IMPERFECT BIBLE 4A
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics / Re: Imperfect Bible 3 / 27 July 1998 /

] textman wrote: But perhaps you do not consider Dan to be scripture either?
] After all, it is the one and only Greek book to have entered the Hebrew canon;
.
>>> John Ings answers: Greek? Where did you get that? Daniel was written in Hebrew
>>> with some Aramaic portions.
.
>> textman replied: Huh? Hebrew? Where did you get that? ... I get my Greek Daniel from the LXX.
.
> john.ings responds: The LXX is a TRANSLATION of the original Hebrew. Daniel was not WRITTEN in Greek,
> just translated into Greek and now dozens of other languages.
.
 textman say: Actually John, I do believe you're wrong about that. Textual Critics have examined the oldest texts of Daniel, and by carefully weighing the words and grammar used have determined that the probability of Dan being written in Hebrew is vanishingly small. You yourself admit that the book was written after Alexander didst Greekify the World, so I really don't understand your objections to the consensus view. After all, unless we are fluent in the ancient languages ourselves, we are pretty much dependent upon the work of competent textual critics ... right?
.
] <snip> Such scholars are baboons, and unworthy of serious consideration by Christians who respect
] the historical process and the formation of the NT within the context of early church history. But most
] scholars and theologians are far more interested in mutilating history so as to force it to conform to
] the necessities of their theology! Thus eg, the fourth gospel MUST have been written after the third
] gospel because it is obviously more theologically sophisticated. In this way the historical process is
] made secondary and irrelevant, while theology becomes the yardstick by which we determine what
] happened & when & why!
.
>>> A more sophisticated theology IS a historical process. It's the very "the formation of the NT within the
>>> context of early church history" that you were advocating as a guage. What's your problem?
.
>> My problem is that theological necessities do NOT determine the shape and course of history.
.
> No, but history records the evolution of theology.
.
 Yes, but it is nowhere written that the development of theological speculations must always and constantly and without the slightest possible variation proceed in a straight line just so!
.
>> Thus the fact that bible scholars SUPPOSE John to be 'theologically superior' cannot be taken as
>> iron-clad evidence that PROVES it to be more recent than Luke-Acts.
.
> "Superior?" Fooey! John is theologically more evolved.
.
 I agree with you. 'Superior' is a false and misleading judgment; and actually a denigration and insult to Luke, who would doubtless strongly object to such labeling by the theologians.
.
> Containing later theological concepts.
.
 Later than Mark? No doubt. ... Later than Matthew? OK ... Later than Luke? No way Jose!
.
> There's nothing superior about it.
.
 Well, I don't know that I'd say 'nothing superior'. The LOGOS concept as applied to Jesus is a remarkable achievement, I think.
.
> Mark portrays Jesus as what he was, a Galilean peasant.
.
 Jesus was NOT a peasant, you swinehoount!  :)  The evidence in Mark suggests that he was a successful small businessman or tradesman (ie. carpenter), who raised a large family (ie. after Joseph died), and even owned a house, for a time, in Capernaum. ... Not at all bad for a "peasant"!
.
> Historically Mark is much superior to John,
.
  Much superior to Matthew, Luke, AND John, I'd say!
.
> which portrays Jesus as a shining perfect tin god with very little humanity.
.
 urrrr ... Noooo; not exactly. ... uummm ... I think the humanity IS still there. It's just rather hard to see owing to all the *glory* that surrounds him. But hey, all the NT authors are guilty of tampering with Jesus. Just look at what Luke does with him. If you compare Mark's Jesus with Luke's version you'll easily observe that the latter's Jesus has been de-passionated such that Christ becomes a very mild and calm and benevolent Smurf-Messiah type creature. This is why Luke is easily the most popular gospel among the very 'Wise and Compassionate Ones'. On the other hand, Mark's Jesus is not only the Son of Man, he is also very much A MAN! This is why the churches have always preferred Matthew or Luke or John over Mark!!! Mark's Jesus is not so much a distant object of worship as he is our brother in arms!
.
>> No indeed! All the evidence suggests that John came first ...
.
> All what evidence?
.
 Wut? You want a list? Sorry, but I'm not prepared just now to provide an exhaustive list; because I no longer have access to the necessary theological resources ... However, if you'd like a little something to get you started please consider the opening 'historical' section of Luke's gospel. It is very very suggestive; if you take my meaning? In any case, DO consider it carefully.
.
>> therefore theological developments are not always a reliable guide to the when and the why of things.
.
> What evidence is there in this case besides theological evolution?
.
 How about common sense and simple logic? If we look at the four Thessalonian letters in chronological order we can clearly see how Paul and Silvanus developed the simple form of letter one until it becomes the full fledged epistle of letter four. [textman promises to post some articles about this *soon*!] The gospels also demonstrate a similar development from the 'simple' gospel of Mark to Matthew's midrash expansion of Mark to John's 'corrective re-envisioning' of Mk/Mt to Luke's complex two-fold 'historical' presentation in Luke-Acts (which should be thought of as one book). In the same way, Paul did not become the super-apostle overnight; but rather it took several generations for the legendary embellishments to overlay Paul and transform him from a mean and nasty SOB into the miracle-working HERO of the second century church. Since then, the real Paul has been lost beneath the righteous piety that forbids an honest assessment of the great Apostle to the Gentiles.
.
>>> JI: The theology or the technology or the scriptography or the geography or any
>>> other intellectual development which has a chronology . . .
.
>> tx: Huh?
.
> JI: Historians use the evolution of "ologies" for relative dating. Examples: Technological evolution. If
> a document mentions steam engines, it's 19th century or later, never mind when it claims to have
> been written. If it mentions radio, it's early 20th century at the earliest. Scriptology or epigraphy:
> Certain letter forms belong to certain centuries. If a document is written in 3rd century Hebrew the
> letters will be formed differently than those in a 6th century document. Geography: If a document
> mentions Hispaniola, could it be 14th century?
.
 I understand. ... But how does all this prove that Daniel was written in Hebrew?
.
] tx: Thus the dating of James and Jude is NOT based on historical science and scrupulous research,
.
>>> Sure it is.
.
>> No it ain't! One need only examine the pathetic 'arguments' for an
>> early date (in the popular commentaries) to see which of us is right.
.
> No dates were mentioned by me. My references maintain that both are late 1st century
> or very early 2nd, and that Jude is probably pseudographical. Yours . . .?
.
 My examination of the text leads me to conclude that the prophet James already had the bulk of the NT documents at hand, and that fact, in and of itself, refutes the early genesis theories of the scholars. In the same way, the fact that Origen is the earliest witness to James supports my interpretation, and also argues for a mid-2C date for both James and Jude. Check it out, John ...
.
] but is derived by virtue of theological necessities!   . . .
.
>>> Historians don't grind theological axes. Only theologians do.
.
>> LOL ... Nice try. No, the sad fact is that it is the theologians and their absurd assumptions and
>> presumptions that determine the direction of the 'historical' research.
.
> Balderdash! Not since the 17th century. The efforts of 19th and 20th century historians have long given
> theologians heartburn.
.
 Oh, I know. Heartburn and indigestion! ... LOL ... In the 19C, the so-called 'lives of Jesus' were extremely popular. And yet, by today's historical standards such 'biographies' were obviously based more on the authors fertile and fevered imaginations than on 'down and dirty' historical gruntwork.
.
>> Historians ALSO have their blinkers on ... just like everyone else.
.
> Sure, but they're not theological 'blinkers'.
.
 They are either theological blinkers or anti-theological blinkers. In either case, the researchers assumptions and preconceived conclusions guide the shape and nature and direction of the results that logically follow from them. Thus the 'liberal Jesus' was the one that liberal historians 'discovered', while the eschatological prophet was the Jesus found by those who emphasized that aspect of his teachings. In the same way, Marxist historians saw only a failed political revolutionary. The point of all this is that when 'objective researchers' look upon Jesus they tend to project themselves into the image they claim to have discovered by focusing solely on the 'facts'.
.
 Thus saith the Lord: Who do YOU say that I am?
.
> Everyone has their prejudices, but even Jesuit historians aren't as influenced by theology as the
> theologians would like.
.
 No. Indeed, the Jesuits are a rather sharp bunch after all. One of the best books on the priesthood that I ever read is by an American Jesuit (his name escapes me just now, but IF I had access to my library at the Heart of the Diocese I'm sure I could hunt it down).
.
>>>>>> tx: In the early Church John's Rev was very disputed, and it could
>>>>>> have gone either way. Truly, we are lucky it was finally admitted,
.
>>> JI: We are? Why?
.
>> tx: Because it is one of the few prophetic books that the early Christians had.
.
> JI: So? Of what benefit is fraudulent prophecy?
.
 Prophecy that is fraudulent is not genuine Christian prophecy. The value of Revelation as prophecy is found in the fact that it has survived the centuries and is just as potent today as it ever was. In my opinion, those seven letters to the seven churches remain as outstanding examples of Christian prophecy at its best.
.
>> Many resisted its inclusion in the canon because it was almost too prophetic.
>> One might even say that it was a dangerous book.
.
> I would say so. It gives the fanatics a mishap mash of opium-pipe babblings they
> can interpret to mean whatever they want.
.
 This is the way it is with symbolic imagery. Interpreting the prophet John's intent is no easy feat, and the Apocalypse can certainly be abused in many and various ways. ... But this does not necessarily mean that his prophecies are worthless; only that the interpreter had better make damn sure he's very careful about any and all conclusions that are drawn forth.
