God talking in NT:

On How to Eat the Bible / Re: God talking in NT (2)
Re: God talking in NT #3 / On the Meaning of Creeds/1&2

Re: God talking in NT #6 / More Absurd Logos-Theology
More Hermeneutical Presuppositions
How to Spank a Kid Generously! / More Anti-Prophetic Ranting
On Faith & Philosophy Joined at the Hip / On Being More or Less

An Historical Dog-Fight / On Scribes and Fundies
On Not Equating Logos with Logic / The Obscure Philosopher-1
The Obscure Philosopher-2  /  The Obscure Philosopher-3

On How to Eat the Bible
[or: On How NOT to Eat the Bible]

/ Subject > Re: The word of God? / Date > 19 Jan 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

"Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers, but for believers" (1Cor.14:22 / NETbible).

>> In Dec. 2002 one Mr Edgar A Pearlstein asked a certain beginnerish-type question:
>> People often call the Bible "The word of God". Do any of the books of the Bible themselves
>> claim to be the word of God?
.
> On 26Dec02 one jr redirects with a *very* different question: Is the Bible "The inspired word of God"?
.
 textman answers: Hi jr. This seems not a difficult question really, since your average believer would naturally suppose that only inspired writings could qualify for the exalted status of being a vehicle (little 'word') for the eternal and universal Logos of God (big 'Word'). Perhaps an even better question at this point might be something like 'What is inspiration?' or maybe 'What does the process of inspiration involve?' or even 'And what do these "spiritual movements" within the People of God imply?' ... Yes, tough questions these; and not easily answered by simplistic (and largely empty of content) slogans.
.
> Let us think carefully what that claim must mean.
.
 I prophesize *Trouble* whenever I see promises such as this!
.
> With that claim comes the obvious conclusion that the Bible must be "God perfect." That is to say the Bible
> must be far more perfect than any mere human minds could possibly have made it.
.
 wut?
.
> Any mistake in that book, any error or contradiction, in fact or form, would prove that book could not
> be "God's inspired word."
.
 This is *not-at-all* what I'd call "thinking carefully" about what that claim must mean. You say that it is obvious that the Bible must be God-perfect, but I see nothing obvious about it; unless one is willing to assume the illogical and irrational notion that inspiration necessarily implies "complete and absolute perfection" (which is a theological imperative with little or no support from within the scriptures themselves). Here already we see how extra-biblical opinions are blindly *assumed* to be as inerrant and infallible as the scriptures they purport to describe!
.
> jr: Not only would the Bible be perfect in itself,
.
 Perfection is an attribute of God, NOT of limited material realities. There is a word for this business of attributing divine qualities and attributes to finite material things. And that word is 'idolatry'.
.
> but it would be equally plain and understandable to every human mind, and every person
> would understand it exactly the same.
.
 Even to suppose that *anything* could be *equally* plain and understandable to *every* human mind is a clear (and highly unrealistic) denial of a plain 'fact of life'; namely, that we are NOT all created equal. The only way that every mind could understand equally is if we were all clones of the same very-ignorant individual. The plain truth is that some people are better at understanding the scriptures than others (as the Word proclaims), and this is owing to the happy fact that we are all unique persons, each with his or her own strengths and weaknesses. Such is life.
.
 "Now you are Christ's body, and each of you is a member of it. And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, managements, different kinds of tongues. Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform miracles, do they? Not all have gifts of healing, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do they? But you should be eager for the greater gifts." -- 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 / NETbible
.
 Here is the chief source of many of the problems facing the Faith today: that anyone and everyone who is able to stick their beak into the Bible fancies that he or she is more than qualified to interpret the sacred texts 'inerrantly and infallibly' according to self-serving pious sentiments and/or theological imperatives. Talk about not listening to the Word!
