21st Century Nietzsche

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 8 July 1998 /
.
  It is often suggested that the Bible is irrelevant to life in post-modern America because it is out dated and badly in need of some radical revision. But it may well be that 'improving' the scriptures by way of inclusive language and selective ignoring is not enough. Another more productive approach might be to simply supplement the current canon with the addition of a few well chosen bits of literature with a more 'current' perspective on things. So what would a short list of such post-modern apocrypha look like? Well, only those books that are Christian in nature could be considered for inclusion. The first three books in The Newer Testament could well be the following: The Grand Inquisitor (from The Brothers Karamazov); The Underground Man (also by Dostoyevsky); and Beyond Good and Evil (by Friedrich Nietzsche). If you do not have easy access to all three of these very dark and disturbing books (so contrary to the joy-joy spirit of the Woman-Church of Canada), then shame on you for being a very very ignorant Christian! 
. . .  But fear not. Here is a small sample of what you're missing:
.
  "It is inhuman to bless where one is cursed" (#181 in Beyond Good and Evil).

/ Re: 21st Century Nietzsche / 11 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] textman said unto us: 21st CENTURY NIETZSCHE  <mercifully snipped>
.
> janet wrote: Woah ... Did you say, "Christian in nature" and Nietzsche in the same sentence? Go
> wash your, well, not you mouth out, this is a written medium, go wash your hands off with soap!  ;)
.
 Dear Janet, I tried that! Repeatedly, in fact. But it's just no use! They always wind up dirty again anyway!
.
] If you do not have easy access to all three of these very dark and disturbing books (so contrary
] to the joy-joy spirit of the Woman-Church of Canada), then shame on you for being a very very
] ignorant Christian!
.
> Um, hello, textman? Why should every christian read good ol' Freddy?
.
 Well, could be that they might learn something they didn't know before? ... I know, I know; it's a long shot, right? But somebody's got to get in there and pitch one for the poor old antichrist ...
.
> Why?  And why him, and not Kant and Delphy?
.
 Did you say 'Kant'? You have got to be out of your ever-loving mind! I would sooner have my nails torn out than TRY to read any of Kant's obscure scribblings. I mean, maybe a lot (ie. A LOT) is lost in translation, but his stuff is the most awful literature you can imagine. Not at all user-friendly!
.
] But fear not. Here is a small sample of what you're missing: "It is inhuman to bless where
] one is cursed" (#181 in Beyond Good and Evil).
.
> Grim smile. ... There are all kinds of wonderful things in there: "Under conditions of peace, the warlike
> man attacks himself", is the one that comes to mind. ...
.
 Sounds like a pretty accurate observation to me.
.
> searching her shelves, wondering where THAT book has got to. janet
.
 I know. I have the same problem; although I am pretty good at organizing things such that I can usually find the book I'm after. ... However, keeping track of my various ng postings is:
.
. . . A BLOODY NIGHTMARE! 

/ From: textman / 11 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible-thumpers.convert.convert.convert /
.
>> textman wrote:   21st CENTURY NIETZSCHE   <snipped>

/ From: David Hall / To: textman / 8July-98 / Subject: Re: 21st Century Nietzsche / Newsgroups: alt.bible /
.
> Nietzche was a nihlist. A pessimist and not a benevolent scholar. I read some of his text about the
> sereness of nothingness and I became almost zero. Your abstract condescending idiots will not
> save you from your own indulgence of error. As if you new the background of the poeples and the
> times of the Bible and you do not. the Bible was not written in 20th century England.  --  DH

/ 10 July 1998 / From > textman / To > David Hall <quentino@erols.com> /
.
> David Hall wrote: <snip> the Bible was not written in 20th century England.
.
  Dear David, I am well aware of Nietzsche's many flaws and faults ... and the contempt and hatred that most Christians have for him. Nevertheless, he was a true prophet like very few others in modern times, and much of what he says IS worthy of consideration. This does NOT mean that I agree with everything he says. There is no such thing as a perfect prophet (except JC). But these days we have to take whatever few prophetic crumbs we can get. As for your observation above: I am also aware of this, and it is hardly news. Moreover, I don't believe I ever claimed that the Bible was "written in 20th century England." ... Frankly, your criticisms leave much to be desired; as does your spelling and grammar. Nice try though!

