that it was constant before Adam and Eve? You mean that just because the universe is expanding now, we can't assume that the universe was expanding before Adam and Eve? ... Of course, cosmology suggests otherwise; but I guess that Vic knows more about the nature of the Cosmos than the world's best cosmologists. So then Vic should have no trouble at all providing abundant scientific evidence that the universe is fundamentally different now than from what it was just a few thousand years ago ... ???
> On 23Nov99 Bill Hennessee wrote: Let's try for a clarification 'eh? Spiritual death entered with
> the sin of A&E, not physical death. The Enemy told them that on the day they ate, they would die.
> They did not fall over dead on the spot but lived on for many years. This death of spirit leaving us
> only body and soul is what Paul is talking about.
.
tx: Yes, it's the only sensible way to interpret and understand what Paul is saying here. Thus this text is a darn good example of how a literal reading of scripture can lead us into the darkness of ignorance and unknowing.
.
> What is born-again in us is our spirit. This is what Textman said earlier (in so many words) Guess
> that means we GASP agree. I even agree (broadly) with his non-literal understanding of the Creation.
> Double GASP.
.
This is the problem with listening to prophets. Give em an inch, and they'll take a mile ... :)
P.S. "The lips of the righteous feed many; But fools die for lack of sense." [Prv 10:21]
.
> On 24Nov99 Marc wrote: Bill, I wouldn't be too proud to agree with someone as wrong as Textman is.
--------------------------------------------------------------
GE 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, `You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. GE 3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. GE 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
--------------------------------------------------------------
> Spiritual death and physical death enetered with the curse. Ge 3:19 spells out physical death very well.
.
textman say: Yes, Marc. It says that humankind was taken from the ground, and created mortal. Which is just another way of saying that homo-sapiens emerged and evolved from the planet's evolutionary bio-sphere; just like all the other mortal creatures on the earth.
.
> And yes, Adam and Eve died the second they ate from the forbidden fruit. They died spiritually
> then and needed a redeemer. Their bodies started to die at that point as well.
.
You make it sound as if God literally bestowed death upon two silly and ignorant people who were already poisoned unto death [How can immortal creatures be poisoned to death in the first place?] the minute that they bit into some real and actual plant; (one which is obviously poisonous by nature). Thus since the plant is "naturally" fatally toxic [Even to immortals?!], God had good cause to warn them not to eat of that nasty (albeit fabulous) tree.
.
A fruit that kills both the body and the spirit? Get it off the market now, please! So there is really no need for God to curse them and all the earth along with them; since "justice" (if that is the right word) is automatic in this case. Indeed, any literal reading of this passage leads at once to a hornet's nest of problems as to what and where the justice *really* lies.
.
btw: All you people out there who think that there really and truly is such a plant that is spiritually and physically toxic, can be seen and touched and eaten, please stand up and go to the back of the room ...
A TALE OF TWO
TREES
[Or:
The Gnosis-Tree & The Life-Tree]
/ Subject > Re: Romans 5:13 / 29 Nov 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
>>> On 27Nov99 Bill Hennessee wrote: <snipsome> That's what dialogue does: helps us to understand
>>> one another and see our commonality in Christ.
.
textman say: Dear Bill, I tend to agree. :)
.
>>> Now a question for Marc: Are you saying that A&E were immortal before ch3? Had they not erred, they
>>> would still be alive today? I really cannot see any plain proof or disproof anywhere in the text. It does
>>> however plainly have God saying that "for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." They clearly did
>>> not fall over dead physically, in fact lived on at least long enough to have three sons. The death has
>>> to be spiritual as their sin did confer IMMEDIATE spiritual death.
.
Personally, I don't see that the text of Gen.1-3 suggests that the spiritual death needs be any more immediate or dramatic than the gradual physical death. If you read the opening chapters of Genesis with the assumption that Adam & Eve were created not immortal but with very long lives (say a thousand years or so), and that the death / curse / penalty / poisoning that resulted from eating the fruit of the gnosis-tree shortened their lives, while also increasing the potential for spiritual corruption and dissolution (which is the natural hazard of aquiring wisdom and gnosis), then we shall not do any great violence to what the text is here trying to teach us.
.
The serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened ... -- Genesis 3:4-7 / NETbible
.
>> On 27Nov99 Marc wrote: Bill: Yes, I am stating that the bible is very clear that Adam and Eve were
>> immortal before the curse. The correct translation of Gen 2:16 for surely die is die, die. The text uses
>> the same Hebrew word twice. In Hebrew this is a way to emphasise a word, and it can also imply
>> both spiritual and physical deaths. God did not say they would drop dead on the spot, only that they
>> would surely die. Which they did.
.
The LORD God took the man and settled him in the garden in Eden to care for and keep it. Then the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat, for when you eat from it you will surely die." -- Genesis 2:15-17/NETbible
.
And so from this "die die" you conclude that Adam & Eve were created immortal? ... Pretty flimsy evidence there, if you ask me. ... Considering that the original meanings intended by the original Hebrew authors (and understood by the original Hebrew readers) are *long* since lost to history. But if you wish to be more convincing, methinks you will now have to provide some corrabolating evidence (4X: in the form of one or another of the biblical prophets, chronologers, or story-tellers mentioning, or alluding to, just such an idea) ... Moreover, I would also be interested to know how your interpretation of Genesis 2:17 explains the following verses:
.
And the LORD God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever." So the LORD God expelled him from the garden in Eden, to work the ground from which he had been taken. When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the garden in Eden the Cherubim with a flame of the sword flashing this way and that, to guard the way to the tree of life. -- Genesis 3:22-24/NETbible
.