.
> jr: Perhaps you feel that I demand too much of a mere book.
.
 Not at all . . . But perhaps you could do with much much *MORE* respect for the sacred texts?
.
> That a God who could create the human understanding,
.
 This statement is seriously wanting for intelligibility!
.
> could not be expected to produce a book that would agree with that creation.
.
 Why should the Creator of all Creation be compelled to write a book? The idea is so ludicrous that it cannot be approached from ANY rational perspective. I will only point out that biblical inspiration certainly does NOT mean that "God wrote 'a' book"! Such an idea is suitable only to children and all those who are unfit for the "strong meat" of the scriptures.
.
> Personally, I believe it is asking too much of us to believe that God would write, or inspire, a book
> that mankind could not agree upon.
.
 Right. God did not write "a book". God is 'the Father', not 'the Writer'. And there is no such "a book" to be found anywhere in reality. But through grace, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain men and women did set down in written words a small part of the larger truth (that only God can *fully* know). And over time SOME of these many and various sacred documents were slowly and gradually collected into groups and families, which were later further collected into libraries of documents, and so on and so forth. Anyone who supposes that this sort of thing (eg. grace and inspiration) stopped happening a very long time ago must indeed be very very ignorant of a great many things!
.
> A book that has caused endless wars, persecutions, torture, bigotry and hatred.
.
 The scriptures have not "caused" any of these things you mention. True believers understand very well that all forms of evil find their sources and powers from within the depths of the human heart. Check it out.
.
> jr: A book that is so unintelligible
.
 It is only unintelligible if we actively and deliberately *and* maliciously make it so!
.
> that not only do "non-believers" reject it,
.
 Some (perhaps many) unbelievers reject the bible because they don't understand it, or can't make sense of it, but I suspect that most non-believers simply haven't bothered to really try to understand the scriptures in the first place. Even many believers have trouble making sense of so many different and difficult ancient-documents. But the fault does not lie with the texts; it lies in the general inability (or incapacity, or unwillingness) to read the texts with a humble heart and a receptive spirit. Believers who love to "lord it over the Word" *ALWAYS* find in the abundant scriptures whatever it is they wish to place there! :(
.
> but those who believe it to be the true word of God cannot agree upon its interpretation. There
> are hundreds of different Christian sects in the United States alone, and that does not include the
> countless thousands of private individuals who have their own, personal, interpretations of the Bible.
.
 This is true. However, not all interpretations are created equal. And not all are equally valid. Some are worthy, and worth studying; but most are not. Most believers are hard-wired into the attitude that their own personal views and opinions and beliefs and "readings" are necessarily attuned directly to the Mind of God (and thus inerrant and infallible). It's sad, to be sure, but blaming the scriptures for the faults and inadequacies of its readers is hardly justified.
.
 There are MANY ways of reading and understanding and interpreting and translating the scriptures. Everything depends on how the reader approaches the texts. If a believer picks up a copy of the KJV in the supreme assurance that his mind will now be in complete and absolute harmony with the Mind of God, every word that falls under his eyes must be made to bear this largely unconscious burden that the reader projects into the texts. There is no real love or respect for the scriptures here, because here the Word takes a back-seat to the Reader, because the Reader is in complete and absolute control over the Word.
.
 Yet true love and respect for the scriptures means that the reader is aware of the fluid nature of the texts, is aware of his own interpretive "projections", is aware that subjective attitudes and emotional dispositions can just as easily distort the Word as reveal it. True love and respect for the Word therefore involves discarding (as much as possible) this aggressive 'I know it all' attitude on the part of the reader.