.
>> Prophecy is, you see, always dangerous to a self-satisfied and content faith because it tends to
>> unduly disturb things.
.
> It also disturbs coherent and logical theology with metaphysical maundering and apocalyptic fulminations.
.
  LOL ... Rrrright.
.
>> Ecclesiastical politics tends to reject the prophetic insofar as it seeks friendship with the World. This is
>> because prophecy is very much contrary to all such 'friendly' tendencies.
.
> Yeah. You wouldn't want a friendly, loving god would you? It takes an ogre to scare the laity into the pews
> and keep the collection plates full.
.
 That may have been the case in the past; but the Canadian churches are now expert in showing just how 'friendly' God can be. It doesn't seem to matter though, since the People continue to stay away from the churches in droves. The friendly God approach does draw in some people, but nothing will fill the pews like a good world war or the threat of imminent destruction! When things are going well, people have no need of God. It's only when things go south that people gather together to say "Lord, Lord. We LUV you. We *really* do! So please DO save us!"
.
>> <snip> In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that the meek shall inherit the Earth. Does this refer
>> to the afterlife, or to the future Kingdom of Heaven?
.
> It refers to a secular kingdom, in Judea, ruled by a Jewish messiah. It was promised, but it didn't happen.
.
 Jesus never promised a secular kingdom as such. That's why he made a clear distinction between what we owe to earthly rulers and what belongs to God. 'Render unto Caesar ...' No; the kingdom Jesus promised was a small and invisible kingdom that begins in the human heart (ie. a spiritual kingdom). It is only those who think that spiritual realities are pure fantasy that assume that Jesus MUST have been talking about a restored Jewish state, and that he was therefore a failed revolutionary. But Jesus wasn't like that, John. The only violence he ever displayed was against those who were making the Temple a worldly place of business and commerce, in direct violation of God's command and intent that the Temple be a 'house of prayer'; which, btw, is exactly what the Temple ultimately became (ie. the so-called 'wailing wall')!
.
] tx: Now critics of Christianity are fond of pointing out that priests hand out empty promises
] to help the downtrodden masses be content with their miserable lot in life.
.
>>> Beginning with Paul himself.
.
>>  Not exactly.
.
> Yes exactly. Paul told slaves that they should be obedient to their masters and content with their lot.
.
 This is because he believed that it was too late to make radical changes in the social order. Don't forget that he also advised singles not to marry. Why have babies when the World will end next month?
.
] The ancient Hebrews did not need visions of future peaceful paradises to know how to live well.
.
>>> They were promised rewards in this life (see the Book of Proverbs). Of course the promises were
>>> seldom fulfilled, but the priests explained that by claiming they weren't being righteous enough.
.
>> That is always the case when history fails to live up to our expectations. The Jews got quite bent out of
>> shape by the problem. Just read the Book of Job!
.
> Precisely. Job is a priestly parable intended to deflect criticisms when the followers of the 'one true God'
> had their parade rained on by the followers of all those false gods.
.
 Why are you so cynical? It is apparent to me that Job is not a con job at all, but rather a sincere and honest attempt to wrestle with the mystery of injustice and a seemingly uncaring God. Moreover, I don't think that priests have enough wit to write a book like that; as it requires something that they'll never have: namely, a deep passion for life and truth and justice!
.
>> ... But this does not mean that the promises were not fulfilled; only that they take an unexpected form.
.
> Foo! The promises were quite specific. For instance: Proverbs 2:20: Therefore walk in the way of the good,
> and keep to the paths of the just. 21: For the upright will abide in the land, and the innocent will remain in
> it; 22: but the wicked will be cut off from the land, and the treacherous will be rooted out of it. ... Instead
> just the opposite happened, for the Jews had pitched their tents at a crossroads. First the Egyptian and
> the Babylonian armies came storming through Canaan to do battle with each other. Then Alexander's
> hoplites, then the legions of Rome. Was little Israel going to stand up against these juggernauts just
> because her people were "righteous"? Not bloody likely. The priestly promises were century after century
> shown to be nothing but hollow mockeries.
.
 For a brief time the kingdom of Solomon was big and impressive and on a par with the juggernauts. So the promises *were* realized, as God promised. The problem was that the people never forgot those glory days, and expected the LORD to bring it all back, bigger and better than ever. But history doesn't roll backwards. It rolls ahead, and if you hang on to ancient dreams of bygone glory then history will roll over you and crush you like a bug on a windshield.
.
>> Jesus is a good example of this. The Jews expected a messiah, and God sent them one; but because he
>> didn't kick the Romans out of Palestine, they rejected him,
.
> Because that's what a messiah was supposed to do. Messiah means "anointed one', a secular king for the
> Jews, not a god for the gentiles.
.
 My dear John, surely you are not that ignorant. Kings were NOT the only ones who were anointed in ancient Israel. Prophets also earned that honor, and it was this two-fold anointing business that created such confusion in 1C Palestine. Some expected a military messiah as you say; but others were hoping for a 'spiritual king'. And others were hoping for a messiah who would be both secular king and high priest. With such a wide diversity of opinions and expectations circulating about the place, it's not really surprising that the nation did not recognize their messiah when he walked among them, and pitched his tent among them.
.
>> and ultimately it cost them Jerusalem and their beloved temple.
.
> It was not their rejection of any messiah that cost them, but a foolish rebellion against mighty
> Rome. Like the song says, you don't pull on Superman's cape, or spit into the wind.
.
 That's right. And if the Jews had acknowledged and accepted Jesus, they would have known that, and acted accordingly. Instead they got a whole series of military messiahs who whipped up the hopes and passions of the people to the point where the Romish-Superman could no longer ignore all the cape-pulling.
.
] tx: In the first century, the Jewish peoples inside Palestine and out were eagerly awaiting a Jewish
] Alexander to step forth and 'save them'. Indeed, Galilee was well-known for regularly producing
] these military messiahs. When this nonsense finally got out of hand, the Empire-Beast crushed
] Jerusalem like an annoying gnat. ... Say; you don't suppose that there's a lesson to be learned
] in all this ...  do you?
.
>>> JI: Yup. Yeshua was a fraud.
.
>> tx: Wrong again, John. Jesus made no bones about the fact that he was NOT the sort of messiah
>> that the zealots hoped for.
.
> JI: Well, that's what the Gospel writers say he said, but they were
> writing after the fact and had an awkward failure to explain away.
.
 But John, if that was why Mark and Peter sat down to write the Gospel, why did they wait almost forty years to 'explain away the awkward failure'? ... Surely the genesis of Mark's Gospel is more complex than that!
.
> If Y'shua was not the kind of messiah the zealots hoped for, then he wasn't any kind of messiah.
.
 That was certainly *their* opinion; but not everyone thought like the zealots! ... You seem to have considerable difficulty accepting this fact. ... Why? It's a simple social-political reality. I really don't see what you hope to gain by denying this elementary historical factoid.
.
> The title of messiah is defined by men, not God. To send a god for the gentiles under such a name
> would be the cruellest of practical jokes on God's part. Like filling a fire extinguisher with gasoline.
> Judea in the 1st century was a tinderbox, rife with revolutionary fervor. The last place a merciful
> God would sent a prophet like Christians claim Jesus was.
.
 On the contrary, there was no better place or time for God to challenge his stubborn and wayward people than Palestine in the first century of the common era. Jesus and the earliest Christians gave Israel chance after chance to accept Y'shua as their messiah. It was all they could think to do. But when that was obviously not going to happen, the Lord called upon Paul to take the gospel to the gentiles. Before Paul came along, there was no real effort to do such an absurd thing. That first passage over into Greece (c.48CE) was revolutionary in the extreme. Yet at the time, Paul just wanted to get away from the influence of the Christians in Palestine and Antioch. No one could have predicted what would happen there; least of all Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. It was that little band of three missionaries that gave the Faith its future; a future they could NOT foresee . . . even as they forged it!!!
.
] tx: No; but the Lord did indeed put down the Empire in his own good time.
.
>>> JI: Christianity helped put it down, not from without like a conquering army, but from within like
>>> a cancer. The Rome that collapsed was not a pagan Rome, but an enfeebled Christian Rome that
>>> had been weakened by that pernicious and sanctimoneous religion for two centuries.
.
>> tx: Good Grief! Have you been reading Gibbon again? Someone take that book away from this guy!
>> ... Actually, John, Rome's moral and spiritual decay began long before Constantine made Christianity
>> the official religion of the Empire.
.
> JI: Spiritual decay had nothing to do with Rome's fall.
.
 I couldn't disagree more. An empire without a strong spiritual and moral foundation is doomed to destruction, no matter how fine and healthy the externals may *seem* to be.
.
> Under the pagan emperors Rome was a going concern, its economy strong, its armies victorious.
> Morality had nothing to do with it either. The Romans in their time had better justice than
> Christianity was able to manage for the next thousand years.
.
  This too is debatable.
.
>> Maybe you should read up on the lives of the Emperors. Their arrogance was such that they fancied
>> themselves gods in the flesh. With ideas like that about, it's no wonder that the Empire went down!
.
> JI: But their empire didn't go down. It thrived. Blaming the old Pagan emperor's arrogance in the first
> and second centuries for the fall of Rome in the sixth is like blaming Canada's falling dollar on Sir john
> A. Macdonald's drinking problem! Not logical.
.
 Whoever said that history was logical? Hey; you want 'not logical'? textman thinks that part of the reason for the falling dollar is that the Powerful Ones are aware of the prophet, and are supremely spooked by him. The only response that they can think of is to put the screws to the entire nation!  :)
.