> David Hall replies: Some people thought Edgar Cayce was a prophet too.
.
  textman answers:  He certainly was a very strange man with unusual abilities ...
.
> They even called Mohammed a prophet.
.
  I believe there are millions of people who still do.
.
> Nietzsche's Ecce Homo translates something like, "Behold the man."
> These were Pilate's word about Christ.
.
  Dear David, just so. And he was certainly right to say so.
Indeed, Jesus' favorite title for himself - The Son of Man - confirms it.
.
> If I remember Nietzche did not seem to have a good context for some of his proverbs.
.
  Maybe so; but it hardly matters, as long the proverbs themselves are worthy ... which many of them are. Yes?
.
> The overall view I got was rather dim.
.
 In other words, Nietzsche's thinking is very hard for Christians to take.
No one understood this better than Freddy himself.
.
> I tried to study physical science as more enlightening than Nietzche.
.
  Oh, I'm sure this was a very bad error on your part. The 'hard sciences', while certainly intellectually challenging, can hardly speak to the human heart. That is precisely what makes philosophy so much greater than science and theology. In that respect, it is far more like unto poetry and music. In the same way, there is a subtle (but highly significant) difference between knowledge and wisdom (which is the art of living well). Thus one cannot read Nietzsche in order to gain some sort of knowledge about the world ... That is NOT what Nietzsche is all about.
.
> As for spelling and grammer these are not the most worrisome aspects of life.
.
 No, of course not. But good spelling and grammar can do wonders if you are at all concerned about effective communication through the written electronic-word. ... Mind you, it certainly hasn't helped me to sell any of my various scribblings. ... Is one a professional writer only if that one gets paid for it?
.
... Prophecy is certainly not a profitable enterprise, you know!
.
> Nietzche was used by Hitler.
.
 Correction Please! -> Nietzsche was MISUSED & ABUSED by Hitler ... Wut? You don't believe me? Hey, it's not such a radical idea. Have you read 'Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Kafka' by William Hubben. It's one of the best books on existentialism that you'll ever read; and it was written by a Quaker who escaped Germany when Hitler came to power. btw: The original title of this slim, but potent, book was: 'Four Prophets of Our Destiny'. Needless to say, I much prefer this title to the list-of-names one.
.
btw: Nietzsche was also used by Ayn Rand (a jewish lady-philosopher yet)! 
.
> I hope you might prove to become a better scholar than he.
.
 No no no. This is all wrong wrong wrong. I do not consider Nietzsche to be a scholar. He is a Philosopher & Prophet. That's who he was, and this reality is soaked into every word he ever wrote. How can anyone possibly read him if they do not understand and appreciate even this much?! Hey, it takes effort to rightly read someone like that. In the same way, I have no wish to 'become a scholar' since I already am a bible scholar; although I certainly do hope to improve my skills in that area.  ... btw: What do you think of Kierkegaard's biblical commentaries? Are they not utterly amazing?! ... But even all this is secondary to my main goal of being the best darned third-rate prophet the Lord ever had the misfortune to labor for Him. In that regard, all four of these second-rate prophets show us the meaning and value of persistence and commitment ... two values that are, sadly, very hard to find in our post-modern global village.

P.S.  "Guard your Heart more than any Treasure; For it is the Source of all Life!" (Proverbs 4:23)

/ Subject > Re: 21st Century Nietzsche / 16 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics /
.
] written word wrote: ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ADD TO GODS WORD SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO
] REVELATION 22:18  QUOTE FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARETH THE WORDS OF THE
] PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS GOD SHALL ADD UNTO
] HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK.   end quote
.
 textman replies: Dear written word, what's with all the rude shouting type behavior? 
.
Are you unaware that it is considered bad form to speak in this manner? Or is it that you just don't give a shit? If you think using caps lends authority to your words, you are very much mistaken! ... btw: the prophet John was talking about his book (ie. the Book of Revelation, aka The Apocalypse). He was most certainly NOT talking about 'The Book' (ie. our Holy Bible with OT and NT), which in his day was still in formation. Yes? So perhaps you ought to read a good commentary on Rev before you go using it to slam others. Yes? I hope so.