.
 One cannot "hear" the Word, much less listen to it, if the Reader is constantly yammering on and on about how wondrously the Mind of God is fully revealed unto our ever-so-enlightened minds. Thus there is no room for the truth of things to have any say within the confines of a soul as one-dimensional as this. Any interpretations, commentaries, and exegesis proceeding from sources such as this are basically worthless to believers and bible-students alike.
.
 Accordingly, valid interpretations can proceed ONLY from an attitude that is as quiet and as humble and as receptive and as prayerful as possible. To see the meaning of the words on the page means that in order to really hear the Word we must first set aside our everyday grasping, assertive, and craving self that makes up 99% of the "personality" that the world around us sees. Total and absolute negation of our Self would be ideal for setting the reader in a right relationship with the sacred texts. But since that is far beyond the abilities of most bible-readers (and believers), we must settle for second-best by actively promoting a positive attitude of, not forgetfulness, but of mindfulness.
.
 For example, if a certain reader is an ardent and devoted trinitarian, then it would be well for that reader to be much more aware of how his reading of the Gospel of John is distorted, firstly, by a translation that has already *"inclined"* the Greek text in a trinitarian direction [eg. Jn1;1, where the (slightly damaged) Greek text is almost everywhere (RSV, etc) rendered as "and the Word was God" instead of the far more authentic (and sensible) "and divine was the Word", or even the only-very-slightly-less authentic "and the Word was divine" (as with the Chicago Bible)], and, secondly, is then further distorted by "understandings" that see traces of the Trinity everywhere in John's Gospel.
.
 Now this is (perhaps) an extreme example, but it is good for believers to bear it in mind as a warning. For if any reader comes away from the Gospel of John without a VERY firm grasp upon his uncompromising monotheism (ie. John's God is "THE God", as in 'the one true God' (eg. Jn.17:3)) *then* that "Great & All-Knowing Reader" is quite obviously doing something very VERY wrong!
.
> jr: It is often claimed by theologians that the original scriptures were perfect,
.
 Those theologians who make such claims may (or may not) be good theologians, but they are very much lacking in the most basic competency in the matter of understanding the scriptures historically and/or realistically. In other words, there is no evidence to support this "original perfection" fantasy; but there is plenty of evidence (or *some* at least; eg. see P52) to suggest that "perfection" is *not-at-all* a helpful or useful or positive concept to use in relation to the long and complex (and highly confused!) history of textual transmission.
.
> but that the Bible has lost is perfection through copy errors and by being translated through several
> languages. Impossible! There could not be an imperfect copy or translation of a perfect book that
> was perfectly understood by the translator. God would not permit it!
.
 God's "permission" has nothing to do with the *real* and *actual* history of the sacred texts because "perfection" has nothing to do with it either. Biblical inerrancy and infallibility are NOT qualities or characteristics that objectively exist "within" the sacred texts; rather, they exist *solely* and *entirely* within the very confused minds of those sad souls enslaved to the iniquity of bibliolatry!
.
> As I read the Bible, it does appear that God's word cannot be relied upon as in this, apparent,
> contradiction: Exodus 33: verse 20, God is said to have said: "Thou canst not see my face; for there
> shall no man see me and live." Exodus 33: verse 22 reads: "And the Lord spoke unto Moses face to
> face, as a man speakest unto his friend." -- Peace.
.
 Well now this is a very interesting textual datum, jr, but it hardly ranks as a major faith-shaking contradiction. God is not to be found among the trifling details; for the truth of things can no more be contained by any one book than the Word of God can be captured, tamed, and domesticated by the feeble efforts of all the world's many *many* scribes and pharisees! Relying on God's Word (both cosmic and scriptural) means NOT being side-tracked by small-mindedness ...

