ON REASON AND FOOLISHNESS/1
[Or: The Seeds of Paine!]

/ Was Topic >  Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus #8  / Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 21 Sept 2000 /

>> textman answered: Dear RevP, some of the words are undoubtedly the uninspired words of scribes
>> inserted into the text in some feeble attempt to improve upon the original uncorrupted texts; but
>> even so, the entire Christian tradition is firm upon the point that these particular books are somehow
>> divinely inspired. Therefore we are not in error in referring to the Holy Bible as the Word of God.
.
> On 18Sept Rev Peter replied: Pure speculation on your part. WE don't have any of these
> "uncorrupted" texts around; therefore you cannot prove there ever was any such thing.
.
 textman answers: Dear RevP, if I hold an apple in my hand, is it "pure speculation" to suppose that it probably came from an apple tree? In the same way, we do not need to have the original autographs in hand to know that (at one time) they did exist. And since these autographs are the original source of all subsequent copies, they are (by definition) uncorrupted (which is *not* the same as saying that they were "perfect").
.
> The Bible is the Words of Man about YHWH, and later Jesus -- that is all they are, nothing more.
> One can argue that it is a collection of opinions.
.
 Why would anyone want to do that?
.
>>> RP: Your incapacity to realize this only proves that you are essentially a sophist.
.
>> tx: I don't think so, RevP. A sophist believes in nothing (except perhaps money), and therefore plays
>> with words solely for their effect upon the listener. In other words, a sophist cares nothing for the truth
>> of things, and so is essentially a nihilist. It seems to me, therefore, that a person without faith (such as
>> yourself) is far more likely to be a sophist than a person of faith.
.
> Sophists are human beings,
.
 ... faithless human beings,
.
> as such they are motivated by the same things which motivate human beings.
.
 ... which motivate faithless human beings.
.
> It is funny you mention money; for money is the driving force behind institutionalized religion, and
> institutionalized religion is ALWAYS built on a revealed religion.
.
 Money is necessary for any institution (religious or otherwise), but it certainly cannot be the driving force behind the practice of true religion: "Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep yourself unstained by the world." -- James 1:27/NETbible
.
> Faith is merely a word fanatics use so as to avoid the truth. Faith is the enenmy of Truth. I have Reason,
> which is infinitely superior to the faith of any xian.
.
 "God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him?' But we have the mind of Christ." -- 1Cor.2:10-16/NETbible
.
>>> RP: Try proving that the scribes who wrote these 'scriptures' were telling the truth.
.
>> tx: The only people who require "proof" of the truth of scripture are those who have already
>> made up their minds that their is no truth in the scriptures.
.
> RP: Muslims make exactly the same claims for their scriptures, the Qur'an. No textman, I did not start off
> a skeptic. I started off a bible believing xian [much to my shame] and then one day I started to read what
> was ACTUALLY written on those "divine" pages and came to the conclusion that I had been deceived and
> deceived myself with this Jewish Iliad of false prophecies and inane teachings. There is no truth in
> Scriptures; of course it took me 30 years to figure it out.
.
tx: Well, that's most interesting, Pete, because I *did* start out as a skeptic and a rationalist. When I went to university, I studied philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. And you know what I found out? I found out that anthropology could not answer my questions about humankind. And I found out that sociology hasn't got the first clue why cultures and societies are the way they are. And I found out that philosophy, for the most part, cannot answer the really important questions either. For example: Socrates was of the opinion that evil is basically the result of ignorance. But the 20th century has demonstrated just how false that idea is. So much for reason! And when I finally turned back to the Lord, he showed me the true source of evil -> the human heart (cut off from God).
.
 It took me a long time to realize that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church have nothing in common with the truth of the Word of God, but I did not abandon the Lord because of the perversity and corruption of those false churches that claim the Bible as their own. The Word of God does not belong to the churches; it belongs only to those who truly love the Lord, and are willing to place their faith, not in false idols (such as priests, reason, inerrant paper-popes, science and technology, "infallible" doctrines, etc etc), but rather in He who loved us unto death!