/ 18 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics / Subject >

> written word say: Dear textman, did not mean to upset you with the large text, ... (how is this).
.
  Dear written word, it's much better. thx 
.
> a lot of people thought it was rude in what the apostles or most christians proclaimed. One example
> would be John the Baptist, why some thought that his message was rude enough to have him
> beheaded, or take a look at Jesus some thought his message was rude and had him crucified, not
> knowing that they were fullfilling Gods plan for mans salvation, (stupid devil).
.
 You're quite right, of course. Indeed, the gospel remains VERY rude, even today. That is why all the priests, pastors, ministers, and preachers who are charged with teaching the faith, do so by first watering down the gospel so as not to upset the World with the Truth. And they are so successful at presenting this disembowled gospel that no one is anymore offended at the faith because everything rude and upsetting has been well removed. In this way the rich and the perverted are able to fancy that they have the gospel, and are good Christians after all.
.
> actually textman, they are not my words, they are Gods words, see revelation 1:1-2, but I will confess,
> I believe that the bible is the inspired written word of God, and I also believe that not only did the Holy
> Spirit inspire the words to be written, but would also oversee the way GODS book would be assembled
> and handed down.
.
 Yes, but bear in mind that this does NOT mean that everything has been done to perfection, and therefore cannot be changed. God inspired the authors of scripture, but he did not make them perfect creatures first. No, they remained imperfect, limited and fallible creatures. Thus errors could and did enter the text even as it was being written. In the same way, the assembling and transmission of the sacred books was also done by imperfect creatures who also introduced errors into the texts. There are lots of displaced words, verses, and passages in both testaments. Parts of various books were incorrectly copied or lost. Words and phrases were added or changed by pious monkish copiers. And so forth.
.
 ... All these mistakes do not mean that The Book is unreliable; only that we should be aware that the Bible is not a perfect or finished product. A lot of work remains to be done in order to bring the text into a better alignment with the original manuscripts. Those who think that the text is perfect as it is, and that therefore it is a very great crime indeed to 'mess with the text', blind themselves to the obvious fact that the Book we have today is also the result of 3000 years of people messing with the text. Therefore let us by all means clean up this mess, and so improve the text. No one who truly loves the Bible can rightly object to this.
.
> of the old and new testaments which was the last book of scripture to be written?
.
 The youngest OT book is undoubtedly the Wisdom of Solomon, which was written during the lifetime of Jesus (or shortly before). The last NT book was probably Jude (or 2Peter).
.
> which book shows the beginning? which book shows mans final chapter?
.
 The beginning is Genesis; but the final chapter has yet to be written.
.
> seeing that God knows the end from the beginning, would'nt you agree that God knew in 95CE,
> that in 1998 man would be reading the bible with revelation as the last book of the new testament.
.
 No, he didn't. The future is NOT set in stone. We determine what the future will bring by the things we do today. This is and was always the case. In 95CE there was no way to predict what the formation of the canon would result in. 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, but it did not HAVE to be. As it is, many Christian's today are quite content to ignore it, or minimize its relevance in various ways. The churches have always had problems with accepting prophecy; and it is the zealously orthodox who are the first to throw stones at the prophets. One can see this sort of thing throughout church history, and it is still happening even today.
.
> btw, John also wrote under inspiration "(words of Jesus) I am the way the truth and the life no man
> commeth unto the Father but by me". (John 14:6). are you trusting in Jesus for your eternal life?
> I would hope that you are.            --  written word
.
 My dear written word, frankly I don't give a shit about eternal life, or what may or may not happen in the great beyond (after death). My SOLE concern is with this life HERE & NOW! It is this world that brings the Lord to tears. It is these lukewarm Christians (more pagan than True Believer) who offend the Heavenly Father with their watered down gospel, and zealous Friendship with the World. Christians who seek after eternal glory are missing the point. Christians who look for signs of the End Times are also missing the point. Christians who think that this or that denomination is the apple of God's eye are also missing the point. The Faith is about following Jesus. It's about individual men and women opening their hearts to the Truth, and being transformed by it.    . . . This is precisely what Christianity today is NOT about!

P.S.  "And so, on every possible point, modern Christianity is a wretched lie; so far as
it pretends to be the Christianity of the New Testament" (from Kierkegaard's Journals).

IMPERFECT BIBLE 2

/ Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible / Subject > Re: The Imperfect Bible / 19 July 1998 /

] Michael Allen Gates wrote:  Deut 4:2: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
] neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD
] your God which I command you. KJV
.
> aitinc replies: But we see historical changes in the bible right through the first 6 centuries. When
> a letter from a bishop quotes the bible and then 100 years later we get a different letter, it's
> pretty strong evidence that the book is changing. The NT was written from 54 ad (Paul) through
> the early 2nd century. Many books that were in the early bibles were taken out when this version
> was finally chosen. The Word changes constantly.
.
 textman say: Dear aitinc, yes it does, but what do you mean by "when this version was finally chosen"? There never was any one version that was universally accepted and used by all the churches. Constantine and the bishops did manage to introduce a stable canon; but that was in the fourth century, not the second. In the same way, the NT began round about 49CE with the first of the four Thessalonian letters composed by both Silvanus and Paul. The latter only went solo after the two missionaries squabbled over eschatology. Yes, Paul was never much of a collaborator, but he could not really do much of anything without the help and support of others (eg. Timothy).
.
] MAG: Deut 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto,
] nor diminish from it. (KJV)
.
> aitinc: Go on and quote Deut 13 while your at it. (I'm ducking in case of stones).
.
] Prov 30:5,6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou
] not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (KJV) Rev 22:18: For I testify unto
] every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these
] things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: (KJV)
.
> Those poor pre-KJV christians (and KJ himself).
.
 Dear Michael, aitinc has a point. If we were to understand Deuteronomy literally, and follow its directives absolutely - as you clearly imply - then there could be no Bible as we now have it. The prophets, writings, and NT are ALL of them *additions* to Torah (ie. the Five Books of Moses). Where would your KJV be then, oh Literal One? According to your logic we should all be ancient Hebrews holding only the Torah to be the sacred and literal word of God!
.
 Wut a maroon!