P.S. "For in this way you can all preach one after another, as you are inspired to, so that everyone may be instructed and stimulated; for the spirits of prophets will give way to prophets, for God is not a God of disorder but of peace." -- First Corinthians 14:31-33 / Chicago Bible; Edgar J. Goodspeed (ed.)

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT / Date > 24 Jan 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On 24Jan "Edgar A Pearlstein" wrote: In the Old Testament there are many instances of God
> talking directly to a person. What such instances are there in the New Testament?
.
 textman answers: Hi, Edgar. Interesting question you have there, bud. There are various ways one can go about answering this question. One way is to point out that God doesn't generally talk *directly* in the NT because the age of the classic prophets is over (John the Baptist being the last of the Old World prophets).
.
 However, with the Incarnation of the Logos of God in Jesus of Nazareth, God can be said to be talking indirectly (or even more or less directly) through the Son of God. 'He who has seen me has seen the Father', as John's Gospel puts it. That's pretty darn direct, I think. But since you may disagree with this somewhat, there *are* some few isolated instances where God does speak directly. One impressive (although not exactly historical) case is found in the Gospel of Mark where God directly addresses Peter, James, and John, saying: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!" (Mark 9:7).
.
 Is this the sort of thing you were looking for?

P.S. Now in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. And just as he
was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens splitting apart and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a
voice came from heaven: “You are my son, the beloved one, in you I take great delight.” -- Mark 1:9-11

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT #2 / Date > 26 Jan 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On Jan26 Matthew Johnson wrote: <snip> More important, you seem to have
> entirely missed the significance of this whole passage (Mt 17:1-13).
.
 textman answers: He's not the only one!
.
> For the Transfiguration reveals Jesus Christ as _equal_ to the Father
.
 How do you figure that? The only way to derive such a conclusion from this passage is by
deliberately forcing it into the texts! A very NOT valid interpretation here.
.
> and the wonder of the vision is to give those disciples the strength to see Him crucified, understanding
> that being Almighty, He suffered VOLUNTARILY. <snip>
.
 Ha! Nice try there, Matthew. Actually the transfiguration episode is all about religious *authority*; hence the presence of Moses and Elijah. But your view explains nothing at all! So you fancy that Jesus is equal to God, do you? That Jesus IS God? Well, silly believers think that the NT teaches this, but this is not so. Only thoughtless and careless and grossly uncritical readings can lead to that conclusion. What? You don't believe me? What a shocker. But hey, check this out:
.
Apostles' Creed (2C): I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the  Virgin Mary. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost. I believe in the holy catholic church. The communion of saints. The forgiveness of sins. The resurrection of the body. And the life everlasting. Amen.
.
 Please notice that the creed does NOT say that Jesus is equal to God.
.
 Nor does it say that Jesus IS God!!!
.
 How do you explain this gross oversight, Matthew?