.
>>>> tx: Allow me then to try and shed some much needed light upon this confusing matter.
.
>>> RP: There is no confusion, it is a FACT that the bible is written by men;
.
>> tx: By men, women, *and* the Spirit of Truth.
.
> RP: Can you name a single woman who wrote a book in the Bible?
.
 I don't know the name (or names) of the woman who collaborated with the Spirit for her contribution to the scriptures, but I do know the name of the book she wrote. It can be found in the Old Testament portion, under the category of the Wisdom literature. It has several names really, but the most common is 'The Song of Songs'; which is erroneously attributed to Solomon. One brief glance at the text, however, will easily show that no mere man (be he oh so inspired) could *ever* have enough wisdom to write like that! Nuff Said ...
.
> As for your Spirit of Truth, that is merely a Peter Pan character with no foundation in reality.
.
 Well, Rev, if truth has no foundation in reality, then none of our Readers can in any way be obliged to consider this last statement of yours to be true ... Right?  :)
.
> Muslims and Mormons make similar claims.
.
 You mean that people other than Christians are able to acknowledge the reality of prophets
and spirit and truth? ... Well! I am deeply offended by *that*, sir ... NOT!
.
> Here is an interesting passage which disqualifies the word "truth" from the Bible: Jer. 8:8, "How can you
> say, 'We are wise, and the law [word] of the Lord is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
> Has made it [scripture] into a lie."
.
 Don't you just *love* Jeremiah? He's absolutely right, of course. The priests and bible scholars and church historians and scribes have all contributed enormous efforts and resources in confusing the wisdom of the scriptures, in scattering the commands of the Lord, in laying waste the truth of God, such that all the churches, and all their many teachers and preachers of the law, no longer have any right to say that "the word of the Lord is with us"! For they have bounded the Sacred Text with chains of traditions, and collars of liturgy, and ropes of ignorant assumptions, so that Christians today are simply unable to see the Spirit of the Logos for all the noise and flak that sits unbreachable between the eyes of the Reader and the seemingly clear Text. So yes, there may be little spirit and truth in the confused minds of the Readers, but this does not mean that there is no spirit and truth in the Text itself!
.
> So much for the Spirit of Truth working with the Scribes. Jer.20:7, "O Lord, Thou hast deceived me
> and I was deceived; Thou hast overcome me and prevailed...."
.
 Yet even so, some few scribes have sometimes managed to peer through the fog.
.
> YHWH, the father of deception.
.
 The Father of Lights only appears as such when self-deceivers project their unknowing
onto texts that are unable to defend themselves.
.
> Eze.14:9, "If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet, and I will
> stretch out my hand against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."
.
 A clear warning meant for *all* false prophets and teachers.
.
> YHWH, destroyer of Jesus.
.
 The Father of Lights, who *will* move against the priests and false teachers and ministers
of the Word who deceive His People  ... And is doing so even now!
.
> Ezek. 20: 25-26,"25 Wherefore I GAVE THEM also statutes that were not good, AND judgments whereby
> they should not live; 26 and I POLLUTED THEM in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the
> fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I
> am the Lord."
.
 In other words, the prophet can see the spiritual desolation that exists among the churches that
claim God as the source of their own polluted statutes, judgments, customs, and traditions.
.
> Here bible god admits to instituting human sacrifice. YHWH, the human sacrifing god.
.
 Your interpretation is not only false, but ridiculous as well.
.
>>> RevP: <snip> ... who could not even agree on the basics.
.
>> They all agree that God exists, and cares enough about humankind to become personally
>> involved with their lives. Accordingly, I'd say that they *do* agree at least upon the basics.
.
> RevP: They cannot agree as to the God in question. Prior to Jeremiah, YHWH is nothing
> but a blood thirsty beast who delights in butchery of animals and people.
.
 Never heard of the prophet Amos, have you?
.
> After Jeremiah he becomes a little more civilized.