It seems to me that the words of the LORD-God are quite clear in its implications: Adam & Eve were not created immortal, for they had not eaten from the tree of life. If they had, the LORD-God would not have placed an angel to guard it (ie. to prevent Adam / humanity from taking the fruit of that life-tree; lest they "eat and live forever". So *obviously* they/we were not created immortal. The very words of the LORD-God say as much. Just as the many frequent references in the text to the dust of the earth (which is what we all are on the physical or material level of existence) also imply that we were and are created mortal; just like every other creature the LORD-God made for the World and the Garden. The conclusion is therefore clear: the text of Genesis does NOT support the idea that Adam & Eve were created immortal! ... So now that that's settled, let's on at once to more ... errrrr ... important? topics.
.
> On 27Nov99 Marc wrote: Textman:
.
>> textman say: "Dear Marc, I read it just fine. The problem is not with my reading, but with the fact
>> that Paul is wrong (ie. *IF* he is here interpreted literally). What can I say? Wrong is wrong. Just
>> because Paul says it, doesn't automatically make it right; (in fact Paul does err in several other
>> places, but lets NOT go there!). In any case, the truths of scripture MUST be in harmony with all
>> the extra-biblical truths; for the source of all truth is the one and the same Father of Lights.
.
> marc: Paul is wrong.
.
tx: On rare occasion, yes.
.
> Wow, who else was wrong?
.
Shall I build thee a list? :)
.
> Well maybe Moses,
.
Maybe ...
.
> and how about the Hebrew prophets.
.
Oh, surely them too ... On rare occasion, of course.
.
> Luke, Mark, John, were they wrong too?
.
Well, Luke more so than the other three evangelists, I expect.
.
> How about Jesus?
.
Nope.
.
> I wouldn't want to hang my eternal salvation on a book that had errors in it,
.
Well, Marc, I don't actually hang my salvation on any one book, or on any one sacred collection of books (of which there are many). No, indeed. Rather, I hang my salvation directly on the source of the written Word of God (which is the Eternal Logos, aka Jesus of Nazareth).
.
> or maybe God makes mistakes.
.
God doesn't make mistakes, no. But we do. And I don't imagine that our Lord minds too much if his fallible, ignorant, and *mortal* creatures do err once in a while; as long as our hearts are joyful and grateful for all the blessings which the Great Spirit does bestow on all alike (like rain on both the good and bad) ... But I'm also sure that He can't be too happy about the way that all of us collectively have treated each other and the planet during the last few centuries.
/ Subject > Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 3 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
> On 29Nov99 Hopetocome wrote: Textman, Does GOD have a standard? What is it? Where do we
> learn of it? Has He ever spoken to us? Where do we learn about what He said? We hang a lot on what
> we read in the Bible. If the Bible was written by men, men can make of it anything they want it to be.
.
textman say: Dear Hopetocome, the many books of the Bible *were* written by men (and a few women too). To deny this fact is to rule out of hand any possibility of understanding it correctly. When we say that God wrote the Word, we mean only that the human authors were inspired by God (not that God is the author using people as we use pens and key-boards). Moreover, men can and *do* make of it anything they want it to be. Indeed, the one thing that most distinguishes one believer (or one church) from another is the way that they read, interpret, and understand the sacred scriptures.
.
Thus fundies and evangelicals make the Bible an infallible paper pope, read it in the silliest and most childish way possible, and then flatter themselves by fancying that God and all the saints think just exactly the same way that they do! At the same time, Cats (and other high-church traditions) make the Bible a powerless and meaningless element in a long chain of episcopal traditions. Thus Cats read the scriptures with an eye to finding anything that will bolster their absurd claims of primacy & superiority. The same kind of hermeneutical prejudice (eg. prior agenda, vested interest, etc) applies to each and every reader who approaches the sacred text unworthily. ... And this is the main problem with the churches today. They are so busy making the Bible say what they want it to say, that they never actually stop to allow the text to speak for itself. If they did, the results would shake the churches to the core from here to Timbuktu!
.
> If it was written by GOD through men, then we must handle it rightly.
.
If you say that God is the author (rather than inspired men and women), then you have already made the Bible into an idol to be worshipped and glorified and protected with a blind, extreme, and unthinking fanaticism that rejects outright any attempt to read the Word critically and/or historically. Thus you rule out, right from the start, any possibility of 'handling it rightly'!
.
> The ten commandments Moses brought down from the mountain were directly written by GOD.
.
By the fiery finger itself, you say? ... Maybe you ought to ask a qualified historian of the Ancient Near East if there are any similar lists of laws among the peoples and nations of those days? If you did this, you would learn that the ten commandments are not nearly as unique and unprecedented as you seem to suppose.
.
> He also told Moses to write down what He told Him. So in that case who is the author?
> Moses or GOD? GOD is the author, Moses merely the scribe.
.
Are you now claiming that the entire Torah was dictated to Moses the scribe? Yet the evidence of the texts suggests that the Torah is the result of many authors and editors working over generations to produce the final result we now have. How do you explain all this, eh? Is God perhaps pulling our leg? Deliberately trying to deceive and confuse us? Are the scriptures truly and absolutely divorced from humanity and all the processes of historical development? Surely only an extremely stupid and ignorant person could think so!
.
> Secretaries take dictation or notes etc.. and must faithfully write down exactly what was said.
> Likewise stenographers in a court. If they make a mistake there are serious consequences.
.
The biblical authors were NOT secretaries and stenographers! Such a view I find offensive and repulsive in the extreme. It is the opinion of those who do not bother to consider the implications of such a demeaning and idolatrous approach to scripture!
.
> I, like Marc, believe the Bible shows forth that before sin
> there was no death in the world. Death only came by sin.
.
Yes, and this is perfectly true as regards our shared spiritual realities; but it is not an adequate account of known physical processes. The world is what it is because God created it this way. This is the message of the opening chapters of Genesis. Thus, even though Paul interprets "death only came by sin" as applying to both spiritual and physical realities, we no longer have the luxury to do likewise. Of course, we always have the option to return to a pre-Copernican conceptual universe, but such a cowardly retreat into the confidence of blissful ignorance brings no credit whatsoever to the Lord (or to the Faith)!
.
> The picture of that is best illustrated in the final book of the
> Bible Revelation. Hell & Death will be thrown into the Lake of fire.