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT / Date > 30 Jan 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On Jan27 EgwEimi wrote: God spoke directly at Jesus' baptism, at the transfiguration, at Jn 12:28 (when
> asked to glorify his name); and at other occasions "off camera." Also, God directly provided signs or
> wonders on numerous occasions, including Acts 2.
.
 textman sayeth: Uh oh, looks like friend EgwEimi here wants us to think of Acts2 after the manner of
a straightforward (ie. objective) historical account! :(
.
 "Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like a violent wind blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where they were sitting. And tongues spreading out like a fire appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them." -- Acts 2:1-4 / NETbible
.
 Yes, yes; very dramatic indeed. However, I dare say that in real life the Spirit is not nearly so ... ummm ... Shakespearean? Historical value of these verses? ---> Zero! All in all, I'd have to say that "Acts 2" is not much of an answer that would be useful to friend Edgar's question. Therefore:
.
> EE: <snip a whole bunch!> And one might argue reasonably that every instance of
> the "holy breath" was God speaking,
.
 I'm not quite happy with this statement either, since the Holy Spirit (or "holy breath") is not generally confused with God the Father in the NT, who, we may say, "speaks" through the universal Logos (who in turn speaks through Jesus and his prophets). What this means is that every rational human creature (literacy is not a requirement) has/contains/is this tiny puny spark of divine reason (aka: the tao, the atman, the buddha nature, the inner light, etc), and this unknowable and unpredictable "logos-spark" is the spiritual source of the inspiration that inspires ALL the authors of sacred scripture.
.
 What I mean by "sacred scripture" here is obviously not just those documents within the Holy Bible itself. This is because the Logos, being universal, must necessarily express itself in every language, every culture, every society; somehow. Therefore there are saints and prophets and teachers and artists, and visionaries of all shape and size - along with their sacred writings and utterances - in many strange lands and times. Believe it or not, true believers, but this really is *a very good thing*!
.
> as he provided signs for the other people that God was active among his people.
.
 God was and IS active among his people in many ways, surely. Including, I should hope, these doubtful inspirations of abundant writings. After all, signs of Providence extend far beyond the boundaries of the bible. They can be found throughout history and prehistory, even in the darkest of times.
.
 "In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has
never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it]" (John 1:4-5 / AMP).
.
> Since most of the NT writings are not "prophecy" but "writings," we would not expect
> to read prophecies in them.
.
 huh? Very curious statement here. EgwEimi seems to equate 'prophecy' directly with 'fortune-telling' and *NO* deviation therefrom shall ever be allowed. He thus makes the error of mistaking one aspect of the thing for the whole. As if the sum total of a man can be found within the answer to the question 'Occupation?' As if the prophets must forever remain locked into their Bronze Age mode while the rest of humankind struggles to push ahead just a little bit more ...
.
 In other words, the phrases 'prophetic literature' or 'prophetic writings' or 'prophetic utterances' can have no meaningful or significant content since 'prophecy' can ONLY be the 'act of fortune-telling'. But prophecy is much more than precognition. It is more forth-telling than fortune-telling. Therefore the book of Revelation is NOT the only prophetic book in the NT. Indeed, anything that an apostle or prophet writes is prophetic literature (as orange juice comes from oranges), whether it be gospel or epistle or history or poetry or fiction or philosophy or *whatever*!
.
 The Word is no more limited in forms of expression than Truth and Beauty are. Therefore most of the NT writings are indeed first-class examples of prophetic literature. The fact that EgwEimi (along with many other believers, alas) is unable to appreciate this most basic and fundamental nature of the sacred texts speaks volumes as to the fitness of his judgments regarding the Word of God ...