/ Re: The Imperfect Bible / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics / 19 July 1998 /
.
] textman wrote: THE IMPERFECT BIBLE / Subject: Re: 21st Century Nietzsche / 16July-98 /  <snip>
] You're quite right, of course. Indeed, the gospel remains VERY rude, even today.  <snip>
.
> Reepicheep replies: True. But if anything "offends" it should be the message and the manner
> in which the message is presented. There is a big difference.
.
 tx: Dear Reepicheep, Huh? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Did you inadvertently leave out the word 'not'; as in "... the message and not the manner ..."? That would make more sense to me. ... So IF this is what you mean, then I'll agree; in principle. In practice, however, it is not so easy to separate the message and manner, as the two are necessarily and intimately linked. So if my manner of presenting the gospel is so offensive to so many people, it is only because I am acutely aware of just how rude and offensive the message truly is!
.
] tx: Yes, but bear in mind that this does NOT mean that everything has been done to perfection, and
] therefore cannot be changed. God inspired the authors of scripture, but he did not make them perfect
] creatures first. No, they remained imperfect, limited and fallible creatures. Thus errors could and did
] enter the text even as it was being written (eg. spelling errors in Jn; see P52).
.
> R: I don't think so. The Bible itself claims that its writers wrote as they were moved by the
> Holy Spirit (2Peter 1:21) and that every word is "God-breathed" (2Tim 3:16).
.
 I quite agree with all that; but this does NOT refute or negate what I just said above.
.
> Also, Jesus Himself, and other Biblical writers, would appeal to specific words or even the
> grammatical forms of words to prove a point.
.
 This does not demonstrate infallibility either ...
.
> So they did in fact believe every "jot and tittle" was God-breathed.
.
 None of which guarantees perfection and/or infallibility. Nor should we expect it to. The only perfect revelation on this side of death is Jesus (the living incarnate Word). The Bible is also divine revelation, but it does not, and cannot, be 'perfect and absolute' in the same way that Jesus was/is. This is a necessary distinction that must be made. Jesus hasn't changed over the last 20 centuries (although peoples understanding of Him certainly has), but the Bible has never ceased changing (and probably never will).
.
] tx: In the same way, the assembling and transmission of the sacred books was also done by
] imperfect creatures who also introduced errors into the texts. There are lots of displaced words,
] verses, and passages in both testaments. [snip] A lot of work remains to be done in order to
] bring the text into a better alignment with the original manuscripts.
.
> R: A lot of work HAS already been done in this regard. Textual critics all agree on about 97% of
> the text. Now there is still debate on the remaining 3% between advocates of the different kinds
> of published Greek texts (i.e. the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and the Critical Text). But
> even in this 3% most of the time the dispute text is rather insignificant. Significant textual variants
> are generally footnoted in most modern versions. The NKJV does a particularly good job in this in
> footnote the differences between the above three texts. For more on this subject, see the following
> article on my site: http://www.dtl.org/dtl/article/precious.htm   See also the items listed under
> Greek-Text-Types on the following site:http://www.dtl.org/subject/versions.htm
.
 I think you're missing the point here, good buddy. Today's textual critics may well agree on the specific words used, and their traditional arrangement ... But that is NOT my main concern. I'm much more interested in re-arranging displaced verses and pericopae, and re-ordering the NT books to a more logical and chronological arrangement (as opposed to the current canonical format). Thus 4X, Luke-Acts ought to be presented as one book in two parts, and the first page of this revised NT would not be the opening geneaology of Matthew, but rather the first of the four Thessalonian letters. It is these sorts of changes that the textual critics don't bother themselves with, because they are very not interested in presenting the scriptures in a more Reader-friendly manner to the benefit of all Christians. Apparently, the cyber-prophet is the only one who actually troubles himself about such 'irrelevant' things as making the Bible more coherent and intelligible for the People of God.
.
] tx: The youngest OT book is undoubtedly the Wisdom of Solomon, which was written during
] the lifetime of Jesus (or shortly before). The last NT book was probably Jude (or 2Peter).
.
> R: This is assuming the Apocrypha is Scripture.
.
 There are no assumptions about it. The Book of Wisdom IS scripture every bit as much as any other book in the Bible. And if there be churches and individuals who fail to accept it as holy writ, or think it (and the others) of no or minor consequence ... well, that is most unfortunate for them! While some books are clearly more important than others (eg. Jm), none are entirely insignificant or irrelevant to the Faith.
.
> As one who does not, I would say Malachi, written about 400 BC would be the last OT book.
.
 I do believe that Daniel is younger than that. ... 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; largely because the rabbis mistakenly believed it to be much older than it really is.
.
> And conservative scholars would date Jude to about 65 AD;
.
 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 4X, 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 and when and why! Thus the dating of James and Jude is NOT based on historical science and scrupulous research, but is derived by virtue of theological necessities!    . .
.
 The prophet saith: How bloody STUPID can you get?!
.
>  whereas The Revelation is generally dated to about 95 AD.
.
 Can we assume therefore that you think that all the NT books were completed and in place before the mysteriously magical cut-off point (ie. 100CE ... which, in those days, did not even exist in anyone's mind)?! You see how it works, dear Reader? They assume that no NT book could possibly have been wriiten after what we call 100CE, because then the Bible just wouldn't be *authoritative* enough!  The prophet saith: AARRGGGHHH!!!
.
] tx: [snip] No, he didn't. The future is NOT set in stone!
] We determine what the future will bring by the things we do today . . .
.
> R: The Bible is very clear that God does indeed know the end from the beginning: OT: Gen 15:13f;
> Exod 3;19; Deut 31:15-21; 1Ki 13:1f (see 2Ki 23:15f); 1Ki 14:12f,17f; Josh 6:2 (see 1Ki 16:34); Ps
> 139:4, 16; Isa 40:12-14, 27-31; 41:21-24; 44:6-8; 48:3-5; 65:24; Jer 1:5; 32:3-5 (cp. Ezek 12:13;
> 2Ki 25:5-7); Dan 2:28. NT: Matt 2:4-6; Eph 1:3f; Acts 3:18; 15:16-18; 1Cor 15:3f; Rev 13:8; 17:8.
> The above is copied from my Scripture study "The Attributes of God" - http://www.dtl.org/study/god.htm
.
 God may indeed have a general idea of where things will finally end up, but this does not, and cannot, mean that the entire course of history is pre-set and unalterable. To think in this way is to reduce us all to mere insignificant cyphers caught up and enslaved to a deterministic machine. In the same way, we could not therefore be held accountable for anything that we do ...
.
] tx: This is and was always the case. In 95CE there was no way to predict what the formation of the canon
] would result in. 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, but it did not HAVE to be.
.
> R: It was not "luck" - this is not a Biblical concept.
.
 Call it chance or good fortune or synchronicity or fate or serendipity then. ... Same difference.
.
> God is sovereign is a constant refrain of the Scriptures.
> And His sovereignty includes being sovereign over the decisions of people.
.
 Eh? Just what the hell do you mean by this? ... You had better not mean what I think you mean! ... That is, yet another case of reality taking a back seat to theological speculations and ideological fancies.
.
> See the following Scripture study for hundreds of verses in this regard:
> http://www.dtl.org/study/sovereignty.htm
.
] tx: [snip] My dear written word, frankly I don't give a crap about eternal life, or what may or may
] not happen in the great beyond (after death). My SOLE concern is with this life HERE & NOW!
.
> R: This is a unbiblical concept.
.
  HA! Fat chance, pal!
.
> Jesus and the Biblical writers spoke much about the afterlife.
.
 The Bible is hardly obsessed about the matter; and when it does speak of such things, it is always to the end of properly orienting us to live, and appreciate the value of, 'the day' (ie. today). 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. 'The Church pours forth peace of mind that all may live together in harmony and good will.' Yes (alas), that is all too often the case. But the ancient Hebrews were not at all like this! For them, life after death was little more than a kind of shadowy half-life; more akin to the world of dreams (hint, hint). They did not need visions of future peaceful paradises to know how to live well. They were not 'content with their lot in life'. They knew, like the early Christians did, that life is a constant never-ending striving-after we know not what. It is only when the promises are built up and built up this way and that, until all expectations are just so, that the trouble starts. 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?
.
> Paul even declared that to depart and be with the Lord was much better than to remain here (Phil 1:23).
.
 Of course it is. Paradise is much better than this World of Vanity & Tears. ... But this does not mean that we must set our minds on future glory to the end of ignoring the value and meaning of the present moment. Yes, we *are* creatures of Eternity; but for us mere mortals, this exists only within the Eternal Now!
.
] tx: Christians who seek after eternal glory are missing the point.
.
> R: Then I guess Paul and the rest of the apostles missed the point; because this was exactly
> what they were looking for. See the above and many other verses that could be cited.
.
 Yes, it is apparent that Paul and the early churches also expected the Lord to return quickly and realize their glorious ambitions by putting down the Romish Beast in a most impressive and melodramatic manner. Well, that did not happen, of course. No; but the Lord did indeed put down the Empire in his own good time. And when the time came, there was Augustine and Jerome and many another good saint to watch it all unfold as it should. Thus we see that the promises are fulfilled through and within the historical process.
.
] Christians who look for signs of the End Times are also missing the point.
.
> On this I will agree with you, in part. Yes Christians do sometimes spend too much time focussing
> on trying to figure out what is going to happen at the End. But to be looking forward to Jesus'
> return is definitely Biblical (Titus 2:13).
.
 Of course it is. Christians have always prayed 'Maranatha' (Come, Lord Jesus) ... And rightly so; for he shall indeed return ... When the time is right ... And none shall know *that* hour (as the scriptures testify).