] tx: And when the time came, there was Augustine and Jerome and
] many another good saint to watch it all unfold as it should.
.
>>> JI: Into the squalor and ignorance of a milennium long Dark Ages.
.
>> tx: Hey; sometimes the only way up is to go down first ...
.
> JI: We could not have gone from pagan Rome directly to the renaissance without first
> falling into the cesspool of the Middle Ages? Sheepdip sir! Sheepdip!
.
 LOL - Oh John, you really are the most outrageous person on the WWW!
.
>>> Romans 2:6  Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
.
>> tx: That is: our deeds in this life!
.
> Governing our fate in the next.
.
  AND in this one also!
.
>>> 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
>>> eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey
>>> unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
.
>> That is: you had better be good while you still can, else you'll surely regret it later.
.
> JI: So is that your sole reason for behaving? a future reward?
.
 Don't we all act with the idea of a future payoff? Medical students don't enter university for the joy of paying thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of painful study. No indeed. Rather, they look forward to the day when they can open their own practice and begin collecting patients. Their payoff is years in the dim and foggy future.
.
>>> JI: Standard carrot and stick, reward and punishment. Not virtue for its own sake,
>>> but virtue as a means to an end.
.
>> tx: Virtue is always a means to an end.
.
> JI: Really? No altruism, even on the part of say, Mother Theresa?
.
 Mother Teresa certainly knew the joy of a heart that overflowed with love. Her life was a hard one, to be sure; but it was not without its compensations; spiritual compensations, John. ... But then, you don't understand such things ...
.
>> Only the angels can practice virtue for its own sake.
.
> Then God made a pretty shoddy product in mankind, didn't he?
.
 What can you expect when you start with a bunch of violent, bipedal, and naked apes? Give it time, John. Give it time.
.
>>> JI: ALL religion is contentious, and that is so because gods don't reveal themselves,
>>> and we wouldn't recognize them if they did.
.
>> tx: Oh ye of little faith!
.
> JI: I have NO faith. At least not what true believers mean by faith.
.
 Do you want some of mine? I have more than enough to spare. Shall I email you a tad sampler?
.
>> I have no trouble at all recognizing the divine in Jesus. Neither do millions of other Christians.
.
> Recognizing? Heck, you and your "millions of others" can't agree on what you see for a moment.
.
 Maybe not. But we are ALL agreed that the name of that something we see is Jesus Christ.
.
>>> ###Amphora coepit institui; currente rota cur urceus exit?
.
>> What's that you say? Sorry, but my Latin's a mite rusty. Actually, very rusty, since I never really studied it
>> and don't intend to. ... So don't be so mean to our Latin-ignorant Readers, John!
.
> A fine old latin putdown. Many never inquire what it means, suspecting they have been insulted,
> but not willing to confess their inability to find out how badly!  :-)  Roughly: "It was an amphora
> that was expected-" (i.e. a large pot was to be thrown on the wheel) "why have you produced
> only a teacup?"
.
  LOL  ...  I like it!
.
> The implication being that your argument is weak. Here's a more succinct one.  ## Lepus
> tute es; et pulpamentum quaeris! "You're a rabbit yourself, and yet you're out for game?"
.
 One rabbit is no match for a lion (ie. meaning you, John), but 10,000 rabbits can overwhelm even a thousand ravening & roaring lions!

> On 3Aug98 textman wrote: Textual Critics have examined the oldest texts of Daniel, and by carefully
> weighing the words and grammar used have determined that the probability of Dan being written in
> Hebrew is vanishingly small. You yourself admit that the book was written after Alexander didst
> Greekify the World, so I really don't understand your objections to the consensus view.
.
John Ings answers: I won't object if it is the consensus view, but that's not what my references say.
Cite me some cites.
.
>>> tx: My problem is that theological necessities do NOT determine the shape and course of history.
.
>> JI: No, but history records the evolution of theology.
.
> tx: Yes, but it is nowhere written that the development of theological speculations must always
> and constantly and without the slightest possible variation proceed in a straight line just so!
.
 They do not proceed at a constant pace, but they do proceed sequetially. Now I do find in my references the statement that in the last century and the early part of this one, Bible scholars tended to think of John as a later re-write of the other Gospels. There has lately arisen a viewpoint that this may not be necessarily so, that John may be contemporaneous with the others. But earlier than Luke-Acts? I think that's a bit much. The Jesus seminar opts for this timeline: Q - 56-60 CE / Thomas - 50-60 CE / Mark - 70 CE / Matt - 85 CE / Luke-Acts - 90 CE / John - 90 CE / Canonical Mark - 100 CE / Canonical John - 100-150 CE /
.
>> JI: Containing later theological concepts.
.
> tx: Later than Mark? No doubt. ... Later than Matthew? OK ... Later than Luke? No way Jose!
.
JI: Contemporaneous I'll concede, for the basic John, minus some 2nd century embroidery.
.
>> Mark portrays Jesus as what he was, a Galilean peasant.
.
> Jesus was NOT a peasant, you swinehoount!  :)  The evidence in Mark suggests that he was a successful
> small businessman or tradesman (ie. carpenter), who raised a large family (ie. after Joseph died), and
> even owned a house, for a time, in Capernaum. ... Not at all bad for a "peasant"!
.
 I think that would still make him a peasant. You sort of had to make it to the category of 'prosperous landowner or merchant' to be middle class in those days. The term used to describe Joseph's occupation is rather vague and could mean anything from 'carpenter' to 'small contractor' to 'common laborer'. I got that appelation from the title of Crossan's book "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" Have you read it?
.
>> Historically Mark is much superior to John,
.
>  Much superior to Matthew, Luke, AND John, I'd say!
.
 Yeah, I'll buy that.
.
>> which portrays Jesus as a shining perfect tin god with very little humanity.
.
> urrrr ... Noooo; not exactly. ... uummm ... I think the humanity IS still there. It's just rather hard to see
> owing to all the *glory* that surrounds him. But hey, all the NT authors are guilty of tampering with Jesus.
.
 Yup. Must have been a heck of a temptation, what with all those other itinerant preachers to compete with. Have you encountered Clark Kee's "Miracle in the Early Christian World" or Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians"?
.
> Just look at what Luke does with him. If you compare Mark's Jesus with Luke's version you'll easily
> observe that the latter's Jesus has been de-passionated such that Christ becomes a very mild and
> calm and benevolent Smurf-Messiah type creature.
.
 Further from the secular general-sovereign who was to establish the Kingdom of God.
.
> tx: This is why Luke is easily the most popular gospel among the very 'Wise and Compassionate Ones'.
> On the other hand, Mark's Jesus is not only the Son of Man, he is also very much A MAN! This is why the
> churches have always preferred Matthew or Luke or John over Mark!!! Mark's Jesus is not so much a
> distant object of worship as he is our brother in arms!
.
 A revolutionary.
.
>>> tx: No indeed! All the evidence suggests that John came first ...
.
>> JI: All what evidence?
.
> tx: Wut? You want a list? Sorry, but I'm not prepared just now to provide an exhaustive list;
.
 Uhuh.
.
>>> therefore theological developments are not always a reliable guide to the when
>>> and the why of things.
.
>> JI: What evidence is there in this case besides theological evolution?
.
> tx: How about common sense and simple logic?
.
 As we inspect the theological evolution . . .
.
> The gospels also demonstrate a similar development from the 'simple' gospel of Mark to
> Matthew's midrash expansion of Mark to John's 'corrective re-envisioning' of Mk/Mt to Luke's
> complex two-fold 'historical' presentation in Luke-Acts (which should be thought of as one book).
.
 I'll buy that provisionally, but I must assume you are referring to what the Jesus seminar terms the '1st edition' of John. Prior to the revised and edited canonical version. Also I wonder what revisions Luke-Acts went through.
.
> In the same way, Paul did not become the super-apostle overnight; but rather it took several
> generations for the legendary embellishments to overlay Paul and transform him from a mean
> and nasty SOB into the miracle-working HERO of the second century church.
.
 Now that I WILL buy into! I have always had my doubts about Paul accepting the concept of the Trinity later invented by his theological heirs and assigns.
.
> Since then, the real Paul has been lost beneath the righteous piety
> that forbids an honest assessment of the great Apostle to the Gentiles.
.
 Great? Nah! I still think he was a mercenary old fraud.
.
>> Historians use the evolution of "ologies" for relative dating.
.
> I understand. ... But how does all this prove that Daniel was written in Hebrew?
.
 It doesn't. What it does do is date the writing. In this case with extreme precision, plus or minus a year.
.
>>> Historians ALSO have their blinkers on ... just like everyone else.
.
>> Sure, but they're not theological 'blinkers'.
.
> They are either theological blinkers or anti-theological blinkers.
.
 Nah! I don't buy that.
.
> In either case, the researchers assumptions and preconceived conclusions guide the shape and nature
> and direction of the results that logically follow from them. Thus the 'liberal Jesus' was the one that liberal
> historians 'discovered', while the eschatological prophet was the Jesus found by those who emphasized
> that aspect of his teachings. In the same way, Marxist historians saw only a failed political revolutionary.
.
 That's all I see, and I'm no Marxist!
.
> tx: The point of all this is that when 'objective researchers' look upon Jesus they tend to
> project themselves into the image they claim to have discovered by focusing solely on the 'facts'.
.
 We all have our biases and blind spots. The object of debate is to illuminate these dark corners and hold a mirror up to the flaws and prejudices of each others reasoning. Theologians and historians do that a lot. It's the best way of countering the tendencies you mention.