.
 But only a little ...  :)
.
> IN Jesus' time, Judaism was divided into hostle sects each with their own idea of what YHWH was.
.
 Spiritual growth is a slow and painful process, no doubt.
.
> To the Pharisees, YHWH was a zorostrian type god.
.
 Seems to me that the Essenes (with their cosmic dualism of the forces of Light and Darkness)
were far more like the Zoroastrians than the Pharisees (who are far more like unto Catholics).
.
>>>> tx: Let us begin by recognizing that the Gospel of Matthew is a deliberate revision
>>>> of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter.
.
>>> RevP: Sophism.
.
>> tx: Biblical science and scholarship.
.
> RevP: There is no such thing as biblical science, or biblical scholarship.
.
 Oh really?
.
> In both cases, theologicans
.
 "theologicans"? What's that? A word of your own devising?
.
> [highly trained sophists]
.
 If theologicans = sophists then what do you need the word 'theologicans' for? Are you perhaps suggesting that theologian = sophist? I thought I was talking about bible scholars ... Or are we also to suppose that bible-scholar = theologian = sophist?! ... Boy! You sure do like to simplify things, don't you? ... Hey! You're not the Master of the Universe by any chance, are you?
.
> approach the work ALREADY under the conviction that it is the word of God and must be figured out.
.
 "figured out"? Sounds to me like you're talking about how a rationalist approaches the Word of God -> ALREADY under the conviction that it is *NOT* the Word of God and must therefore be figured out. Hmmmmm ... Does this mean that rationalist = sophist? Naaaa, that would be too easy!  LOL
.
> That is a violation of the principles of Science and Scholarship.
.
 Dear Rev Peter, *you* are a violation of the principles of Science and Scholarship!
.
> A scientist and scholar approaches his work under the conviction that it is unknow.
.
 Wut? "unknow"? Is this *another* word of your own devising? Wut? There's just not enough words
in the English language for you, so you gots to make up some more?! Good grief!
.
> The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches,
.
 As it *squats* in Christian churches maybe ...  :)
.
> is the study of nothing;
.
 Well then it ought to be easy enough for know-nothings to master!
.
> it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can
> demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without
> our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with
> Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing." -- Thomas Paine
.
 Then why do universities and colleges give out degrees and diplomas for the study of nothing? btw: All this is irrelevant since I was talking about the biblical sciences (which study the Bible), *not* the theological sciences as such. Or are we supposed to assume, along with you (apparently), that Bible = nothing?!
.
> RP: Science and Scholarship are based on REASON;
.
 Actually, they're based on *faith* in the validity and consistency of rational thinking and methods ...
Neither of which can be *proved*, btw.
.
> theology and its related fields are based on faith -- they lack the impartiality necessary
> to give them credibility.
.
 So what? The Bible can be studied by people with faith, and by people without faith. If those without faith fancy that their approach is credible and valid *because* their lack of faith necessarily makes them impartial, then they are the ones who are laboring under a mass of self-deception and delusion!
.
>>> RevP: Try proving that the gospel according to Mark, was written by
>>> a man named Mark? There is no internal evidence to its authorship.
.
>> It's true that *most* of the evidence regarding authorship comes from outside sources, but there
>> are also a few hints and clues within the text that suggest that the first gospel was a collaborative
>> effort by Mark and Peter.
.
> RevP: For example?
.
 4X: The honest, vivid, and yet critical presentation of Peter and his actions (4X: his dream of walking on the water) suggests that much of the apostolic memories come straight from the fisherman himself.

>>>> textman previously wrote: If this is so,
.
>>> RevP replied: "IF", "if', IT IS NOT SO. You are making an assertion without any evidence.
.
>> tx: The evidence that Mt used Mk is all there in the text of Mt.
.
> RevP: But that was not the original question. How do you know that the gospel of Mark was
> not authored by someone else?