/ Re: The Imperfect Bible / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics / 19 July 1998 /
.
] Reepicheep wrote:  Also, Jesus Himself, and other Biblical writers,
.
>> John Ings answers: Woah! Hold on there now! Jesus was a Biblical writer? Just where do we find
>> his writing in the Bible, as opposed to purported quotations of his sayings by unknown authors?
.
> Reepicheep replies: A slip of the keyboard on my part. Sorry about that. I meant to say, as I did
> elsewhere in my post, Jesus and the Biblical writers. As for the question of whether Jesus really
> did say the things recorded by the Gospel writers and the authorship of the writers I would refer
> you to the many books written by conservative scholars in this regard. <snip>
.
  textman comments: Gag me with a spoon, why don't ya!
.
] R: A lot of work HAS already been done in this regard. Textual critics all agree on about 97% of
] the text. Now there is still debate on the remaining 3% between advocates of the different kinds
] of published Greek texts (i.e. the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and the Critical Text).
.
>> JI: Ignoring of course, reams of scripture burned by the Paulists after
>> they became the state church and had the power to purge rival sects.
.
 These are very minor crimes compared to the destruction in flames of the unrivaled library in Alexandria at the hands of an angry Christian mob. ... An act that clearly demonstrates the onset of corruption!
.
> R: Not ignoring anything. If you had actually studied textual criticism you would know why there is
> such a confidence in regards to the integrity of the NT text. Again, I refer you to the articles on my
> site on this subject. If you haven't studied this subject, the following article would be a good place
> to start: Introduction to Textual Criticism     http://www.dtl.org/versions/book/criticism.htm
.
 And what, pray tell, is preventing you from sharing with us, in summary form, your conclusions on this important matter? ... Please complete the following sentence: The integrity of the text of the NT is based on ...?
.
] R: The Bible is very clear that God does indeed know the end from the beginning:
.
>> JI: And what happens to free will?
.
> R: The whole question of the relationship of the so called free-will of people and the
> sovereignty of God is complex one.
.
 In other words, he can't answer this question rationally and coherently.
.
> I discuss this some on my site. But overall, Biblically, IMO, the sovereignty of God is supreme.
.
 Wut? Free will is not 'biblical' enough? In other words, human realities must always take a back seat to theological speculations. In any conflict between reality and pious ideas of great antiquity, it is always truth and reality that must needs give way. No; I'm very sorry, Reepicheep, but that just doesn't work anymore. All theology must begin from the acceptance of the brute fact that God is always a Mystery Beyond Words. We cannot capture God's essence in words or creeds. To even TRY to do so is to hand oneself over at once to 'a strong delusion'.
.
>>> tx: [snip] My dear written word, frankly I don't give a shit about eternal life, or what may or may
>>> not happen in the great beyond (after death). My SOLE concern is with this life HERE & NOW!
.
] R: This is a unbiblical concept.
.
>> JI: I was going to say that  . . .
.
> R: Hey, we agree on something!
.
 You can both agree. And you can both be wrong. Both the OT & NT prophets and writers were concerned with the Eternal Now first and foremost. All talk of infinity and such is secondary at best. Even in Paul. Check it out ...
.
>> JI: Meanwhile you folks should be aware how much comfort all this dissent provides for us unbelievers.
.
Oh John, please DO grow up. Jesus has always been 'a contentious issue'!
.
> R: The questions being debated here, for the most, do affect the heart of the Christian faith, the integrity
> of the Bible. More specifically, it is questions in regards to "liberal Christianity" vs "conservative Christianity."
> I, of course follow the latter. IMO, the former is not really historic Christianity but a new religion altogether.
> So it is simply a debate between difference religions. So I do not see why it gives you "comfort." There are
> many different religions and world-views, secular and religious. People will always disagree. That is why
> we have these debates in Newsgroups! -- <> Reepicheep <> Darkness to Light <> http://www.dtl.org <>
.
 Yes; well, I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself, textman is not here to debate the differences between worldviews (or whatnot). No, indeed! The cyber-prophet is here, rather, at the behest of the Lord Jesus Christ; to bring the light of truth to the darkened minds and twisted hearts of this lost and arrogant generation ...