.
> Thus saith the Lord: Who do YOU say that I am?
.
 One of a number of failed KGA activists.
.
[Revelation] >> So? Of what benefit is fraudulent prophecy?
.
> Prophecy that is fraudulent is not genuine Christian prophecy.
.
 That leaves you with zip. Nada . . .
.
> The value of Rev as prophecy is found in the fact that it has
> survived the centuries and is just as potent today as it ever was.
.
 Potent poison. Sustenance for the nut fringe! (no personalities intended)
.
>>> Many resisted its inclusion in the canon because it was almost too
>>> prophetic. One might even say that it was a dangerous book.
.
>> I would say so. It gives the fanatics a mishap mash of opium-pipe babblings they can interpret to
>> mean whatever they want.
.
> This is the way it is with symbolic imagery. Interpreting the prophet John's intent is no easy feat,
.
 Who cares what his intent was? It's his EFFECT that's dangerous.
.
> and the Apocalypse can certainly be abused in many and various ways...
> But this does not  necessarily mean that his prophecies are worthless;
.
 Yes it does. He's on the same level as Nostradamus. Make it lurid and vague and anybody can interpret it to suit themselves.
.
> only that the interpreter had better make damn sure he's very careful about any and all conclusions
> that are drawn forth.
.
 Which they never do.
.
>> Yeah. You wouldn't want a friendly, loving god would you? It takes an ogre to scare the laity into the
>> pews and keep the collection plates full.
.
> That may have been the case in the past; but the Canadian churches are now expert in showing just
> how 'friendly' God can be.
.
 They're also losing adherents quickly. The only churches that are growing are the fundy-fringe charismatics and evangelicals, and they're doing it with razzle-dazzle and propaganda. Billy Graham came to my town just last month. Big turnout.
.
> The friendly God approach does draw in some people, but nothing will fill the pews like a good world war
> or the threat of imminent destruction!
.
 People will grasp at any straw in times of tribulation. No atheists in foxholes and all that . . .
.
> When things are going well, people have no need of God. It's only when things go south that people
> gather together to say "Lord, Lord. We LUV you. We *really* do! So please DO save us!"
.
 Which he never does you'll note.
.
>>> <snip> In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that the meek shall inherit the Earth. Does this refer
>>> to the afterlife, or to the future Kingdom of Heaven?
.
>> It refers to a secular kingdom, in Judea, ruled by a Jewish messiah. It was promised, but it didn't happen.
.
> Jesus never promised a secular kingdom as such.
.
 Then why did he play the part of the expected Messiah? Why did he ride into Jerusalem on a colt as the Messiah was expected to do? A practical joke on God's part?
.
> That's why he made a clear distinction between what we owe to earthly
> rulers and what belongs to God. 'Render unto Caesar ...'
.
 Now you talk about interpretation! You've missed the meaning of that quip completely. Picture the scene, a public place (possibly the courtyard of the Temple on the Mount). The questioners are seeking to compromise Y'shua before his followers (Matthew says it's the Pharisees, Luke says its the Sadducees doing this) They ask if it is right to pay taxes to Rome. If he replies in the negative he could be arrested for sedition. If he replies in the affirmative, he will be embarrassed in front of his followers, at least two of whom are Zealots. The reply Y'shua is reported as giving is therefor extremely clever. Whether the man actually said it, or it is just a popular saying of the day we don't know, but it neatly evades the dilemma. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." is a phrase that could be repeated before any Roman court without risk. To Roman ears it would sound properly respectful and servile. To Jewish ears it had a completely different meaning. Consider how galling it must have been to the Jews to not only have to pay Rome taxes, but to have to use coinage bearing a graven image. Worse, the graven image of a man who his followers claimed to be a god! To the Jew, EVERYTHING in Judea belonged to their God, except the cursed Romans and their graven images. So Y'shua's reply to them sounded like "Take your tax money and shove it where the sun don't shine!"
.
> tx: No; the kingdom Jesus promised was a small and invisible kingdom that begins
> in the human heart (ie. a spiritual kingdom).
.
 No. That's a Christian rationalization to get around the fact that promises were made that weren't kept.
.
> It is only those who think that spiritual realities are pure fantasy that assume that Jesus MUST have
> been talking about a restored Jewish state, and that he was therefore a failed revolutionary.
.
 It was his behavior that leads to that conclusion. In my opinion he was just another one of several would-be messiahs. He wasn't seeking to foment an armed rebellion of the bar Kokba sort, his was at a more spiritual level. Armies of God's angels were going to come down and drive the Romans out he preached, and when they didn't show his Zealot followers turned on him.
.
> But Jesus wasn't like that, John.
.
 But he acted as if he was, in a Jerusalem that was a tinderbox of revolutionary fervor he presented himself to the public just before a high holy day in a manner that was sure to inflame revolutionary fervor. A practical joke?
.
> The only violence he ever displayed was against those who were making the Temple a Worldly place of
> business and commerce, in direct violation of God's command and intent that the Temple be a 'house of
> prayer'; which, btw, is exactly what the Temple ultimately became (ie. the so-called 'wailing wall')!
.
 You are correct, but in an obtuse way. Here was the situation. The Temple on the Mount was a moneymaker for the citizenry of Jerusalem. Herod had vastly expanded the temple precincts by undertaking a massive construction that was truly impressive. It even impresses modern engineers. Devout Jews from all over the Roman empire were flocking to Jerusalem for holy day celebrations every year. That made for a tourist industry par-excellance, very lucrative for the innkeepers and merchants of Jerusalem. It also meant that there had to be moneychangers and merchants proximate to the temple. Worshippers were required to sacrifice at least a pigeon. More affluent ones were expected to sacrifice lambs, goats, even cattle. What were they to do, drive their sacrificial animals along the roads all the way from Egypt and Italy or even Spain? No, they brought money and purchased the required animals from local merchants close to the temple. More profit for Jerusalemites who probably charged inflated prices. THAT'S what Y'shua was protesting.
.
>>>>> tx: Now critics of Christianity are fond of pointing out that priests hand out empty
>>>>> promises to help the downtrodden masses be content with their miserable lot in life.
.
>>>> JI: Beginning with Paul himself.
.
>>> tx: Not exactly.
.
>> JI: Yes exactly. Paul told slaves that they should be obedient to their masters and content with their lot.
.
> tx: This is because he believed that it was too late to make radical changes in the social order.
.
 Or because he wished to ingratiate himself with Roman authority and divorce his religious sect from the evolutionary Jews. "Oh no Mr. Roman Magistrate sir! Our loving Jesus wasn't crucified for sedition against Rome! That nice Roman governor Pontius Pilate was just doing those nasty Jews a favor by executing a religious dissenter for them!" Sheepdip! Pilate was an arrogant bull-headed nazi who seemed to go out of his way to annoy the Jews. He wasn't about to do the sanhedrin any favors. Y'shua WAS executed for sedition, and the two men with him were too.
.
> Don't forget that he also advised singles not to marry.
> Why have babies when the World will end next month?
.
 That's not a good reason. Why not have babies and take them to heaven with you? No, Paul preached celibacy because the Greeks and Romans respected and revered celibacy (vestal virgins and all that). The Jews considered celibacy a perversion. Know any rabbis who are single? It wasn't something a real Pharisee would preach.
.
>> Precisely. Job is a priestly parable intended to deflect criticisms when the followers of the
>> 'one true God' had their parade rained on by the followers of all those false gods.
.
> Why are you so cynical?
.
 Because I despise priests. Even if some of them are right, the vast majority are wrong, and throughout history have done much harm in the world.
.
> It is apparent to me that Job is not a con job at all, but rather a sincere and honest attempt to wrestle
> with the mystery of injustice and a seemingly uncaring God.
.
 It is that. You see textman, not all priests are con-men. It only takes a few cynical frauds like Paul to make up the lies. Some of their converts are sure to become so enamored of the lie that they become priests themselves. Priests of the most dangerous kind, the ones that truly believe the lie they are preaching. You can look into their eyes and see the utmost sincerity there, but just because a man is ready to die for a cause doesn't mean the cause is true.
.
> Moreover, I don't think that priests have enough wit to write a book like that; as it requires something
> that they'll never have: namely, a deep passion for life and truth and justice!
.
 You can have such a passion and still believe a lie. Consider for instance the bedazzled followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh. The charlatan only misleads others, the prophet often misleads himself. Both Jones and Koresh died with their followers. So did Brother Do.
.
>> the Jews had pitched their tents at a crossroads. First the Egyptian and the Babylonian armies came
>> storming through Canaan to do battle with each other. Then Alexander's hoplites, then the legions of
>> Rome. Was little Israel going to stand up against these juggernauts just because her people were
>> "righteous"? Not bloody likely. The priestly promises were century after century shown to be nothing
>> but hollow mockeries.
.
> For a brief time the kingdom of Solomon was big and impressive and on a par with the juggernauts.
.
 No. It was never that big a deal. Impressive only in the eyes of the Jews. It is their Camelot, a fantasy kingdom that in reality wasn't all that impressive.
.
> tx: My dear John, surely you are not that ignorant. Kings were NOT the only ones who were anointed
> in ancient Israel. Prophets also earned that honor, and it was this two-fold anointing business that
> created such confusion in 1C Palestine. Some expected a military messiah as you say; but others
> were hoping for a 'spiritual king'.
.
 And some expected both.
.