.
 tx: I know that it was a collaborative effort, because that is the nature of the early Greek scriptures. Paul's earliest epistles weren't written *solely* by Paul alone. He had help in the creation and writing of these first 'vehicles of the Word'. Silvanus and Sosthenes are but two biblical authors who are nowhere recognized or acknowledged for their essential contributions. So I guess what I'm saying is that Mk *was* authored by someone else; namely Mark and Peter. Church history, church tradition, AND the text of Mk *all together* agree that Mark and Peter co-authored the first gospel. The probability, in other words, is very high; and the only reason anyone would doubt it is in order to demonstrate to the world that the doubter is a first-class *ass*!
.
> Even if Matthew used it as an outline; it still does not make Matthew or Mark true.
.
 Well, there's no faulting your logic there, RevP. Everybody email Pete ten brownie points right away!
.
>>> RP: Can you prove that there was no previous gospels which have been lost to time?
>>> If not, than you cannot say that Mark's is the first gospel.
.
>> tx: The "proof" that there were no gospels prior to Mk is the fact that no physical evidence of such
>> supposed documents exists. It is unreasonable to first postulate the existence of something for which
>> there is no evidence, and then go on to claim that these alleged documents were "lost to time". In this
>> case Occam's Razor cuts your throat.
.
> RevP: Then Jesus never existed. Apart from the bias mythology of the NT, there is zero contemporary
> evidence for this supposed miracle man. The evidence for Jesus is not more valid than the evidence for
> Heracles -- merely stories by superstitious people.
.
 You could not possibly be more wrong. The evidence for Jesus' existence not only includes the earliest Christian documents, but everything behind them; not least of which was the Greco-Jewish reform movement that eventually morphed into Christianity.
.
>>>> tx: Let us see if this is indeed the case ... <snip quote for brevity>  -- Mk 9:1-7/NETbible
>>>> Well! ... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
.
>>> RevP: Your explanation makes Jesus a fool; he talks about death, and six days later fulfills it. Let's
>>> look at the prophecy again, this time with Matthew's complete prophecy: Matt. 16;27-28, "For the
>>> Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father and His angels; and will recompense every
>>> man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here
>>> *who shall NOT taste death* until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." What are the
>>> elements of this prophecy: 1) the second coming 2) the last judgement 3) rewards and punishments
>>> 4) Jesus' kingdom on earth *WHEN: before his apostles tasted death. Well textman, they're dead.
.
>> tx: What is clear to me is that Matthew has added to Mark's prophecy such that we end up with
>> not one prophecy, but two: an end-times prophecy (v.27) which is still on the way, and a short-term
>> prophecy (v.28) which was fulfilled at the Transfiguration.
.
> RevP: The text does not divide itself.
.
 Huh?
.
> Too many prophecies involved the second coming prior to the end of time, and that the apostles
> would see it. Your transfigeration apolgetic does not cut it.
.
 Works for me!
.
> For what was the prophecy? Here it is again: Mk.9:1, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who
> will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."
.
 Right. So the Kingdom of God came with power and glory via the Transfiguration. They saw it.
They had not yet died. Wut? This is too difficult a concept for you to grasp?
.
> There was NO kingdom of God at the transfiguration;
.
 You have just demonstrated your colossal inability to read the text.
.
> nor at Penticost. Take this propehcy: Mark 14: 61-62, "Again the High Priest was questioning Him, and
> saying to him, 'are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see
> the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"
.
 Sure sounds like an end-times prophecy. This shows that the early Christians expected the 'Day of the Lord' to come 'any day now'. As I recall, Paul and Silvanus had some trouble in Thessalonika just because of this heightened expectation of the end of the world.
.
> Well the High Priest is dead; and never saw any such thing.
.
 How do you know that he never saw any such thing? Are you all-knowing and all-seeing now? ... The Day refused to hasten despite all the pleas and prayers to the contrary, and *still* refuses to hasten even now ... Or perhaps it *is* coming soon. No one knows that day or hour. But perhaps the High Priest was granted, before his death, a small glimpse of what that Day will look like ... ???
.