/ Subject > Re: Imperfect Bible 2 / 23 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics /
.
>>> Reepicheep wrote: <snip> As one who does not, I would say Malachi, written about 400 BC
>>> would be the last OT book.
.
>> textman answered: I do believe that Daniel is younger than that.
.
> john.ings@ottawa.com replies: A lot younger.
.
>> 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;
.
> Greek? Where did you get that? Daniel was written in Hebrew with some Aramaic portions.
.
 textman say: Huh? Hebrew? Where did you get that? ... I get my Greek Daniel from the (greek) LXX.
.
>> tx: largely because the rabbis mistakenly believed it to be much older than it really is.
.
> JI: 164 BCE plus or minus a year.
.
  Right. So then Malachi can't really be the last OT book.
.
>>> R: And conservative scholars would date Jude to about 65 AD;
.
>> tx: 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 4X, 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 and when & why!
.
> JI: 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. 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. No indeed! All the evidence suggests that John came first ... therefore theological developments are not always a reliable guide to the when and the why of things.
.
> The theology or the technology or the scriptography or the geography
> or any other intellectual development which has a chronology . . .
.
  Huh?
.
>> 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.
.
>> 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. Historians ALSO have their blinkers on ... just like everyone else.
.
>>>> textman previously wrote: <snip> In 95CE there was no way to predict what the process of
>>>> the formation of the canon would result in. 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,
.
> We are? Why?
.
 Because it is one of the few prophetic books that the early Christians had. Many resisted its inclusion in the canon because it was almost too prophetic. One might even say that it was a dangerous book. Prophecy is, you see, always dangerous to a self-satisfied and content faith because it tends to unduly disturb things.
.
>>> R: It was not "luck" - this is not a Biblical concept.
.
>> tx: Call it chance or good fortune or synchronicity or fate or serendipity then. ...
.
> JI: How about church politics?
.
 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.
.
>>>> tx: [snip] My dear written word, frankly I don't give a shit about eternal life, or what may or may
>>>> not happen in the great beyond (after death). My SOLE concern is with this life HERE & NOW!
.
>>> R: This is a unbiblical concept.
.
>> tx: HA! Fat chance, pal!
.
>>> R: Jesus and the Biblical writers spoke much about the afterlife.
.
>> tx: The Bible is hardly obsessed about the matter;
.
> JI: The New Testament is.
.
 Really? 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?
.
>> 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. Paul believed, at first, that Christ would return quickly to set things right. When that didn't happen, he admitted that maybe the return could be delayed. In any case, we are to live as if the End was coming soon. And this is still a good idea in some ways; as it tends to put the present in the proper (cosmic) perspective.
.
>> But the ancient Hebrews were not at all like this!
.
> They didn't have a heavenly reward to offer. No pie in the sky to compensate for a miserable existence.
.
  Exactly. They were well motivated to live well in this life!
.
>> tx: For them, life after death was little more than a kind of shadowy half-life;
>> more akin to the world of dreams (hint, hint).
.
> JI: Correct.
.
>> They 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! ... But this does not mean that the promises were not fulfilled; only that they take an unexpected form. 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, and ultimately it cost them Jerusalem and their beloved temple.
.
>> 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?
.
> Yup. Yeshua was a fraud.
.
 Wrong again, John. Jesus made no bones about the fact that he was NOT the sort of messiah that the zealots hoped for. That's why he was leary of having anyone call him the Messiah (cf. the gospel of Mark for the theme of the so-called 'messianic secret').
.
>>> Then I guess Paul and the rest of the apostles missed the point; because this was exactly what
>>> they were looking for. See the above and many other verses that could be cited.
.
>> Yes, it is apparent that Paul and the early churches also expected the Lord to return quickly and realize
>> their glorious ambitions by putting down the Romish Beast in a most impressive and melodramatic
>> manner. Well, that did not happen, of course.
.
> Paul was a fraud too . . .
.
 Paul had no real conception of what the future would bring, but that hardly makes him a fraud;
only a limited and fallible human being like every one else.
.
>> No; but the Lord did indeed put down the Empire in his own good time.
.
> 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.
.
 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. 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!
.
>> 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.
.
  Hey; sometimes the only way up is to go down first ...
.
>> Thus we see that the promises are fulfilled through and within the historical process.
.
> Spare us from such 'fulfilments'!
.
  LOL ... okay.