.
LOL ... Sure they will! :)
.
> There will be no more death. All will live forever. There will be no slow deterioration say for a thousand
> years and then we die. Death will be gone. For there will no longer be sin. Death came by sin.
> Where sin is no more, death no longer reigns. It has been defeated.
.
Well then, we'll be seeing you in another universe altogether, Hopetocome; (ie. one governed by the universal laws of subconscious fantasies)! As for me, I much prefer to live in *this* cosmic multi-verse (the only one we know), and which God created good (and blessed); and of which this world (to which we all belong) is a part.
.
> Likewise in the beginning GOD's creation was called by GOD very good.
.
Yes, but then why are you so eager to destroy it? :(
.
> It was not tainted by sin and death as of yet.
.
If there was life, then there was death also. This is what all our reliable knowledge of the world tells us. Maybe you can easily turn a blind eye to all the scientific and philosophical achievements of the last three thousand years; but I can't. Only in the feverish dreams of dreamlost Fundies are those two eternal principles kept rigidly apart!
.
> Yet the NT says Jesus was set apart as our Messiah before the foundations of the world. Therefore,
> because GOD is omnipotent, He knew what would happen and that death would enter and a Messiah
> would be necessary to redeem His creation from sin and its result which is death. Yet before death
> entered in, there was no intent for anything to die.
.
Methinks thou speakest through thy theological hat! How do you know that God had no intent "for anything to die", when all the evidence of the entire world shows precisely and exactly the contrary? Either you are a fool, or you must be a god yourself!
.
> There will come again a time where the lion will lay down with the lamb and a child shall play on the hole
> of an asp and not be killed. All of GOD's creation will once again be at peace with our Maker. Death was
> swallowed up in victory on a wooden tree. This topic is called A Tale of Two Trees. The first tree brought
> death. The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. The next tree, while it was used for death, it was
> used to nail sin and death forever with the Messiah away from us. When a child of GOD dies physically
> we are alive in Christ and death has no dominion over us. Death was swallowed up in victory. One tree
> brought death, but the other tree brings life through Jesus our Messiah. -- In His Love, Hope
.
Death is not written into the fruit of the gnosis-tree for the simple reason that the gnosis-tree, like the life-tree, are not actual physical trees like oaks and pines, but are merely symbols and metaphors pointing to ongoing spiritual realities. All those who suppose otherwise are simply weaving childish fantasies that have no part of the true Faith (which is based on Reality and actual historical events). Thus a literal reading of scripture can never adequately understand God's intentions and designs; no matter how clever be its expositions and scriptural commentaries ...
/ Subject > Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 4 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
> On 30Nov99 Marc wrote: Textman: Two points. There was no need to protect the tree of life from
> A&E before the curse because they were immortal. You can't get any more immortal than immortal.
> Only after the curse, does it require a guardian. Why? Because, if man were allowed to be immortal
> (i.e. eating from the tree of life)
.
textman say: Dear Marc, it is plain from the text of Genesis that one becomes immortal by eating the fruit of the (mythical) life-tree. Accordingly, mortal creatures (ie. those made from the 'dust of the earth'; including Adam and Eve) are obviously NOT created immortal!
.
> before redemption, then man would be immortal in his sins.
.
This statement is both senseless and meaningless.
.
> Also, I have over 4,000 years of Hebrew scholorship that clearly shows that A&E were considered
> immortal before the fall.
.
Yes? And do you have anything within the text of the sacred scriptures that also echoes this silly idea? If not, then I'll take it that Genesis intends no such absurdity.
.
> Of course you can comment without knowing about what you speak, you seem to do that a great deal.
.
Oh yes, I do it all the time ... :)
.
> Point Two: If you claim there are errors of man in the bible,
> how do you know that the words of Jesus are recorded corectly?
.
It's a matter of the logic of history (which is to say, it depends on the actual, historical development of the canonical texts within the context of the *REAL* history of the early Greek churches). Thus it ought to be obvious (even to Fundies) that the earliest documents (eg. the Gospel of Mark & Peter, and the *authentic* Pauline epistles) are more reliable, trustworthy, and authoritative than the later documents (eg. Luke-Acts); at least as far as the accuracy of their historical recollections is concerned. Thus I consider the words of Jesus in Mark to be much more authentic and authoritative than those presented to us in the gospels of Matthew, John, and Luke. The same approach applies to Paul: the facts offered in his authentic epistles are vastly more valuable (historically) than anything that Acts of Apostles may say about him. It is the Fundy inability to make these necessary distinctions that makes me nauseous.
.
> There are errors in it for you.
.
There are errors period. "for you" implies that these errors are purely subjective, and do not *really* exist objectively within the texts. This is *not* the case!
.
> Your argument, that there are errors everywhere except in the words of Jesus, is completely illogical.
.
I agree; it is illogical. Moreover this is not my position. Let me illustrate with a 'for example': In the gospel traditions there are often two (or even three) levels or layers of traditions sitting side by side such that it is not always apparent what does or does not stem directly from Jesus. Consider the following bible-byte:
.
Then some of the experts in the law along with some Pharisees answered him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. The people of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; yet something greater than Jonah is here! ..." -- Matthew 12:38-41 / NETbible
.
Here we can make out two distinct levels of tradition. Verse 39 represents an authentic Jesus-saying, while verses 40-41 represent Matthew's interpretation and explanation of the mysterious original saying. ... The gospel traditions are full of such things, but fundies like to ignore them all because thinking about such confusing things makes their brains hurt!
.
> You can not have it both ways. If the bible contains error, then the entire testimony is error prone,
> including the words of Jesus.
.
I wouldn't say that the entire testimony is "error-prone". I would say that it is inadvisable and immature in the extreme to pretend that there are no errors in the texts whatsoever!
.
> Unless you claim divine revelation of Jesus' words that are not found in the bible.
.
I claim that the sacred scriptures as a whole constitute the Word of the Lord. But this does *not* mean that we are to read the Bible after the manner of five-year-old children!