> And others were hoping for a messiah who would be both secular king and high priest. With such a wide
> diversity of opinions and expectations circulating about the place, it's not really surprising that the nation
> did not recognize their messiah when he walked among them, and pitched his tent among them.
.
 But he wasn't either kind of messiah. Neither the secular nor the spiritual. (the spiritual one was supposed to keep an eye on the secular one) For a review, check out "The Messianic Legacy" by Baigent, Liegh and Lincoln.
.
>>> and ultimately it cost them Jerusalem and their beloved temple.
.
>> It was not their rejection of any messiah that cost them, but a foolish rebellion against mighty Rome.
>> Like the song says, you don't pull on Superman's cape, or spit into the wind.
.
> That's right. And if the Jews had acknowledged and accepted Jesus, they would have known that,
> and acted accordingly.
.
 I strongly disagree. If Y'shua had been preaching that, he would never have been greeted at the gates of Jerusalem with palm fronds and hosannas. For that matter he would not have acquired disciples either.
.
> Instead they got a whole series of military messiahs who whipped up the hopes and passions of the people
> to the point where the Romish-Superman could no longer ignore all the cape-pulling.
.
 And Y'shua was just another one of those. Paul used him as the foundation of his mythic Jesus. Having stolen the Jews messiah from them, his followers made a god out of Jesus and to add insult to injury, made the Jews take the blame for his death.
.
>>> Jesus made no bones about the fact that he was NOT the sort of messiah that the zealots hoped for.
.
>> Well, that's what the Gospel writers say he said, but they were
>> writing after the fact and had an awkward failure to explain away.
.
> But John, if that was why Mark and Peter sat down to write the Gospel, why did they wait almost forty
> years to 'explain away the awkward failure'? ...
.
 Because the messiah was expected to return at any moment. What need was there for scripture on the subject? It was only when decades had gone by and there was no sign of a second coming that the necessity for Gospels arose.
.
>> If Y'shua was not the kind of messiah the zealots hoped for, then he wasn't any kind of messiah.
.
> That was certainly *their* opinion;
.
 And THEY were the definers of the word 'messiah'. Not God. The messiah was man's concept, and if God had other ideas he had no business presenting himself under a false name. It would be akin to handing a child a cyanide pill and saying "candy".
.
> but not everyone thought like the zealots!
.
 Yeah. The High Priest and the Sadducees sure didn't. But the majority of the people and the Pharisees did. Here we have a question of politics rather than religion. Who do you think the Zealots were? Just religious cranks? They were peasantry who had been driven off their land by the Romans. Taxed into bankruptcy and then forced to sell out to absentee Roman landlords like the sharecroppers of the American west during the depression. Rome had a very bad land-management policy, a weakness that was instrumental in the empire's collapse centuries later. This was the cause of the unrest, and no benign pseudo-messiah preaching subservience to Rome was going to get anywhere.
.
> ... You seem to have considerable difficulty accepting this fact. ... Why?
.
 Because I can't see a loving god playing the cruelest of practical jokes. Mixing metaphors, it was like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater to act like the expected messiah in Jerusalem in the fourth decade of the 1st century. Riding into town on a colt like the expected triumphant king of the Kingdom of Heaven.
.
> It's a simple social-political reality. I really don't see what you hope to gain by denying this
> elementary historical factoid.
.
 Gain? We're seeking truth here. Never mind Paul's Jesus. What was Rabbi Y'shua ben Yusef thinking? What was the sanhedrin thinking? What was Pilate thinking? What were the Pharisees thinking? This is as much Judean politics as it is religion.
.
>> JI: The title of messiah is defined by men, not God. To send a god for the gentiles under such
>> a name would be the cruellest of practical jokes on God's part.
.
> tx: On the contrary, there was no better place or time for God to challenge his stubborn
> and wayward people than Palestine in the first century of the common era.
.
 By inflicting on them a bloody revolution and two millennia of Christian persecution? I don't like this monster of a god you imagine.
.
> Jesus and the earliest Christians gave Israel chance after chance to accept Y'shua as their messiah.
.
 No. No messiah ever preached subservience to Rome. The next thing I know you'll be trying to sell me a kosher porkchop!
.
> Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. It was that little band of three missionaries that gave the
> Faith its future; a future they could NOT foresee . . . even as they forged it!!!
.
 Indeed! Would any of them have accepted the concept of the Trinity for instance?
.
>> Spiritual decay had nothing to do with Rome's fall.
.
> I couldn't disagree more. An empire without a strong spiritual and moral foundation is doomed to
> destruction, no matter how fine and healthy the externals may *seem* to be.
.
 Balderdash! Read some history man! Some of the most robust and successful empires have been totally lacking in any such thing. Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries had good Christian spiritual and moral foundations, and IT was the one that collapsed!
.
>> Under the pagan emperors Rome was a going concern, its economy strong, its armies victorious. Morality
>> had nothing to do with it either. The Romans in their time had better justice than Christianity was able to
>> manage for the next thousand years.
.
> This too is debatable.
.
 Check your history books m'boy! Read up on the feudal system. Learn how the serfs were the posessions of the nobility. Read up on things like droit du seigneur. Explain how this is good Christian morality.
.
>> So is that your sole reason for behaving? a future reward?
.
> Don't we all act with the idea of a future payoff?
.
  Did Mother Theresa?
.
> tx: Medical students don't enter university for the joy of paying thousands of dollars and thousands of
> hours of painful study. No indeed. Rather, they look forward to the day when they can open their own
> practice and begin collecting patients. Their payoff is years in the dim and foggy future.
.
 No interest in helping suffering humanity huh? Now who's the cynic?
.
>>> Only the angels can practice virtue for its own sake.
.
>> Then God made a pretty shoddy product in mankind, didn't he?
.
> What can you expect when you start with a bunch of violent, bipedal, and naked apes?
> Give it time, John. Give it time.
.
 Here, in a way, I agree. I don't believe for a moment that there's any God overseeing man's development from a bipedal hominid (not an ape) into something better. Our species' technological development has by far outstripped our moral development. We are cave-men armed with uzis and atomic bombs. Aggressive tendencies that only a few thousand years ago were a survival factor are now a liability because we are so much better at killing. Xenophobia was an asset once, now it's a curse that is causing us much grief, and xenophobia feeds on religion. That's why I deplore religion so much.
.
>>>  Oh ye of little faith!
.
>> I have NO faith. At least not what true believers mean by faith.
.
>  Do you want some of mine?
.
 No thank you! I regard religious faith with extreme suspicion.
## Second coming? I don't believe he came the first time! -- john.ings@ottawa.com

IMPERFECT BIBLE 5A
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible / Re: Imperfect Bible 4 / 10 Aug 1998 /

>>>> textman previously wrote: My problem is that theological necessities do NOT determine
>>>> the shape and course of history.
.
>>> john.ings@ottawa.com (John Ings) replied: No, but history records the evolution of theology.
.
>> textman answered: Yes, but it is nowhere written that the development of theological speculations must
>> always and constantly  and without the slightest possible variation proceed in a straight line just so!
.
> john responds: They do not proceed at a constant pace, but they do proceed sequentially.
.
 textman say: Not necessarily. History is more complex than that. A theological development in one city can be followed (the next year, say) by a theological devolution in a neighboring city. This is because ideas do not always follow the straight lines of a neat and tidy flow chart, John. A good idea can pop up somewhere, and then be promptly forgotten for centuries before being rediscovered. Nor does development always follow similar paths. The problem with modern Bible scholars is that they despise all this confusing complexity. They want everything neat and simple and just so please: Mk > Mt > Lk > Jn. And don't you ever doubt it! Well, I do doubt it. The evidence of the texts is more important than theological necessities. Thus the gospels developed in the same way that the epistles did: from short and sweet to long and complex. So if we allow half a generation between one gospel and the next, we arrive at the following scheme: Mk(68CE) > Mt(85) > Jn(100) > Lk-Acts(115). Moreover the evidence of the texts supports this scheme more than others because it is far more realistic and true to history than the one you offer from the Jesus Seminar (which is an excellent example of theological devolution, btw).
.
> Now I do find in my references the statement that in the last century and the early part of this one, Bible
> scholars tended to think of John as a later re-write of the other Gospels. There has lately arisen a viewpoint
> that this may not be necessarily so, that John may be contemporaneous with the others. But earlier than
> Luke-Acts? I think that's a bit much.
.
 Why so? Don't give me citations. Don't give me scholarly traditions. Tell me what you think and why. Is there anything in the texts of John and Lk-Acts that proves and/or suggests that John must have come afterward? I already directed you to the opening chapter of Luke's gospel in support of my scheme ...
.
> The Jesus seminar opts for this timeline: Q - 56-60 CE
.
 Now here is unparalleled nonsense! There never was such a thing as the Q document! ...
Except inside the addled brains of over-clever Bible scholars with nothing better to do!
.
> Thomas - 50-60 CE
.
  Extremely unlikely.
.
> Mark - 70 CE  /  Matthew - 85 CE
.
  Correct. Give or take a year or three.
.
> Luke-Acts - 90 CE
.
  Off by 25 years or so.
.
> John - 90 CE
.
  Off by ten years or so.
.
>>> <snip> Mark portrays Jesus as what he was, a Galilean peasant.
.
>> Jesus was NOT a peasant, you swinehoount! The evidence in  Mark suggests that he was a successful
>> small businessman or tradesman (ie. carpenter), who raised a large family (ie. after Joseph died), and
>> even owned a house, for a time, in Capernaum. ...  Not at all bad for a "peasant"!