<deja vu department>

>>>>>> tx: [snip] My dear written word, frankly I don't give a crap about eternal life,
>>>>>> or what may or may not happen in the great beyond (after death). My SOLE
>>>>>> concern is with this life HERE & NOW!
.
>>>>> Reepicheep replies: This is a unbiblical concept.
.
>>>> John responds: I was going to say that  . . .
.
>>> Reepicheep answers: Hey, we agree on something!
.
>> textman adds: You can both agree. And you can both be wrong. Both the OT & NT prophets
>> and writers were concerned with the Eternal Now first and foremost.
.
> John replies: The NT writers were concerned with the here and now only as a
> necessary gateway to salvation.
.
>> All talk of infinity and such is secondary at best. Even in Paul. Check it out ...
.
> You check it out. Romans 2:6  Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
.
  That is: our deeds in this life!
.
> 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
> eternal life:8But 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: Standard carrot and stick, reward and punishment. Not virtue for its own sake,
> but virtue as a means to an end.
.
 Virtue is always a means to an end. Only the angels can practice virtue for its own sake.
.
>>>> JI: Meanwhile you folks should be aware how much comfort all this dissent provides
>>>> for us unbelievers.
.
>> Oh John, please DO grow up. Jesus has always been: 'a contentious issue'!
.
> Jesus? Don't be so parochial! ALL religion is contentious, and that is so because gods
> don't reveal themselves, and we wouldn't recognize them if they did.
.
 Oh ye of little faith! I have no trouble at all recognizing the divine in Jesus. Neither do millions of other Christians.
.
>> <snip> Yes; well, I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself, textman is not here to debate the
>> differences between world views (or whatnot). No, indeed! The prophet is here, rather, at the behest
>> of the Lord Jesus Christ; to bring the light of truth to the darkened minds and twisted hearts of this
>> lost and arrogant generation ...
.
> No conceit in his family. HE's got it all  . . .   :-)
.
  LOL ... Let's pray I don't pass it along to the next generation!
.
> ###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!

/ Re: Imperfect Bible - Part 3 / 26 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> rtryals wrote: Why would anyone that doesnt believe in the Bible as being the God inspired man
> written Word of God be posting messages in a CHRISTIAN BIBLE STUDY newsgroup?
.
 Dear rtryals, are you out of your cottin-pickin mind?! ... Sorry. Let me put that another way: I hope it's not me you're referring to here. Is it? Because if it is, then I strongly suggest you revise your very hastily jumped to conclusions. In fact, I DO believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God!!! Pay attention you!
.
                                   - one who dislikes those who don't know how to read - textman ;>
.
 [ Note to the Reader: Actually, I do believe that rtryals was referring to friend John ...  ]