.
> In that case, move over Joseph Smith a new heretic and false prophet has come upon us.
.
I would be more inclined to accept your contention that I am a "false prophet" if you could provide something substantial in the way of evidence; that is, something more than mere bombast and hot air ...
/ Subject > Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 6 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
> On 1Dec99 Marc wrote: <snipsome> He claims the bible is an imperfect book.
> Joseph Smith claimed the bible is an imperfect book.
.
textman say: Dear Marc, perfection is an attribute of divinity. Thus if you say that the Bible is perfect, then the assumption is that the Bible *is* God (or a manifestation of God). This does not strike me as being at all rational or reasonable. My view is that while the scriptures are an expression of the Eternal Logos (who is our Lord Jesus Christ), we ought not to confuse Him with the Book as if they are one and the same thing.
.
>> textman previously wrote: Since the cyber-prophet is also one branch of that very same Vine, it is
>> our Lord Jesus who abides in me, and brings forth all the good fruits of my prophetic scribblings.
>> And since I can do nothing without Him, it ought to be apparent that by rejecting and dismissing
>> me, you also reject He who sent me!
.
> M: Here textman clearly claims divine revelation and prophetic status, also something Jospeh Smith
> claimed. And by claiming that if we reject his ludicrous claims we reject Jesus, he implies that his
> words are divinely inspired and true.
.
I do not mean to suggest that my postings are divine revelation after the manner of the sacred scriptures; but since I do claim what you call "prophetic status" I will admit that *most* (not all) of my work *is* inspired and true. If you say that all this is quite impossible, that there can be no prophets, then it is quite clear to me that you are denying the existence and/or power of the Holy Spirit. This is not a view that is at all consistent with the Faith as I see it.
.
>> - the one who speaks for the Eternal Logos - textman ;>
.
> Here textman claims to speak for God. Something only a true prophet can claim.
.
I quite agree. Only a true prophet can claim to speak for the Lord, because only a true prophet can and does speak for the Lord. Surely there is nothing unbiblical about any of this?
.
> Textman is a heretic by his own words, just like my example of Jospeh Smith.
.
textman is a heretic to Fundies and Cats because he is highly critical of such silly and apostate Christians. Moreover, the cyber-prophet is most certainly *not* like Joseph Smith! Any apparent resemblance is superficial at best.
.
> Larry, I will admit that I hold my ground on a theological debate and claim the bible as my basis for
> knowing the truth of my argument, but I have never nor will I ever claim divine inspiration.
.
That is most wise; since you are obviously not a prophet. ... btw: Prophets are not perfect either; this is because they are all mortal and fallible human creatures. This means that they (like the biblical authors themselves) sometimes can and do err. "To err is human", as they say. So unless you are prepared to claim that the sacred scriptures came into being without the aid and assistance of human authors, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that there are some few minor errors in the texts as they have come down to us.
.
> Thanks though for reminding me to play nice, but since we no longer stone false prophets,
.
You would like to revive this tradition, perhaps?
.
> I will simply point them out when they arrive.
.
Your dedication to duty is inspiring and heart-warming, Marc. Don't ever change!
> On 1Dec99 Damon wrote: <snipsome> On the other hand, I do think the text that we have
> was in its original content uniquely inspired in a way in which textman nor myself nor any
> other person today is inspired.
.
tx: I don't agree with this statement. It implies that the Holy Spirit is somehow unwilling or unable to inspire post-modern prophets with the same level of intensity that She displayed among the earliest generations of Believers. No, I am not at all eager to place such biased restrictions upon God. Thus while I will agree that there are various grades or levels of inspiration, I would much rather leave it to the Holy Spirit to determine who and how much.
.
> The problems we face when we approach the text are not primarily problems of textual errors
> (though these are undoubtedly present in our texts).
.
And no minor matter in any case ...
.
> Our greatest problem is, as I have said and you have affirmed, the chasm which separates
> the text from us. <snip remainder>
.
I quite agree with this. Indeed, I'd say that the main thing preventing post-modern believers from adequately and properly reading and understanding the sacred texts is that almost all of them suffer from a terminal case of constipation of the imagination. They simply cannot imagine what things were like for the earliest believers. This weakness is most evident in fundies who fancy that the biblical authors thought and felt about everything exactly the same way that they do! ... All of this clearly suggests the necessity of having believers look to faithful teachers for guidance and direction in their scriptural readings and studies. Without such guidance they are surely lost in the darkness of subjective and undisciplined hermeneutics!
/ Subject > Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 9 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > general Biblical Questions /
.
] On 3Dec Isa73 wrote: Let me give 2 examples: 2 Tim. 3:16 <snip quote> (Rev 22:18 KJV) <snip quote>
] (Rev 22:19 KJV) <snip quote> The words of Paul and John are prophetic. They didn't know their words
] were prophetic at the time of their writing.
.
textman say: Dear Isa73, you gotta be kidding?! FYI: Paulos of Damascus didn't even write 2Tim, so your attribution of authorship to him only demonstrates your lack of knowledge regarding Paul and the scriptures. And to say that Paul and John "didn't know thier words were prophetic" suggests that neither of them knew that they were prophets. This is utter nonsense, as the texts provide ample evidence that both Paul and John were very well aware that they were prophets. Check it out ...
.
} On 4Dec99 Damon wrote: <snipsome> By your reading of scripture, we could say, "well, that
} wasn't the author's intent, but it was prophetic for Bill." Come on! At least attempt to establish
} some kind of sane hermeneutic. So far, yours is no better than textman's. -- Damon
.
Thx a bunch there, Damon. I would hope that my hermeneutics is *vastly* better than that of those who usually expresses their biblical interpretations in cyber-space.
.
>>>> On 4Dec99 Isa73 replied: Damon: Please be advised; I don't read LONG posts.
Yeah, reading is hard work ...
.
>>>> If your point isn't made in the first 3 or 4 sentences, I don't read any farther.
.
Complex arguments are baffling ...
.