.
> I think that would still make him a peasant. You sort of had to make it to the category of 'prosperous
> landowner or merchant' to be middle class in those days.
.
 Where is the logic in saying that you had to be rich in order to be middle class? In those days, if you were relatively independent, owned a house, and ran a business, then you were somewhere between rich and poor ... Right?
.
> The term used to describe Joseph's occupation is rather vague and could mean anything from 'carpenter'
> to 'small contractor' to 'common laborer'. I got that appellation from the title of Crossan's book "The
> Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant". Have you read it?
.
 I've seen it. Haven't actually read it; but I have seen the reviews. And - for various reasons - most of them give Crossan a whopping big thumbs down. They prefer Meyer's books on this subject; and so do I.
.
>>> JI: Historically Mark is much superior to John,
.
>> tx: Much superior to Matthew, Luke, AND John, I'd say!
.
> JI: Yeah, I'll buy that.
.
 The reason being that not only is it earlier in time, but it is closer to the original sources, and therefore more reliable as eyewitness accounts. ... This is part of the reason why I accept the tradition that Mk was a collaborative effort from both Peter and Mark. The evidence in Paul's letters, and the gospel itself, clearly suggest that this tradition has a solid base in historical reality. Please consider the implications of all this ...
.
>>> which portrays Jesus as a shining perfect tin god with very little humanity.
.
>> urrrr ... Noooo; not exactly. ... uummm ... I think the humanity IS still there. It's just rather hard
>> to see owing to all the *glory* that surrounds him. But hey, all the NT authors are guilty of
>> tampering with Jesus.
.
> Yup. Must have been a heck of a temptation, what with all those other itinerant preachers to
> compete with. Have you encountered Clark Kee's "Miracle in the Early Christian World" or Robin
> Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians"?
.
 Kee is a first-rate historian. I'm familiar with some of his work (though not this particular one). And Fox's book is also highly rated; though here again I have not had occasion to read it. The problem, you see, is that I no longer have access to the necessary resources. Having been cast out, I'm now confined to my own private library ... Which is a very meager resource, to say the least!
.
>> tx: <snip> On the other hand, Mark's Jesus is not only the Son of Man, he is also very much A MAN!
>> This is why the churches have always preferred Matthew or Luke or John over Mark!!! Mark's Jesus
>> is not so much a distant object of worship as he is our brother in arms!
.
> A revolutionary.
.
 Absolutely! A revolutionary religious reformer, that is.  ...  A spiritual commando!  :)
.
>>>> tx: No indeed! All the evidence suggests that John came first ...
.
>>> JI: All what evidence?
.
>> tx: Wut? You want a list? Sorry, but I'm not prepared just now to provide an exhaustive list;
.
> Uhuh.
.
 Well, hells bells, John! Such a project involves a horrendous amount of research. I just don't have the time or resources to tackle a problem like that. There's a book by J.C.O'Neil on Luke that you could check out ... Errrr, unfortunately, the name of it escapes me. ... Sorry  :(
.
>> <snip> In the same way, Paul did not become the super-apostle over-night; but rather it took several
>> generations for the legendary embellishments to overlay Paul and transform him from a mean and
>> nasty SOB into the miracle-working HERO of the 2C church.
.
> Now that I WILL buy into! I have always had my doubts about Paul accepting the concept of the Trinity
> later invented by his theological heirs and assigns.
.
 Overcoming anachronism is a full time enterprise, to be sure. But the point here is that this heroizing of Paul is further evidence that Lk-Acts was written in the early second century.
.
>> Since then, the real Paul has been lost beneath the righteous piety that forbids an honest assessment
>> of the great Apostle to the Gentiles.
.
> Great? Nah! I still think he was a mercenary old fraud.
.
 Wouldn't it be more historically accurate to think of him as, say, "A Poetic Theologian"?
.
>> <snip> In either case, the researchers assumptions and preconceived conclusions guide the shape and
>> nature and direction of the results that logically follow from them. Thus the 'liberal Jesus' was the one
>> that liberal historians 'discovered', while the eschatological prophet was the Jesus found by those
>> who emphasized that aspect of his teachings. In the same way, Marxist historians saw only a failed
>> political revolutionary.
.
> That's all I see, and I'm no Marxist!
.
 Of course not; but you are a rationalist (after the manner of Huxley), yes? So try stepping outside the severe limitations of this paradigm. Sometimes, in order to see things more clearly, we have to walk over to the next mountain and look back from there.
.
>> The point of all this is that when 'objective researchers' look upon Jesus they tend to project themselves
>> into the image they claim to have discovered by focusing solely on the 'facts'.
.
> We all have our biases and blind spots.
.
 This is a widely acknowledged maxim in post-modern theology and biblical studies. Always easy to say, it is. But not always so easy to practice with consistency. ... Blind spots, blind spots; who's got them thar gosh darned blind spots?!  :)
.
> The object of debate is to illuminate these dark corners
.
 Oh ho! Do you really think so? I see this as a rather bold statement, sir. ... Indeed, the prophet has not had much luck lately illuminating these very same 'dark corners' and 'blind spots'. Yes, judging by the words and actions of most cyber-folk I have seen (not all, of course), the most popular reaction to your 'object of debate' is to ignore, insult, and killfile ... ooohh, scary ...  :=(
.
> and hold a mirror up to the flaws and prejudices of each others reasoning.
.
 Now here is an interesting statement. Holding up mirrors to see who we are within and without is something that the Son of Man knows very well indeed. Have you not read these verses of the Epistle of James:
.
 "So be Doers of the Word and not just Listeners, deceiving yourselves. (23) For if anyone is only a Listener of the Word (and not a Doer), that one is like a Woman who takes a good look in a Mirror at the Face she was born-again with. (24) For she considered herself carefully; and then went away and forgot what she was like! (25) But they who have caught a glimpse of the Perfect Law (the one of Freedom), and stayed with Him - being not a Forgetful Listener, but a Doer of His work - they are blessed in ALL that they do." -- Prophet Version
.
> Theologians and historians do that a lot. It's the best way of countering the tendencies you mention.
.
 Oh yes; indeed it does. It is one of the more necessary results of an open-minded approach to life, the universe, and everything.  In other words: Don't Panic!  :)
.
>> Thus sayeth the Lord: Who do YOU say that I am?
.
> One of a number of failed KGA activists.
.
  Thus sayeth the prophet: Good Grief!
.
[On Rev] >>> So? Of what benefit is fraudulent prophecy?
.
>> Prophecy that is fraudulent is not genuine Christian prophecy.
.
> That leaves you with zip. Nada . . .
.
 If you mean to say that Rev holds no meaning for you, then you should know that many Canadian Christians also agree with you. I myself was among your ranks until but recently, so I'll concede that much of Christian prophecy is more or less nada, as you say, but Rev contains quite a bit of the good stuff as well. It is a rather rich book in many ways, really. textman particularly admires the opening seven letters to seven churches. There's some powerful poop there, John! ...  LOL
.
>> The value of Rev as prophecy is found in the fact that it has
>> survived the centuries and is just as potent today as it ever was.
.
> Potent poison. Sustenance for the nut fringe! (no personalities intended)
.
 Yes, it's all too true; alas. Apocalyptic imagery and true prophecy together make for a powerful brew. One that intoxicates those who drink too deeply of that cup. So while the flash and dazzle attracts some, and repels others, we ought not to lose sight of the importance and lasting value of those letters.
.
>>>> Many resisted its inclusion in the canon because it was almost
>>>> too prophetic. One might even say that it was a dangerous book.
.
>>> I would say so. It gives the fanatics a mishap mash of opium-pipe babblings they can interpret
>>> to mean whatever they want.
.
>> This is the way it is with symbolic imagery. Interpreting the prophet John's intent is no easy feat,
.
> Who cares what his intent was? It's his EFFECT that's dangerous.
.
 You make it seem as if the prophet is to blame for all the unfortunate results of the actions of those who misread and misunderstood and misapplied the prophet's book. This is like blaming the inventor of gunpowder for the deaths of all those killed by guns and bullets. Surely you understand that John had to hide his gems of truth amongst much Thunder & Fury? It was the nature of those days, after all ...
.
>> and the Apocalypse can certainly be abused in many and various ways.
>> ... But this does not necessarily mean that his prophecies are worthless;
.
> Yes it does. He's on the same level as Nostradamus. Make it lurid and vague and anybody can interpret
> it to suit themselves.
.
 Nostradamus was a sooth-sayer. A fortune teller. A see-er of visions and such. He was not also a prophet as John was. This is why you cannot legitimately lump the two together so easily. ... What I am suggesting to you is that the essence of John's prophetic value lies less in his vivid visions, and much more in his letters. If you can understand why I say this, then you are doing well ...
.
>> only that the interpreter had better make damn sure he's very careful about any and all conclusions
>> that are drawn forth.
.
> Which they never do.
.
 Actually, John, some of the newer commentaries on the book of Revelation are rather good in this regard. ... I would suggest you check them out for yourself, but I'm also sure you wouldn't want to waste your time studying the study of nothing ... LOL
.
>>> <snip> Yeah. You wouldn't want a friendly, loving god would you? It takes an ogre to scare the laity
>>> into the pews and keep the collection plates full.
.
>> That may have been the case in the past; but the Canadian churches are now expert in showing
>> just how 'friendly' God can be.
.
> They're also losing adherents quickly.
.
  Oh yes. I quite agree!
.