.
> EE: Even so, the NT contains a surprisingly large number of instances of God's direct involvement.
.
 Few of which should be taken literally, alas.
.
> Consider instead the newer OT writings: Ezra -- no prophecy. Nehemiah -- no prophecy.
.
 A concern for history is obviously an important feature of the prophetic enterprise as a whole; else there could be no 'fortune-telling' in the first place. Back to Square One we go: Past -> Present -> Future ... hmmmm
.
> Esther - God not even mentioned in the Masoretic text and does not speak. Psalms - sparse on prophecy.
> Proverbs - sections of divine wisdom personified. Ecclesiastes - sayings of the author only;
> God does not speak.
.
 Are you suggesting, then, that the "Preacher/Philosopher" was in no way inspired? In no way in contact
with spiritual realities? ... Wutz it doin in the bible, bud? Did it just "slip by" the Divine-Editor? :)
.
> Song of Solomon -- God does not speak
.
 But Woman does! Amen verily!
.
> Lamentations -- although an earlier book, God does not speak. Daniel -- presumably a later work.
> Consists of interpretive pieces like Revelation would later.
.
 And also makes mention of one like unto a son of man!
.
> Chronicles - largely repeats what was contained in Kings; even so, God's personal involvement
> is minimal. The author was largely concerned with specific matters.
.
 That is, with life, with history, with making some sense of 'these days' in relation to 'those days'. Yes, History is the only way we can say that things happen for a reason! Again, all this is not much helpful, since the Wisdom tradition as a whole can be considered to be a form of prophetic literature by virtue of the fact that Reason and Knowledge are a necessary part of Wisdom. Just as they are a necessary part of Philosophy. Philosophy and Wisdom are BOTH expressions of the *same* prophetic spirit at work (ie. of the Logos-in-Process).
.
> When Jesus taught his core teachings, he was teaching as a prophet.
.
 You see that? Even a fundy can recognize the truth of things when he puts his mind to it!
.
> EE: Although God's speech to him was often "off camera"; that is, Jesus relayed that God had spoken to
> him, but the authors had not been present, this is also the case in the OT. Most of the time, the authors
> did not witness God's discourse but instead heard what the prophet told them about what God had said.
.
 That is VERY correct, Frank. Listening, understanding, and interpreting are *all* prior to the act of writing. We might even say that "inspiration" is spread evenly throughout this entire process, rather than being confined to the relatively brief act of writing itself. As if the prophet were nothing more than a semi-convenient spongebob-squarepants!
.
> If you count the occasional appearances by divine messengers ("angels")
.
 Angels can also be understood as divine *interpreters* of God's will.
.
> and the spontaneous resurrection of various good dead people at Jesus' crucifixion,
.
 Like who?
.
> God was quite active in the NT -- at least as active as he was in the majority of OT Writings. Did he
> speak as many words "on camera" as he spoke in the Torah? No, but part of that may be attributed
> to changing writing styles.
.
 Ah-ha! I think we're really onto something here now.
.
> And so, if anything, God's communication with his people was more frequent during the 40 years
> that comprise the NT period than it had been since the compiling of the Torah. -- Frank
.
 *40* years! Ha! That's not even close. It took at least 100 years (c.50-150CE) for all the NT documents to get written, because it took at least that long for all the events and peoples *behind* the writing of the texts to occur. The Greek scriptures are NOT some magical entity utterly divorced from all history and reality (as Frank here seems to think). No indeed. The documents are authentic because they come from real prophets and teachers in actual concrete circumstances dealing with the actual Real-World around them. They are certainly NOT concerned for the tender minds of fundies living two thousand years in the future! Get with the program already.