> Or this prophecy: Mt.10:23 "But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly
> I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes."
.
 Typical Matthean exaggeration there all right.
.
> This makes no sense except in the second coming frame.
.
 Not necessarily. It could refer to something else in Jesus' ministry (one would have to examine the surrounding text carefully for possible clues as to the specific meaning or reference), or it could refer to the events leading up to the crucifixion. BTW: your snippet approach to biblical hermeneutics is *totally* revolting; but then you know *that*, don't you, Rev?
.
> But the apostles and disciples could have make all the cities of Israel at the time in around a month.
> And Jesus never returned.
.
 Since the Son of Man was already there, we could say that it is your second-coming
*assumption* that contains the flaw.
.
> Obviously Jesus was a messiah-wannabe, and like the Buddha, his followers made a god out of him.
.
 Who's going to make a god out of you, Pete?
.
>> tx: Moreover, all the elements of both prophecies (with the exception of 'rewards and punishments' ->
>> ie. the Matthean addition) were fulfilled during the Transfiguration episode: "glory of His Father" ->
>> "His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light." (Mt 17:2)
.
> RevP: Never happened.
.
 Is that a *scientific* statement?
.
>> "His angels" -> "Then Moses and Elijah also appeared to them, talking with him." (Mt 17:3)
.
> Moses and Elijah are not angels, they are men.
.
 In the Tanakh, 'angels' are simply messengers. They do not appear as androgynous creatures with wings and halos, but rather as ordinary (or rather, *almost* ordinary) men. In other words, Moses and Elijah are indeed angels; and no amount of feeble denials on your part will change the plain meaning of simple words.
.
>> "some of those who are standing here" -> "Jesus took with him Peter and James and John." (Mt 17:1)
>> "who will not taste death before they see" -> "And after six days" (Mt 17:1)
.
> RevP: What a stupid thing to say on Jesus' part.
.
 Hardly.
.
>> "Son of Man coming in his kingdom." -> "a bright cloud surrounded them, and a voice from the
>> cloud said, 'This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!'" (Mt 17:5)
.
> Never happened.
.
 So sayeth the unbeliever.
.
>>>> tx: Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet.
.
>>> RevP: You have demonstrated an example of sophism. Your apologetic makes jesus look like a fool.
.
>> That's your (uninformed) opinion. Naturally, I disagree with your faithless and cynical conclusions.
.
> RevP: The REAL Messiah is the son of a ruling king in Israel, and comes but once. He is not some failed
> zealot who gets exectued after looking for a fight with Rome; and whose fanatical apostles elevate
> to godhood. Unlike you, my opinion is informed.
.
 Really? And where is the source of your "facts" that lead you to believe that Jesus was a "failed zealot"?
... And please don't say it's the NT documents themselves that lead to this conclusion!
.
>>> RP: In reality, Jesus promised to return, establish his kingdom, carry out the last judgement,
>>> and reward his faithful -- none of that was accomplished.
.
>> tx: Your interpretation is both skewed and simplistic; based not so much upon the texts as upon your
>> biased reading of them. Accordingly, a faithful reading of the passage shows us that your conclusion
>> that "none of that was accomplished" is not only wrong, but also wrong-headed.
.
> RevP: None of it was accomplished.
.
 All of it was accomplished ... according to the scriptures.
.
> RP: IT is a fact that Jesus failed to fulfill a single messanic prophecy; of which there are less than 10.
> This piecemeal fulfillment is merely a xian apologetic invented by those who are intellectually dishonest
> and want to be taken at their word.
.
 Resorting to insults now, Pete? Surely you don't expect True Believers to take a false reverend
at *his* word? That really would be "intellectually dishonest".
.
> Jesus promised the second-coming, last-judgement, and final reward BEFORE his apostles died.
> THAT IS TEXTUALLY VALID.
.
 Only to a simplistic and over-literal reading of the text that completely ignores the full context of whatever prophetic snippet you wish to abuse in order to justify your childish contempt of the sacred scriptures ...