> The only churches that are growing are the fundy-fringe charismatics and evangelicals, and they're doing
> it with razzle-dazzle and propaganda. Billy Graham came to my town just last month. Big turnout.
.
 Oh, it's a very popular brand of bible-thumping, to be sure. I suppose it serves a purpose in the grander scheme of things; but I have never been much attracted to the reductionistic rationalization that empowers this approach to the sacred scriptures. In the same way, BG is not a prophet in any way, shape or form. He is simply a charismatic preacher. There's a significant distinction to be made between these two vocations ... Oh YES!!!
.
>> The friendly God approach does draw in some people, but nothing will fill the pews like a good world
>> war or the threat of imminent destruction!
.
> People will grasp at any straw in times of tribulation. No atheists in foxholes and all that . . .
.
  And which straw do you grasp for in times of tribulation, John?
.
>> When things are going well, people have no need of God. It's only when things go south that people
>> gather together to say "Lord, Lord. We LUV you. We *really* do! So please DO save us!"
.
> Which he never does you'll note.
.
 Of course not. The Lord is no fool. He can see their self-serving hypocrisy for what it is. They are just like the double-minded liturgical lesbians of the Woman-Church of Canada, who wallow in iniquity, and yet think to curry God's love and favor through their 'good works'. See how pretty and sweet and charming they are? So wise and compassionate they are. Surely they are not Satan's most loyal whores? Oh, surely NOT!

IMPERFECT BIBLE 5B

/ Newsgroup > alt.bible / Subject > Re: Imperfect Bible 4 / 10 Aug 1998 /

>>>> tx: <snip> In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says that the meek shall inherit the Earth.
>>>> Does this refer to the afterlife, or to the future Kingdom of Heaven?
.
>>> JI: It refers to a secular kingdom, in Judea, ruled by a Jewish messiah.
>>> It was promised, but it didn't happen.
.
>> tx: Jesus never promised a secular kingdom as such.
.
> JI: Then why did he play the part of the expected Messiah? Why did he ride into Jerusalem
> on a colt as the Messiah was expected to do? A practical joke on God's part?
.
 LOL ... Maybe so. After all, Jesus didn't go around proclaiming himself the King of the Jews (or anybody else for that matter). Rather, he proclaimed the love of the Heavenly Father; and referred to himself as the Son of Man (which, of course, gives us a much better idea of who and what Jesus really was). In the same way - at least according to Mark and Peter - Jesus was a very reluctant messiah at best. When the people proclaimed him king, he did what any sane man would do: turn and run away double-time!
.
>> tx: That's why he made a clear distinction between what we owe to
>> earthly rulers and what belongs to God. 'Render unto Caesar ...'
.
> JI: Now you talk about interpretation! You've missed the meaning of that quip completely. Picture
> the scene, a public place (possibly the courtyard of the Temple on the Mount). The questioners are
> seeking to compromise Y'shua before his followers (Matthew says it's the Pharisees, Luke says its
> the Sadducees doing this) They ask if it is right to pay taxes to Rome. If he replies in the negative
> he could be arrested for sedition. If he replies in the affirmative, he will be embarrassed in front of
> his followers, at least two of whom are Zealots. The reply Y'shua is reported as giving is therefore
> extremely clever.
.
  Are you now admitting that Jesus was an uncommon and even extraordinary man?
.
> Whether the man actually said it, or it is just a popular saying of the day we don't know,
.
 Nonsense. There is no good reason to suppose he did not say this; and every good reason to suppose that he did!
.
> but it neatly evades the dilemma. "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto
> God the things that are God's." is a phrase that could be repeated before any Roman court without risk.
> To Roman ears it would sound properly respectful and servile. To Jewish ears it had a completely different
> meaning. Consider how galling it must have been to the Jews to not only have to pay Rome taxes, but to
> have to use coinage bearing a graven image. Worse, the graven image of a man who his followers claimed
> to be a god! To the Jew, EVERYTHING in Judea belonged to their God, except the cursed Romans and their
> graven images. So Y'shua's reply to them sounded like "Take your tax money and shove it where the sun
> don't shine!"
.
  Or just "pay your taxes and forget it". In either case, his confounding response could hardly have been pleasing to the ears of his zealot-disciples. And so, not very supportive of your own militant-messiah vision of Jesus either. ... Perhaps this is why you propose the idea that he never said this???
.
>> tx: No; the kingdom Jesus promised was a small and invisible kingdom that begins
>> in the human heart (ie. a spiritual kingdom).
.
> JI: No. That's a Christian rationalization to get around the fact that promises were made that weren't kept.
.
  Why do you say that they weren't kept? The Empire is long dead and buried, while tiny Israel - last time I checked - is still alive and kicking. Not too many nations come back strong and sassy after having been ground into the dust!
.
>> It is only those who think that spiritual realities are pure fantasy that assume that Jesus MUST
>> have been talking about a restored Jewish state, and that he was therefore a failed revolutionary.
.
> It was his behavior that leads to that conclusion. In my opinion he was just another one of several
> would-be messiahs. He wasn't seeking to foment an armed rebellion of the bar Kokba sort, his was
> at a more spiritual level. Armies of God's angels were going to come down and drive the Romans out
> he preached, and when they didn't show, his Zealot followers turned on him.
.
  My dear John, it is perfectly apparent that you are now mistaking Jesus for an Essene! These Essene's were preparing for an apocalyptic war between the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light. They had the whole scenario all mapped out nice and neat; but when the war came, the Romans utterly destroyed them and their zealous fantasies. But the Son of Man lives on, and has an army bigger than any Commander who ever lived. Not bad for a 'failed revolutionary'.
.
>> tx: But Jesus wasn't like that, John.
.
> JI: But he acted as if he was, in a Jerusalem that was a tinderbox of revolutionary fervor he
> presented himself to the public just before a high holy day in a manner that was sure to
> inflame revolutionary fervor. A practical joke?
.
  No. He was just trying to stir things up a bit. One can hardly blame him for doing this. After all, stirring the pot is just the sort of thing that these prophetic types like to do ...
.
>> The only violence he ever displayed was against those who were making the Temple a worldly place of
>> business and commerce, in direct violation of God's command and intent that the Temple be a 'house of
>> prayer'; which, btw, is exactly what the Temple ultimately became (ie. the so-called 'wailing wall')!
.
> JI: You are correct, but in an obtuse way. Here was the situation. The Temple on the Mount was a money-
> maker for the citizenry of Jerusalem. Herod had vastly expanded the temple precincts by undertaking a
> massive construction that was truly impressive. It even impresses modern engineers. Devout Jews from
> all over the Roman empire were flocking to Jerusalem for holy day celebrations every year. That made for
> a tourist industry par-excellence, very lucrative for the innkeepers and merchants of Jerusalem. It also
> meant that there had to be moneychangers and merchants proximate to the temple. Worshippers were
> required to sacrifice at least a pigeon. More affluent ones were expected to sacrifice lambs, goats, even
> cattle. What were they to do, drive their sacrificial animals along the roads all the way from Egypt and
> Italy or even Spain? No, they brought money and purchased the required animals from local merchants
> close to the temple. More profit for Jerusalemites who probably charged inflated prices. THAT'S what
> Y'shua was protesting.
.
  Right. He was protesting the entire corrupt and bloody system (which was not unlike the Church of Canada today). Thus he was threat to the Sadducees and merchants because he wanted to reform Judaism. To make it something pleasing in the eyes of the Lord. Instead of being a stench unto the divine nostrils (again, not unlike the Church of Canada today). And this is why he had to be disposed of. Jesus was well aware that the authorities would not be at all pleased with him. Was he going to back down because they were evil and violent men? Certainly NOT!
.
>> <snip> Don't forget that he [ie. Paul] also advised singles not to marry.
>> Why have babies when the World will end next month?
.
> That's not a good reason. Why not have babies and take them to heaven with you? No, Paul preached
> celibacy because the Greeks and Romans respected and revered celibacy (vestal virgins and all that).
> The Jews considered celibacy a perversion. Know any rabbis who are single? It wasn't something a real
> Pharisee would preach.
.
  I tend to agree. Paul was no ordinary Pharisee, that's fer sur. But Jesus had a very high opinion of marriage. He never married because prophets generally make poor husbands (ie. they tend to get themselves killed a lot), not because he considered celibacy to be a more exalted spiritual estate (as the corrupt and lying priests would have us believe). As for Paul: it is an easy and popular game to criticize his sexual teachings. Much harder it is to identify the truth in them.
.
>>> JI: <snip> Precisely. Job is a priestly parable intended to deflect criticisms when the followers
>>> of the 'one true God' had their parade rained on by the followers of all those false gods.
.
>> tx: Why are you so cynical?
.
> JI: Because I despise priests.
.
  Me too!!! But this does NOT mean that I must also despise scripture. The vast majority of the biblical books were NOT written by priests; and I thank God constantly for THAT!
.
> Even if some of them are right, the vast majority are wrong, and throughout history
> have done much harm in the world.
.
  Of course they have. But there have been some few good ones too. And even some very few who been outstanding Christians in every conceivable way. ... However, these few are just not enough to justify the ongoing survival of the corrupt and debased institution of the priesthood. ... Priestcraft must Perish!
.
>> It is apparent to me that Job is not a con job at all, but rather a sincere and honest attempt
>> to wrestle with the mystery of injustice and a seemingly uncaring God.
.