P.S. "Most of what is divine escapes recognition through unbelief." -- Heraclitus

On the Meaning of Creeds/1

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT #4 / Date > 2 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
] Matthew previously wrote: For the Transfiguration reveals Jesus Christ as _equal_ to the Father
.
>> tx asketh: How do you figure that?
.
> On Jan29 Matthew Johnson answered: It is quite simple, actually, if you understand that the light
> of the Transfiguration is the _uncreated_ light that flows from God Himself. But since you do not
> believe this, I will discuss the Transfiguration below without making this assumption.
.
 textman replies: Ah, thx  . . .  I think?
.
>> The only way to derive such a conclusion from this passage is by deliberately forcing it into the texts!
.
> M: No, that is not true. On the contrary: the only way to_avoid_ the conclusion is by deliberately
> forcing the text. See below.
.
 See below the text? 
.
>> A very NOT valid interpretation here.
.
> M: On the contrary: it is the only valid interpretation.
.
 ... because of the "_uncreated_ light that flows from God Himself"? Your own statement suggests that the light flows *from* God *to* JC. I do not see any equality of divinity here, but rather distinction and uniqueness of identity. The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, which is then interpreted as 'Lord' and 'Son of God' for the ignorant Gentiles who did not know the meaning of phrases like 'son of man' and 'the anointed one'. None of the inspired authors ever thought that Messiah *really* means 'God the Son'! So why should believers today suppose that they know better about these mysteries than the testimony of the scriptures and their inspired authors?
.
 btw: where is your validity hiding?
.
] Matthew: and the wonder of the vision is to give those disciples the strength to see Him crucified,
] understanding that being Almighty, He suffered VOLUNTARILY. <snip>
.
>> tx: Ha! Nice try there, Matthew.
.
> M: How quick you are to dismiss with breezy comments insights you do not understand!
.
 Right. Fastest text-gun in the west! :D
.
>> Actually the transfiguration episode is about religious *authority*;
.
> It _does_ cover religious authority, true. But it is about _so much more_.
.
 Right. The pericope functions effectively on various levels. That's why I love it to pieces! It even has considerable historical value; IF you can see your way beyond a strictly literal reading. MJ here does NOT seem to understand that the transfiguration episode is a prophecy story about the sources of spiritual authority within the churches after Paul (about 60CE+). Within the four major traditions as they struggled to define themselves in those turbulent and apocalyptic times.
.
>> hence the presence of Moses and Elijah.
.
> Matthew: But the presence of Moses and Elijah accomplished much more than just that. Have you ever
> considered, for example, what it means that Moses, the Lawgiver, is shown as if risen from the dead,
> and Elijah, who was taken up into heaven without death, is shown also inferior to Christ?
.
 Is that the message this passage speaks to you? That the great prophets of old are *inferior* to the Christ? I always thought that this was incidental, and of no great significance, since the whole point here is to show Jesus' *solidarity* with the prophetic tradition as a whole. Especially in its new and radiant forms within the churches of Antioch (Peter), Jerusalem (James), and Alexandria (John).
.
> M: Christ is shown here as Lord of the Law and the Prophets, and Lord of both the living and the dead.
.
 No. It shows him as the *living* embodiment of a *living* prophetic tradition! That is how the early churches saw Jesus AND themselves. And yet the scribes and pharisees are always out to kill both. As friend Matthew here just demonstrated. Prophets dead. Dead prophets. I hear you. All the prophets are all dead dead dead  . . .  right
.
>> But your view explains nothing at all!
.
> Matthew: On the contrary: my view is the _only_ one that properly takes into account the appearance
> of Moses and Elijah. For who else could be Lord of both the Law and the Prophets, and even of the
> Living and the Dead, if not the Lord God?
.
 I see. So the fact that Jesus made a prophecy, and then fulfilled it six days later ...
.
 "And he said to them, 'Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power.' And after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John with him, and led them privately up a high mountain. And when they were alone He was transfigured before them" (Mark 9:1-2/PV) [Please note that the Greek-text wants to make it very clear that NO other prominent church leaders/pillars (including especially that recently deceased (at the time when Mark and Peter wrote all this), but still very active, Paulos) were present for this particular occasion (which occurred "up above us")!]
.
 ... means nothing? Means that Jesus is not a prophet? But is far superior to all prophets, and is therefore utterly divorced from the prophetic traditions (new and old) by virtue of the fact that Jesus is not "really" the anointed one, but *is* the Lord God? And you say that this is the only *valid* reading of the text? grrrrrr
.
> Matthew: For that matter, there are several other important themes of Mt17:1-13 that your view cannot
> explain, but mine does. Why, for example, is Peter rebuked for suggesting three tents?
.
 Cause one tent would be more appropriate. Solidarity; see?
.
> M: Can it be just because Jesus is greater than any prophet? No. For that fails to account for the words
> the Father chose to rebuke Peter: He did _not_ say, "listen to Me", He said "this is my beloved Son with
> whom I am well-pleased; hear *Him*". The Father has given _all_ authority to the Son, because there is
> no 'Son' with whom He is 'well-pleased' other than the Son who is the only begotten, consubstantial to
> the Father.
.
 If you remove the absurd and unbiblical word 'consubstantial' from all this reasoning, then you just *might* have the beginnings of a coherent position.
.
> M: Nor is this the only theme your reading neglects: where, for example, is your understanding of how
> Mt 17:1-13 shows Jesus Christ as fully human as well, revealing that human nature_is_ capable of being
> transfigured with this special light?
.
 Cause I make that assumption *all* the time, Matthew!
.
>> So you fancy that Jesus is equal to God, do you?
.
> M: It is not 'fancy'. It is the result of _centuries_ of careful reading, with _much_ deliberation,
> of this passage and many others.
.
 Right. I quite agree with all this. It took A LOT of time and effort for the scribes and pharisees to reach the conclusions they reached. And all along the way, controversy, "heresy", and popular religious movements and philosophical developments made an impact on the general course of Christian thought.
.
> M: So you see, the idea is not 'mine'. Rather, I paid attention to Solomon's advice, when He said: Those
> who do not harken to the councils set aside sound thoughts; But wise counsel abides in the hearts of
> the well-advised. (Prv 15:22LXX) Now how could anyone be well-advised, if he does not harken to the
> wise theology of the Ecumenical Councils?
.
 Gatherings of scribes and pharisees can only generate worldly wisdom, and the sort of theology that proceeds from pride and vanity. It was not these "wise and powerful" scribes and pharisees that began the science of biblical study and criticism. It was the efforts of prophets and teachers like Clement and Origen; and they accomplished a great deal long before the Emperor ever thought to gather up his bishops so as to make them put their disordered houses in order!