>>>> Paul and John were prophetic writers,
.
That's not what you said before: "The words of Paul and John are prophetic. They didn't know thier words were prophetic at the time of their writing." ... Wut? You don't remember saying that?
.
>>>> even though neither said, "thus sayeth the LORD."
.
Is that the only mark that identifies the prophet? Apparently not, since you recognize them as prophets regardless of this omission. The question then is: How is it that you recognize them as prophets?
.
>>> On 4Dec99 Damon responds: Larry, I'm sorry your too lazy to read any intelligent posts, <snipsome>
.
LOL ... Me too!
.
>>> From now on I'll try to keep my responses to you short and simple and use small
>>> words you can understand. <snip remainder>
.
Always a good idea in any case ... :)
.
>> On 4Dec99 Isa73 wrote: Do as you please. But if your reasoning is correct, then all scripture
>> is not profitable for doctrine and the N.T. Christian is not bound by anything that Paul and John
>> says. WAKE UP!!!! Goose!!!! -- Christ's servant, Larry
.
Dear Isa73, there are no New Testament believers anymore. The Faith of the early Greek churches has long since been replaced and displaced by episcopal religion, and then later by the biblical idolatry and hermeneutical anarchy of protestantism. In any case, the true believer is still very much bound to the prophets (both the canonical ones *and* the post-canonical ones)!
.
> On 4Dec Damon answered: Larry, Read my post, Goose. When did I ever say that scripture was
> not profitable for doctrine? Actually, I would be willing to say that scripture is profitable for more
> than doctrine.
.
So would I. In fact, I will declare right now: Scripture *IS* profitable for more than doctrine!
.
> For example, I think scripture is profitable for practical living, etc. I never said otherwise; however, I
> cannot accept the ignorant-bury-my-head-in-the-sand-Christianity that so many promote. The fact is
> that scripture doesn't define itself. The canon was defined by tradition not scripture. Furthermore, no
> biblical author knew what that canon was. Thus, no biblical writer could have possibly intended to
> claim that the Bible you are holding is inerrant or infallible or anything else for that matter. If the
> author did not intend to make a claim, we cannot make that claim based on what that author says.
> To do so requires the kind of reader-response hermeneutic used by the most blatant of liberals.
.
Or the type of hermeneutic practiced by most readers of the Word; which is the type that proceeds from this "sure" foundation -> 'I know how to read, therefore I do *NOT* require any help or assistance whatsoever in understanding the written revelation!' Question: What is the opposite of a humble and contrite heart?
.
> The task of good biblical interpretation is not seeking after what the text means to me, but seeking,
> to the best of my knowledge, what the text meant to the author, and neither Paul nor John meant to
> claim that the text of the Old and New Testaments as compiled by modern scholars was inerrant. They
> could not have possibly intended such a thing! - Damon
.
Quite right, Damon. I quite agree that the intent of the author is very important; but it is *also* most important in determining what *should be* the meaning of the text 'for me'.
.
> On 5Dec99 Damon wrote: textman, I'm curious here. One of the theories that I have heard regarding Paul's
> letters, and of course, it seems this would only apply to the authentic writings and would almost backfire if
> applied to the Gospels, is that initially Paul had not realized the implications of his newfound belief system.
.
tx say: Quite right. If you study Paul's authentic epistles in chronological order, it is possible to see his attitudes and theology changing and growing as he matures as an apostle (ie. as a Christian prophet). This sort of thing is even a part of his earliest epistles (ie. the four Thessalonian letters), where his and Silvanus' first letter (especially the opening Vituperatio at 1Th.2:13-16) was at once misunderstood by the new Greek believers (thus prompting Paul and Silvanus to further develop the epistle as a vehicle for the Word of the Lord).
.
> Thus, the earliest writings are not the most reliable,
.
I disagree completely. The Thessalonian letters offer a wealth of information about Paul and the early history of the Faith as it sets out to save souls, and liberate the World!
.
> while of course the latest writings which are most probably psuedopigraphal are not as reliable either.
.
They are reliable as testimony to the later development of the pauline traditions after the death of Paulos of Damascus.
.
> This theory would seem to maintain that those letters 'in the middle' so to speak were the most reliable.
.
The Gospel of Mark & Peter, along with all the authentic pauline epistles, are *all* equally reliable and authoritative as they are the only technically 'apostolic' writings we have (ie. those written before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70CE). Everything else in the NT follows in the wake of these novel and explosive Christian writings!
.
> I'm not sure this would work with say Peter's epistle but with Paul's? What do you think?
.
I think that the apostle Simon-Peter can be credited with the Gospel of Mark (ie. as co-author with Mark), but I'm quite sure that he is *not* responsible for the composition of either First Peter or 2Peter.
.
> Also, you were mentioning the layers of textual traditions. One of the most popular verses in scripture
> very well may fall into this category. Boy, I'm going to get myself in trouble now. I can see the bows
> being drawn and the arrows lit. John 3.16ff is very well, John's own commentary on what preceded
> rather than Jesus' continued dialogue. I'm sure you already knew that theory, but maybe I'm just a
> glutton for punishment.
.
Yes. This sort of critical thinking does not, sadly, go down well around these parts!
.
> the one who suffers a crossfire of their slings and arrows - Damon
.
They're just warming up, Damon. Brace thyself!
> On 6Dec99 Marc wrote: <snipsome> and re:the Gospel of Matthew.
> There are new fragments of Matthew that date to about 60 AD.
.
LOL ... Yeah, right. Sell me a bridge, why don't ya?
.
> This places them ealier than Mark (who liberal scholars claim Matthew copied).
.
The evidence for Matthew's use of the text of Mark is abundant beyond the ability of anyone to deny it. It's all right there in the NT. Please do check it out!
.
> Check out a book "Eyewitness to Jesus", it is very interesting.
.
Highly unlikely.
.
> Textman: You speak for yourself.
.
Actually I speak for the People of God (on behalf of the Word).
.
> A true prophet of God can not make mistakes in his prophecies.