.
> You ignore the literal text because it exposes Jesus as a mistake, a false messiah, an antiMessiah.
.
 But Pete, paying attention to the Text is what prophets do best!
.
>>> RevP: According to the measure of Moses; Jesus, is in fact, a false prophet.
.
>> According to the measure of Moses; Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet!
.
> RevP: Wrong. Let's look at what Moses wrote: Deut.18:21-22, "And you may say in your heart, 'How shall
> we know the word which the Lord God has not spoken?' 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the
> Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken .
.
 Sounds good to me.
.
> Jesus did not speak the truth. He promised the second-coming, last-judgement, and final rewards
> BEFORE his apostles died a natural death.
.
 That is your false and distorting interpretation. It does violence to the text, to the spirit of the text, and
to the truth of the text. Therefore your reading is *not* valid, and is in no way binding on *any* Reader.
.
> Even if you split it, the prophecy cannot be split.
.
 We already saw in Mark that the prophecy is unified. It is Matthew who makes two prophecies out of it by adding the judgment bit. What's the problem? Are you saying that Matthew cannot do what he obviously did do? Or are you suggesting that he was wrong to do so?
.
> The central element of validity is that before the apostles died ALL that he promised would be fulfilled.
> IT WASN'T. The thing Jesus spoke had "not come about". Again, let's look at Matthew:
> Mt.16;27-28, "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father and His angels; and will
> recompense every man according to his deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
> standing here *who shall NOT taste death* until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
.
 I'm looking. It hasn't changed since the last time I looked at it. Neither has my understanding of it. Neither has your misunderstanding of it. Do you imagine that if you repeat your lies often enough, you'll somehow convince me of the alleged errors of my ways?
.
> The tasting death part is the central part of this prophecy.
.
 LOL ... Sure it is!
.
> The prophecy is not split; and the apostles were to see jesus coming IN HIS KINGDOM --
> transfiguration nor Penticost fit the prophecy. There was no kingdom at the transfiguration;
> neither at Penticost. Jesus is a false prophet.
.
 Grow up, Pete.
.
>>> "The ignorance you observe is based on the mindless repetition of the LABEL put on that collection
>>> of books, ie. that it is the "Word of God". Once you accepts that assertion as fact, you get involved
>>> in an endless effort to defend every word, every statement, every fable contained in those books."
>>> -- Libertarius
.
>> tx: Since that is obviously not the case with the cyber-prophet, it is apparent that Libertarius'
>> observation applies only to Fundy extremists who uphold the unbiblical dogma of inerrancy.
>> ... Nice try though.
.
> RevP: You are doing the same thing. Rather than admit the truth that these prophecies are false;
.
 The prophecies regarding the Transfiguration are true precisely because they point to that event. You seem to think that they point to something else (and are *therefore* false), but the text in no way warrants such a reading. Sorry Peter, but you're wrong about this one, and that's the end of that. ... You did say that there were other prophecies though. Why not bring them forth instead of beating a dead horse? ... Perhaps you'll have better luck with them?  :)
.
> you resort to apologetics.
.
 No, actually I resort to a form of biblical exegesis that is based upon paying attention to the text (something you seem unable to do), and allowing the text to speak for itself. It is certainly *not* based upon the prior assumption/conclusion that "Jesus is a false prophet". Here's a good question for all goodly Bible students: What's the difference between apologetics and exegesis?
.
> RP: Essentially, you are attempting to defend the bible by cannibalizing those parts from it
> which PROVE Jesus to be a fraud.
.
 Sorry, I just don't follow you. Your ranting appears to be shading into the realm of the incoherent.
.
>>> -- peace, Rev Peter -- http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/ "The very powerful and the very stupid have
>>> one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their
>>> views ..." -- Dr. Who
.
>> tx: Yes, and in this case, you're the one who's altering the facts to fit your preconceived and biased
>> views. Which only leaves us with one remaining question: Are you very powerful or very stupid?
.