> It is that. You see textman, not all priests are con-men. It only takes a few cynical frauds like Paul to make
> up the lies. Some of their converts are sure to become so enamored of the lie that they become priests
> themselves. Priests of the most dangerous kind, the ones that truly believe the lie they are preaching. You
> can look into their eyes and see the utmost sincerity there, but just because a man is ready to die for a
> cause doesn't mean the cause is true.
.
  Quite right. So why then don't you place Paul in the category of 'sincere fool' instead? It seems to me that Paul's love poetry fairly reeks of sincerity. Hardly the work of a priest or a cynical fraud. Hells Bells, man! Paul was always reviled and hated. Even by Christians. Even by those of his own generation. If anything is fraudulent, it is  Luke's whitewashing portrait of Paul the SuperHero. After Lk-Acts, the man was forever lost beneath the Super-Saint!
.
>> tx: Moreover, I don't think that priests have enough wit to write a book like that; as it requires
>> something that they'll never have: namely, a deep passion for life and truth and justice!
.
> JI: You can have such a passion and still believe a lie. Consider for instance the bedazzled followers
> of Jim Jones or David Koresh. The charlatan only misleads others, the prophet often misleads himself.
> Both Jones and Koresh died with their followers. So did Brother Do.
.
  My dear John; you just indicated the difference between true and false prophecy. True prophecy leads us to 'The Way, the Truth, and the Life', while false prophecy leads only to death (ie. physical and/or spiritual destruction).
.
>> <snip> Instead they got a whole series of military messiahs who whipped up the hopes and passions
>> of the people to the point where the Romish-Superman could no longer ignore all the cape-pulling.
.
> JI: And Y'shua was just another one of those. Paul used him as the foundation of his mythic Jesus.
> Having stolen the Jews messiah from them, his followers made a god out of Jesus and to add insult
> to injury, made the Jews take the blame for his death.
.
  Paul was upset with 'the Jews' because they were hindering his mission, and beating him black and blue by way of thx. Besides, the gospels are not shy to share the blame. 'All have fallen short', is the biblical view of things. In the same way, the prophet John could hardly be described as pro-Roman.
.
>>>> tx: Jesus made no bones about the fact that he was NOT the sort of messiah
>>>> that the zealots hoped for.
.
>>> JI: Well, that's what the Gospel writers say he said, but they were writing after
>>> the fact and had an awkward failure to explain away.
.
>> tx: But John, if that was why Mark and Peter sat down to write the Gospel, why did they
>> wait almost forty years to 'explain away the awkward failure'? ...
.
> JI: Because the messiah was expected to return at any moment. What need was there for scripture
> on the subject? It was only when decades had gone by and there was no sign of a second coming
> that the necessity for Gospels arose.
.
  Again you are oversimplifying a complex situation. When you say "the necessity for Gospels arose", you are overlooking the fact that there was, at that time, no such thing as a literary genre called 'gospels'. What Peter and Mark accomplished was absolutely unique and utterly unprecedented. In that regard, Mt, Jn, and Lk-Acts are mere copy-cats trying to improve on perfection. ... It's true that Christ's stubborn refusal to return eventually caused a crisis of faith, but it's also true that even two centuries later many Christians were *still* expecting the Parousia SOON! (Talk about stubbornness!) Another motivating factor was that the original generation of primary witnesses was dying out. If Peter and Mark did not set the Word to papyrus when they did, they knew that Paul's letters would be the only legacy from that early period to future generations of believers. In that sense, the first gospel was Peter and Mark's answer to Paul; a 'corrective' to the ever-growing influence of Paul's 'occasional' letters.
.
>>> JI: If Y'shua was not the kind of messiah the zealots hoped for, then he wasn't any kind of messiah.
.
>> tx: That was certainly *their* opinion;
.
> JI: And THEY were the definers of the word 'messiah'. Not God. The messiah was man's concept,
> and if God had other ideas he had no business presenting himself under a false name. It would
> be akin to handing a child a cyanide pill and saying "candy".
.
  Actually, the 'Suffering Servant' idea comes straight from the prophet Isaiah; and thus eventually from the Heavenly Father himself ...
.
>> but not everyone thought like  the zealots!
.
> Yeah. The High Priest and the Sadducees sure didn't. But the majority of the people and the Pharisees did.
.
  Most of the Jewish peoples and Pharisees were zealots, you say? Do you have anything from Fox or Kee
to support this outrageous contention?
.
> Here we have a question of politics rather than religion.
.
  The two were notoriously difficult to separate in those days; as you yourself have observed.
.
> Who do you think the Zealots were?
.
  Militant radicals?
.
> Just religious cranks?
.
  Many were just that.
.
> JI: They were peasantry who had been driven off their land by the Romans. Taxed into bankruptcy
> and then forced to sell out to absentee Roman landlords like the sharecroppers of the American
> west during the depression. Rome had a very bad land-management policy, a weakness that was
> instrumental in the empire's collapse centuries later.
.
  I'm confused. Didn't you say earlier that the Faith was to blame for the Empire's downfall?
.
> This was the cause of the unrest, and no benign pseudo-messiah
> preaching subservience to Rome was going to get anywhere.
.
  No doubt. But then, Jesus didn't preach subservience to Rome. Not then, and certainly not now. Rather, he taught us that we cannot serve two masters; and that our first duty is always to God (not to Man or anything else). I think his attitude was this: Do what God wills, and let the rest take care of itself.
.
>> ... You seem to have considerable difficulty accepting this fact. ... Why?
.
> Because I can't see a loving god playing the cruelest of practical jokes. Mixing metaphors, it was like yelling
> "FIRE!" in a crowded theater to act like the expected messiah in Jerusalem in the fourth decade of the 1st
> century. Riding into town on a colt like the expected triumphant king of the Kingdom of Heaven.
.
  It's funny that you should say so. I always thought that the plaque they nailed to the cross over his head (the one proclaiming him 'King of the Jews') was a rather ironic joke, really. Considering that he really is 'The King of Kings'!
.
>> It's a simple social-political reality. I really don't see what you hope to gain by denying this
>> elementary historical factoid.
.
> Gain? We're seeking truth here. Never mind Paul's Jesus. What was Rabbi Y'shua ben Yusef thinking?
> What was the sanhedrin thinking? What was Pilate thinking? What were the Pharisees thinking?
> This is as much Judean politics as it is religion.
.
  I tend to agree. However, Jesus was unique in that he DID make a clear distinction between the secular and sacred realms. This is the true meaning of the 'Render unto Caesar' saying. So what was Jesus thinking? He was thinking that the essence of religion is love ... not politics!
.
>>> The title of messiah is defined by men, not God. To send a god for the gentiles under such a name
>>> would be the cruelest of practical jokes on God's part.
.
>> On the contrary, there was no better place or time for God to challenge his stubborn and wayward
>> people than Palestine in the first century of the common era.
.
> By inflicting on them a bloody revolution and two millennia of Christian persecution?
> I don't like this monster of a god you imagine.
.
  LOL  ...  You're just not trying hard enough, John.
.
>> Jesus and the earliest Christians gave Israel chance after chance to accept Y'shua as their messiah.
.
> No. No messiah ever preached subservience to Rome.
> The next thing I know you'll be trying to sell me a kosher porkchop!
.
  LOL ... The only thing I want to sell you is the Gospel of Mark ...
.
>> <snip> Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. It was that little band of three missionaries that gave the Faith its
>> future; a future they could NOT foresee ... even as they forged it!!!
.
> Indeed! Would any of them have accepted the concept of the Trinity for instance?
.
  Paul would ... but only if he thought of it first!   :)
.
>>> <snip> So is that your sole reason for behaving? a future reward?
.
>> Don't we all act with the idea of a future payoff?
.
> Did Mother Teresa?
.
  Sure. Why not? Heaven is the eternal reward for all good saints.
.
>> Medical students don't enter university for the joy of paying thousands of dollars and thousands of hours
>> of painful study. No indeed. Rather, they look forward to the day when they can open their own practice
>> and begin collecting patients. Their payoff is years in the dim and foggy future.
.
> No interest in helping suffering humanity huh? Now who's the cynic?
.
Who, me? I'm not denying the need to help others. All I'm suggesting is that in doing so we help ourselves as well.
.
>>>> Only the angels can practice virtue for its own sake.
.
>>> Then God made a pretty shoddy product in mankind, didn't he?
.
>> tx: What can you expect when you start with a bunch of violent, bipedal, and naked apes?
>> Give it time, John. Give it time.
.
> Here, in a way, I agree. I don't believe for a moment that there's any God overseeing man's development
> from a bipedal hominid (not an ape) into something better. Our species' technological development has
> by far outstripped our moral development. We are cave-men armed with uzis and atomic bombs. Aggressive
> tendencies that only a  few thousand years ago were a survival factor are now a liability because we are
> so much better at killing. Xenophobia was an asset once, now it's a curse that is causing us much grief,
> and xenophobia feeds on religion. That's why I deplore religion so much.
.
  Huh? You deplore it because it gives us a sense of value and identity? ... By telling us who we really are?
.
>>>> tx: <snip> Oh ye of little faith!
.
>>> JI: I have NO faith. At least not what true believers mean by faith.
.
>> tx: Do you want some of mine?
.
> No thank you! I regard religious faith with extreme suspicion. <snip> -- john.ings@ottawa.com
.
  Well, John, from the looks of things so far, I'd say that you regard religious faith not only with extreme suspicion, but also with extreme rejection. Yes, suspicion is one thing (often justified), but your '2daMax' negative attitude goes way way beyond that! Check it out ...

P.S.  "Anyone who thinks that the truth is simple, has another think comin'!" -- GrandPa Walton

textman
*