> If he makes mistakes he is not a true prophet and is a false prophet.
.
So a true prophet doesn't make mistakes, eh? By your own definition then, Paul doesn't rate as a prophet because Paul made mistakes in his prophecies. In the same way, John (the prophet of Patmos) also doesn't rate as a prophet, as he too made mistakes in his prophecies ... That's the problem with inerrancy: in order to be a prophet you have to be an angel first. No wonder there are no more prophets among the People of God!
A SMALL WAR ON PROPHECY/1
/ Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 8 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > Prophecy - Biblical Prophecy /
.
] On 1Dec99 Isa73 wrote: Marc: Maybe, just maybe, Textman doesn't realize that the BIBLE
] is a supernatural book?
.
textman say: Dear Isa73, maybe, just maybe, he does. And maybe that's why the offensive one loves and serves the Word of the Lord by constantly and constantly urging the People of God to a wider and deeper vision of the Christian prophetic tradition that is so much a part of the New Testament and the early Greek churches!
.
] I have no doubt about the Apostles recall on the words and events of their time. Here is why: (John
] 14:26 KJV) "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he
] shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto
] you." That about all I have for now. Be blessed -- Christ's servant, Larry
.
Remembrance, you say? Yes. I do believe that is basically the source of all this hermeneutical confusion regarding how best to read the scriptures. Fundies have forgotten the past, and so cleave to the written text in blissful ignorance and extreme unremembrance! And then when a prophet comes along urging them to remembrance of the prophetic traditions of the early Greek and Egyptian churches, they stop up their ears and harden their hearts to a word of truth!
.
>>> On 1Dec99 Damon wrote: Larry, I'm just curious, but if the model of inspiration that we are going
>>> to accept is based on the passage you quoted (John 14.26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom
>>> the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all
>>> that I said to you."), then how is it that we are able to reject textman's prophetic authority? He
>>> seems to be claiming inspiration from the Holy Spirit based on an ongoing revelation. It seems to me
>>> that this verse may (a big emphasis on possibility here) be used to defend some form of innerrancy
.
I do not think that this verse is very relevant to the supposed inerrancy of the written revelation as such (ie. to the exclusion of all else); *but* it is very relevant to the prophetic tradition as a *living* part of the churches (and hence to the Faith in general).
.
>>> but it seems to me that this same verse could be used to defend textman's revelation. -- Damon
.
I tend to agree. And I would also urge the Reader to bear in mind the original meaning of the much abused and overused term 'revelation' (ie. 'unveiling').
.
>> On 2Dec99 Isa73 wrote: Damon: Is textman claiming to be the Holy Spitit?
.
textman say: Dear Larry, the Holy Wut?! . . .
btw: Wouldn't it make more sense to direct this question to me, rather than to Damon?
.
Now textman's claim to be a cyber-prophet has often been rejected by certain believers because I fail to display certain virtues, or 'fruits of the spirit' in sufficient quantities (in their judgment), or because my writings do not possess all the fruits mentioned in the scriptures, etc etc. They seem to suppose that a true prophet must of necessity demonstrate all the fruits in great abundance and at all times; otherwise forget it! They seem not much concerned with the fact that very few (if any) of the many good prophets of previous centuries fit well into this grandiose image of theirs. They also seem not to care that if I was to display *all* of the fruits of the spirit, then I would rather be an angel, and not a human being at all!
.
> On 2Dec99 Damon wrote: Larry, You asked if textman was claiming to be the Holy Spirit, and frankly, I'm
> not quite sure where you came up with that one. But, it seems to me that textman is claiming exactly
> what you were granting the apostles. "He [the Holy Spirit] will teach you [in this case textman] all things."
.
Well, I wouldn't say *all* things; but rather things pertaining to the Christian prophetic tradition as it is expressed throughout scripture (eg. the Christian prophetic tradition of Egypt including James, Jude, and 2Peter) and the long history of the People of God.
.
> Seems to me that this is exactly what textman is claiming has occurred. If we are going to use this
> to support an inerrant text, we better be prepared to reap the consequences, i.e. people claiming
> direct revelation from the Holy Spirit and having a substantial scriptural basis for such a claim. -- Damon
.
No doubt there are many who claim direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, but I am not one of them. In my view such a claim is inconsistent with the prophetic vocation (which is one of service to the Lord, his Word, and his People). Thus claiming direct revelations is one thing; claiming Her assistance and guidance and comfort and encouragement is another thing altogether!
A SMALL WAR ON PROPHECY/2
/ Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 8 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > Prophecy - Biblical Prophecy /
.
> On 3Dec99 Marc wrote: Hey the false prophet speaks again! Textman, you ask for an insane
> and unfaithful belief because you believe in the lies of Satan and the world.
.
textman say: Dear Marc, I do? How do you figure that?
.
> You can not extract yourself from the classic liberal theologians dilemma. If you do not believe that
> the entire word of God (the Bible) is true and the inspiration of God produced a perfect record,
.
These are two very different things, Marc. The Bible does not have to be perfect in order to be true. As Damon pointed out earlier the textual errors tend to be minor, and do not detract from the salvific knowledge that the Lord wishes to impart. For example, Fisherman and I have opposite opinions regarding the historicity of the book of Jonah. He seems to think that it is essential to the Faith that we believe that the events described therein actually and literally happened. I say, rather, that Jonah is simply a clever and humorous short story (ie, a parable with a spiritual meaning and message). The point is that the essence of our Faith does not depend on how we read Jonah; therefore the question of historicity is secondary to its manifest truth.
.
> then how do you know that the very words you claim to believe (the ones YOU choose from the
> bible, based on YOUR believes and YOUR wishes and YOUR desires and YOUR interpretations,
> not God's) are true.
.