> RevP: The ONLY FACT is that Jesus promised to come in his kingdom and carry out the last Judgement
> before his apostles died. The one altering the facts is you textman. In case you still do not understand
> it: the fact remains that Jesus did not fulfill what was literally written about him. It is you trying to alter
> the literal word with sophism. -- peace, Rev Peter
.
 You sure are a stubborn cuss, Petey.
It would appear to be the sole source of your very dubious charm ...  :)

/ Re: The sun of righteousness / Date > 8 Oct 1999 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
> Allan Svensson wrote: The sun of righteousness <snipsome> The sun of righteousness is now arising
> healing in his wings. Malachi 4:2. So now we can receive a place in the sun. This sunlight includes that
> the Holy Spirit in a specially way reveals the truth of the Assembly of God. It brings cure to the whole
> body of the Assembly so that become healed. <snip>
.
 textman say: Dear Allan, thx for your interesting article. It is both relevant and insightful. It certainly answers the question of whether or not the Holy Spirit is active and present among believers today.
.
> The disruption that rules between God's people which separate
> Christians from Christians, is a work of the prince of this world.
.
 I know from personal experience that the Wicked One is very much active and present in the churches today, and seeks to undermine the Faith by offering corruption and iniquity disguised as piety and righteousness. The spiritually undiscerning mistake this darkness for light, and lead many into the pit of spiritual death and desolation.
.
> However, now before Jesus comes, the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth until we all reach unity
> in the faith. John 16:13. Eph.4:1-16.
.
 But there are many who hate the truth, and I fear that the Wicked One will steal away the unwary
believer such that only a remnant will remain united in the true faith.
.
> Many Christians, specially those who are preachers and teachers, comprehend this as a humiliation when it
> becomes revealed that something that they have believed and preached does not agree with God's word.
.
 Yes. The Word of God is proving to be far more rich and complex than the Fundies can stomach. They want the scriptures to be straight and simple; such that even a child can read it easily and without the bother of making much effort to understand the truth of things. Alas, the Word was not written for narrow and childish minds; and no one hates this fact more than those who loudly profess to love the Bible!
.
> Nevertheless, they do not need to take it on that way. If they only humble themselves before God's word
> and rectify their preaching they get grace from the Lord. Humility is that be susceptible to teaching. Psalm
> 25:9. James 4:6.
.
 That's just the problem in a nutshell. Far too many Christians approach the text already knowing
fully what they will find therein even before they ever open The Book ...
.
> When the Lord reveals his will through his Word and the Holy Spirit, his purpose is edification of the
> Assembly of God, and not to offend.
.
 It's true that the Spirit does not seek to offend; but She knows very well that nothing offends the hardened heart so much as the Truth. The rulers and powers killed the Son of Man because the truth he was and revealed was such a terrible stench unto their nostrils.
.
> Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth that leads to edification, but it has also a
> destructive effect. It destroys such things that are faults and unmask false doctrines.
.
 Therein lies the problem with the churches. They are far too fond of their own prideful doctrines and vain
dogmas to allow the divine Word to speak a word of truth contrary to their cherished preconceptions.
.
> When the lights are lighted, the darkness is dispersed. And this is our victory.
> We overcome the prince of darkness through to unmask him.
.
 Alas, the darkness of pride and ignorance is not so easily overcome. The stubborn of heart will not willingly change their childish thinking; and I fear that we are in for a long and bitter battle before the Evil One is finally and fully unmasked.  :(
.
 Nevertheless, we have joy in the Lord; for not even all the legions of poisoned minds and twisted hearts can prevail over the eternal truths and the power of divine love and light!
.
> If you have any questions after reading of this article, Please, visit my Web Site
> http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/ENGLISH.HTM
.
 Are there as many typos and grammatical errors at your web-site as I see present here?  :)

P.S. "Brothers and Sisters, do not be as children in your thinking! Yes, be like babes in doing evil; but in your thinking, be mature" (First Corinthians 14:20 / Prophet Version).

textman