IMPERFECT BIBLE 3B

/ Re: The Imperfect Bible / 31 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics /
.
> John Ings wrote: <snippage much> There IS no foundation to the Christian faith.
.
 Dear John, of course there is. The foundation is not the Book, but rather the knowledge of the truth that Jesus is Messiah and the Son of Man. OK, let me put it another way: Christianity is based on the foundation of faith in Jesus as our Savior. When you say there is no foundation you really just mean that the foundation is insufficient for the fabled 'rational man'. To that point I will agree with you; since to the rational man faith is nothing, and therefore the Faith is based on nothing. ... Nothing but spiritual realities!!!
.
> Words in a book written by unknown authors for unknown motives don't make any kind of
> foundation one can trust.
.
 But John, surely you don't mean to imply that the Bible is just like any other 'religious' book? Will Christians reject the Bible if they start thinking that it's not perfect? Will they reject it because evolution proves the opening chapters are myth? Maybe some will. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. No, the Bible endures because it's not a historical record but a witness to spiritual realities. You can't read the scriptures with understanding unless you first open your heart to receive the Truth. If you try to read it like any other book, then of course you'll be sorely disappointed!
.
>> <more snippage> Garth Hodnett wrote:
>> But it seems to me that the event of Jesus as the Messiah is both a historical fact
.
> I strongly disagree. I feel the historical evidence is that he was just one of dozens of would-be messiahs,
> preaching Kingdom of God activism.
.
 Wut? You don't see that Jesus was unique in any way? Just think about it John. In a world ruled by violence and fantastic expectations, this messiah preached love of our enemies, and went out of his way to dispel the notion that he was a military messiah. Even this much is enough to set him apart from 99% of the human race!
.
> <still more snippage> Oh foo! Priests have been selling that sheepdip to the suckers for millennia. The
> whole concept of angry gods that need placating with sacrifices and supplications has made a nice
> livelihood for holy men from time immemorial.
.
  LOL ... I think you got the right stuff on this point, John.
.
>> GH: But the subjective aspect calls for equal emphasis. If Jesus had not impressed himself as the messiah
>> on his disciples and through them upon all following generations, the man 'Jesus' would perhaps be
>> remembered as an important person, but not as the Messiah.
.
> There was no man called Jesus, only a certain Rabbi Y'shua ben Yussef, who I suspect would be outraged
> at the idea of Paul's followers making a god out of him. Legends can grow from the most unlikely seeds,
> and Y'shua's impression on his disciples had little to do with Paul's invention of a new religion and his
> proseletizing decades afterward and hundreds of miles away. What happened throughout the Roman
> empire in the 2nd and 3rd centuries has more to do with what Christianity is than anything that
> happened in Judea in the 1st. <more snippage>
.
 Not necessarily. This is a certain logic to history, even church history, that can't be gotten around so easily as your radical break between Jesus and Paul implies. There is also a small measure of continuity ... that did tend to vanish as the centuries passed by. Hells Bells, John, if those first generations had not written things down we would have no idea what things were like for them. Even with the scriptures nonsense can, did, and still does flourish! You have only to look at the absurd doctrines and dogmas of the Romish Church to see that people will believe anything; and the more outrageous the better! However, none of this means that the truth is nowhere to be found. ... Hey John, check this out: Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will be opened to you. Believe it!
.
>> GH: But faith does gaurantee the actual transformation of reality in that personal life which the NT
>> expresses in its picture of Jesus as the messiah. The certainty of faith is an existential concept.
.
> JI: Metaphysics again. Explaining the unexplainable by resorting to the unintelligible! <snip>
.
 LOL ... Metaphysics is the last refuge of the scoundrel, right John?
.
>> Would you have us reduce our language to purely scientific, logical, moral and historical categories?
.
> I would indeed. Then you would perforce have to make sense or abandon the field.
.
 I'd rather abandon the field than try to talk about Jesus, scripture, or church history in a detached and dispassionate manner. I tell you truly John, you will NEVER understand what the Bible says, or what Jesus is about, with that sort of approach. How much is our soul worth? What is the weight of humility? How deep is the human heart? How long is a virtue? These questions are nonsense; yet that is exactly what the scientific approach to scripture attempts to do!
.
 Measure the unmeasurable? No way Jose!
.
> <snip> They're sure to take those myths literally, and as the philosopher observed
> "faith, once wedded to a falsehood, hugs it to the last!"
.
 The proof of this observation is everywhere to be seen in church history. I think that ridding ourselves of illusions is very probably the hardest and most painful thing that people can do. It's an ongoing and never-ending enterprise. In this vast sea of Christian confusion and diversity, the only solid and stable thing we can always rely on is the love of Jesus. 'Love as I love' saith the Lord!
.
> <snip> Faith is a light sleeper, easily awakened. It seems to be reason that is hard
> to awaken in many people.
.
  I tend to agree.
.
> JI: <snip> Fundamentally I am an agnostic, a true follower in the way espoused by Thomas Huxley.
> I am also a materialist, in the philosophical sense of the word, that is to say the opposite of a mystic.
> The concept of supernatural beings meddling with the world repels me.
.
 LOL ... then you won't mind if I send a few demons round to your place to mess up your various machines and appliances and stuff? Watch out for them gremlins; they're the worst!
.
> By default I am an atheist, though an agnostic can be a theist and even a Christian according to some
> definitions of Christianity. I am also a Secular Humanist, so you can mentally at least, pin horns and a
> forked tail on me if you like!
.
 Why Johnny, that's exactly what I was thinking. Huxley with a red pitchfork and goats legs! That's you! 
.
> ## Faith enslaves thought so as not to be troubled by doubt
.
 Not exactly. Faith does not dispel all doubt. It only provides us with an anchor on which we can rely when the storms and darkness threaten to overwhelm us. Try reading the book of Jonah. It is not an historical account of any actual events, but it is about as pure as truth can get for such limited and fallible creatures as we are!