I know because truth is one, truth is a harmonious whole, truth cannot be self-contradictory. Thus if truth cannot be divided against itself, then it stands to reason that what the world (cosmos) teaches us to be true cannot be contrary to what the scriptures teach us to be true. 4X: Cosmology teaches us that the universe is billions of years old. Therefore it cannot be also true that God created everything a few thousand years ago in six (24 hour) days. But the problem is not what Genesis says, but rather how we read and understand it. In light of modern cosmology it is obvious that a literal reading of Genesis is inadequate to the truth of things.
.
> For, if one thing is false in the Bible, than everything is false.
.
This statement is not only false and misleading, it is grossly illogical as well! It is the logic of children who think that everything must be painted in black and white such that everything is plain and simple and easy to understand. Well, the universe is *not* easy to understand! It is far more complex and intricate than we can grasp. And the world is, for the most part, done in shades of gray with very little black and white showing through. This is what it means to be an adult: to recognize that nothing is simple (least of all the truth)!
.
> You have shaped your god into what you want him to be, not the One and True God.
.
This is not so, Marc. I learn about our God (ie. the Heavenly Father) from our Lord, the Son of Man, who in turn is learned about (testified to) from the pages of scripture. Thus the God of Jesus Christ is revealed by the Word of God (aka the Eternal Logos) through the Word of God (aka the sacred scriptures). This God is the Living God, the God who is one with our Lord (as testified by the scriptures), the one and only true God. How then have I shaped my/our God into what I want Him/Her/It to be?
.
> For if the Bible is not true,
.
I have never said that the Bible is not true. I am only saying that things like the story of Jonah and Lk-Acts cannot be read literally as being historically true and factual accounts of actual events, correct and inerrant in each and every detail, without exception if you please (and even if you don't please), and thank you very much indeed!
.
> then Jesus can not be true because Jesus confirms the accuracy and historicity of the the Bible:
> The Creation account of Adam and Eve quote: "MK 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God
> 'made them male and female.'" <snip>
.
Jesus spoke to the people of his day in terms they could understand. No one then could have understood the distinctions we make today between legends, myths, and cold, hard, historical facts (objective and scientific). Why then should we expect Jesus to do anything other than affirm the scriptures?
.
> Noah's Ark and the flood quote: <snip>
.
These stories are very loosely based on ancient recollections of actual events recounted and somewhat exaggerated and distorted by the written myths and legends that have come down to us.
.
> Jonah and the great fish quote: <snip>
.
Jonah is a short story, not history.
.
> Sodom and Gomorrah <snip> the account of Lot and his wife <snip>
> Jesus then affrims the Bible as a whole.
.
Of course he does. He could hardly do otherwise and be understood by simple and illiterate people. But does this mean that we should conclude that Jesus was a Fundy? That would be a rash and foolhardy conclusion, I think!
.
> Divine inspiration quote: <snip> its indestructibility <snip>
.
These quotes are irrelevant here.
.
> its infallibility quote: "35 If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came --
> and the Scripture cannot be broken"
.
The scripture cannot be broken because it is ultimately in harmony with *all* truth.
.
> its final authority quote: "MT 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread
> alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "
.
I believe that "every word" means exactly that. *Every* word therefore includes all those words in creation, and in *all* the saints and prophets and teachers that have served God throughout the last five thousand years. The Living Word of the Mouth of God never ceases to speak in many and various ways to believers and unbelievers alike. Who then are you to build fences around the mouth of God?
.
> MT 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
.
I am not putting the Lord my God to the test; (but rather everything else).
.
> MT 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:
> 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"
.
It is good that Jesus appeals to the authority of the scriptures. All true believers can and should do likewise.
.
> its factual inerrancy quote: "MT 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know
> the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in
> marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead -- have
> you not read what God said to you, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
> Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
.
How does this bible-byte prove the "factual inerrancy" of the Bible? . . .
Your quotes are becoming less & less able to do what you think they can do!
.
> its spiritual clarity quote: LK 24:25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of
> heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!"
.
*ALL* that the prophets have spoken!?!? A fine thing to say from someone who thinks that all the prophets are long since dead and buried; and not a word from them has been heard for nineteen centuries or more!
.
> More importantly, Jesus emphasized the importance of each word of scripture quote: "17 It is easier
> for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."
.
On what basis do you equate your vision of scripture with what the author of Matthew meant by "the Law"? Are you interpreting this "proof-text" within the context of Matthew's gospel and churches? Or are you using isolated verses to further your own ends? And just what are you trying to prove with this verse anyway, eh? ... FYI: I also emphasize the importance of individual words in the sacred text; (eg. because words like "slave", "brother", "double-minded", "the Ones of Old", etc, have special meanings within the context of the Faith in general, and the NT prophetic traditions in particular).
.
All that your copious quotes accomplish is to demonstrate that the biblical authors shared in the pre-Copernican world-view that obtained everywhere in those days. Does this mean that we should share in such unscientific presuppositions about the world (and how it was made)? You obviously feel perfectly content to ignore all that has happened to the People of God (and also to the World) for the last eighteen centuries, but I don't have that luxury.
.
> So, take your false god and your false worship and go away. You are not a prophet of God, you
> do not know of what you speak (regarding errors in the Bible), and your ridiculous interpretations
> and rantings just waste everyone else's time.
.
Oh yeah?. . . [timeout while textman considers the possibilities of a witty reply]
.
. . . zzzzzzz
A SMALL WAR ON PROPHECY/3
/ Re: A Tale of Two Trees / 11 Dec 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / ChristWatch > Prophecy - Biblical Prophecy /
.
> On 9Dec99 Marc wrote: Textman: Lets see, in the Torah, the attributes of a true prophet are
> clearly spelled out -- but that's right, there are errors in it. So you don't have to believe what
> you don't want to believe.
.
textman say: Dear Marc, I am not so ready to throw out the Torah as you suggest. If you are ready, willing, and able to discuss the early days of the biblical prophetic tradition, then I will be more than thrilled to pursue this topic for as long as you please. Bear in mind, however, that I view the early Hebrew traditions within the wider context of the biblical tradition as a whole. This means, for one thing, that the full knowledge of the meaning and significance of the prophetic traditions was not revealed until the coming of the Son of Man and his relentless 'new age' prophets (eg. Paulos of Damascus, John of Patmos, John the Evangelist, Jacob and Judas of Egypt, etc).
.
> See, here you go again, throwing away what you don't want and only accepting what you want to accept.
.
What I want to accept is a sensible and faithful vision of the entire prophetic tradition as it unfolds and develops throughout the biblical testimonies. You have done nothing to help us out in this regard, Marc. At least the cyber-prophet is *trying* to shed some small light on this otherwise dark and forgotten corner of the Word of God.
.
> Not only does your theology not hold up, you can't even back up your statements.
.
My theology holds up just fine as it is firmly implanted in *both* scripture and reality. In the same way, I am always willing to back up my statements (in many and various ways), the question is not that, but rather: 'Will you be able to accept them as valid even then?'
.
> And regarding, Matthew and the date of 60 AD, until you read the book and look at the
> archenology behind it, it is better to simply be quiet than to be a fool.
.
Silence is good; sometimes. However, I doubt that anyone would think you a fool if you were to graciously provide those of us who do not have this book a brief abstract or review of this book. OR (failing that) at least offer a few choice quotes (in order to give us some indication of what wonders we are all missing etc). Perhaps you could even highlight the most pertinent points for us? That would be most generous of you, sir.
.
> It was the belief of many that Mark was the first Gospel because it appeared primitive and disjointed.
.
Just what one would expect from a radically new and novel thing: the Good News set down in writing for all the world to see and marvel at. Yes, the other gospels - Matthew and John; but especially Lk-Acts - show far too much design and control of their literary materials (and too much theological commentary and coloring as well) to be considered anything other than later reworkings of the original prototype (ie. the Gospel of Mark & Peter).
.
> The problem with this ststement is that they are reading Mark incorrectly.
.
What you mean to say, I think, is that those scholars who see Mark as the first gospel are sadly unable to correctly and wisely interpret (or make the most of) the evidence of the texts ... ???
.
> The style is definately frantic,
.
Dear Marc, I have never ever described Mark's style as "frantic" because I do not consider it to be an adequate description of the passion and determination that motivated Mark and Peter in their collaborative composition of the first gospel.
.
> but it is not primitave nor disjointed.
.
In some ways it is both. In other ways not. These terms are very relative in their application to Mark; and (in any case) insufficient to encompass the fullness of the achievement it represents.
.
> A study of Mark in the Greek shows a very well thought out text designed to quickly tell
> a story to a persecuted church in Rome.
.
WUT!? "a persecuted church in Rome", you say? Where did that come from?! ...
Please don't tell me that you got this idea from the text of Mark's Gospel!!!
.
> Matthew's gospel is completely different in style and audience.
.
Right on both counts. And the significance of these facts is that they point to a considerable length of time having passed between the 'first edition' and the 'second edition' of the written Good News. I estimate that it took approximately fifteen years or so for the scribe and editor who authored Matthew to polish and edit and improve and polish again his edition to the point where he could improve it no more ...
.
> Matthew was an eyewitness to the events,
.
There is precious little evidence that the author/editor of the Gospel According to Matthew was an eyewitness to the events described therein. His first finished autograph (c.85CE) of the completed gospel (new and improved, as it were) did not bear the title 'The Gospel According to Matthew'. What we *do* know about the author is that despite his Jewish background, he was very much a Hellenistic-Jew, and also *very* not to be confused with the apostle named Matthew.
.
> and there are fragments of the Gospel of Matthew that may predate any of Mark.
.
Are you referring to papyrus fragments? If so, I'll have to reaffirm my doubts about this, as it is my understanding that there are *NO* papyrus fragments of the NT documents that date earlier than the beginnings of the second century. Then there is also the matter of the various dating methodologies (their pros and cons) to discuss, and also the supposed accuracy of these methods in determining the correct date of origin. ... You have a lot of explaining to do, Marc.
.
> The evidence that Matthew copied Mark is minimal.
.
"minimal", he says ... HA! That's a laugh and a half!
.
> It is more likely that they all had snippets of writings they collected over the years to
> refreash their memories as they finalized the text that made up the four Gospels.
.
Wut!? You make it sound like everybody just threw snippets into a large urn until it was full, and then divided the results into four nice and neat little piles. Your vision of legions of snippet collectors is sheer nonsense (from the perspective of historical realism, I mean). Moreover, your vision of the composition of the sacred texts ignores the most basic fact that the gospel as a literary form expanded and developed within the context of a gradual process through time: Mk/70CE, Mt/85CE, Jn/100CE, Lk-Acts/115CE.
.
> And finally, give me some examples of errors of Paul and John regarding prophecy.
.
Sure, mon. In the Thessalonian letters (ie. early in Paul's career as an apostle of the written word), Paul and Silvanus give ample evidence that they *firmly* believe that "The Day" (ie. the Great Day of Judgment) was coming soon (ie. a matter of weeks or months at most). John of Patmos also has similar feelings of imminent cosmic destruction (to put it mildly :). In this not-so-small matter of timing, both prophets were seriously mistaken. It is a simple case of zealous hope running roughshod over the long and sober vision of the sages. This shortcoming in the early NT prophets was, of course, recognized and addressed by the later NT prophets (cf. 2Peter).
.
> If there were errors in their prophecy, or any of the prophets, then the testimony of the
> bible is worthless because you can not tell me one thing that is guaranteed to be true if
> any of the prophecies are wrong.
.
Even if the Bible were riddled with errors both big and small, we could nevertheless be sure of this one thing: That our God is a good and great god who loves us and wishes us to love him/her/it in return. Salvation through faith in the truth, and in the eternal love of God, is the founding insight of all true religion. If each and every copy of the Holy Bible on Earth were to blow away into outer space like leaves before the storm, we would *still* be able to hear the soft, infinite calling of the Eternal Logos ... who calls his prophets from out of the World with a command and a challenge.
P.S. God to planet Earth: "Don't make me come down there!"