On the Meaning of Creeds/2

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT #5 / Date > 4 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>> tx previously wrote: That Jesus IS God?
.
> Matthew answered: He is.
.
>> Well, silly believers think that the NT teaches this,
.
> No, it is not 'silly believers'. Rather, those who understand the many modes of symbolic expression of
> Scripture, these are the ones who realize that the NT teaches that Christ is consubstantial to the Father.
> We also realize He is consubstantial with us,
.
 textman replies: There's that gross, awful, and highly *unbiblical* word again!
.
> M: and it is precisely in this that we find our salvation. If He had not had divine nature when He died on
> the Cross, there would be no redemption from death; but if He had not had human nature when He died,
> the redemption would not have been for us, it would not have been truly our own. It is truly our own
> _precisely_ because He mediates between the created and the uncreated, uniting in His person all that
> we are with all that God is.
.
 The scriptures teach that Jesus is the Mediator because that is the function of the Messiah; but nowhere do they mention that he was consubstantial, that he was fully god *and* fully man. Jesus was/is a divine-man, and that's why he can be Messiah and Mediator and Savior. But your idea that Jesus is God (equal to the Father, and of the same substance) makes a mockery of the divine-man idea. One of the first heresies to arise as the Faith spread into the Empire was just this idea that Jesus was really God who *appeared* to us as a man. The claim that Jesus was 'fully-god' AND 'fully-man' really does nothing to overcome the fatal weakness of this different form of episcopal-Docetism.
.
>> but this is not so.
.
> Matthew: Yes, it is so.
.
 Can we agree that it *may* be so?
.
>> tx: Only thoughtless and careless and grossly uncritical readings lead to that conclusion.
.
> Matthew: Wait a minute ... it was _your_ reading that failed to account for why Jesus is transfigured,
> but Moses and Elijah are not.
.
 Let me put it this way: If Jesus is the divine-man (ie. the incarnation of the Logos), then the difference between Jesus and the prophets can be understood as a matter of degree (and in this context the concept of Messiah makes sense). However, if we define Jesus as "God" (first, last, and always), then, obviously, it is NOT a question of degree anymore, but of kind. The God-Man is a completely different order of being, and therefore the prophets can have nothing to say to the Word, but can only listen. Is this what the scriptures are hinting at when Mark sayeth: "There also appeared before them Elijah and Moses, and *they* were talking *WITH* Jesus" (9:4)?
.
> M: It was _your_ reading that failed to even notice the importance of Elijah having never died.
.
 so sorry :(
.
> So whose reading looks 'thoughtless, careless and grossly uncritical' now?
.
 ummm ... yours? :)
.
>> tx: What? You don't believe me?
.
> MJ: Of course I don't.
.
>> What a shocker.
.
> M: I see from your sarcasm that you are not surprised. I am pleased to see that you can show
> at least _that_ much perception ;)
.
 Why thank you, Matthew; that is most gracious of you . . .
Especially in light of the fact that perception is what prophets do best. 
.
>> But hey, check this out: Apostles' Creed (2C)
.
> MJ: I checked it out long before now. I hardly need say, but I will do it anyway: I did _not_ reach
> the same tragically erroneous conclusion you delight in.
.
 So then you admit that the Apostle's Creed is wrong?!
.
>> tx: I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, his
>> only begotten Son, our Lord.
.
> Matthew: Now what did you think 'only begotten Son' means? And who else did we _ever_ call
> 'our Lord', if not the Lord God?
.
 Since the Logos is the one "begotten" of the Father, he would be the Eternal Son, whom we know as our Lord Jesus Christ. The 'Lord God' would be a reference to YHWH, the I AM, who was the Logos prior to the new age. This is why Jesus can say that "before Abraham was, I am". But strictly speaking, Jesus did not exist prior to his birth around 7-4 BCE in Galilee.
.
>> Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was
>> crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He
>> ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall
>> come to judge the quick and the dead.
.
> M: And how many times have we read in, say, the Old Testament, that it is *God* who judges 'the quick
> and the dead' (Prv 24:12)? Yet here we read it is Jesus Christ who does this. So the conclusion is?
.
 The Son judges for and by the Father. The 'son of god' does not need to also be 'god the son' in order
for all this to happen.
.
>> I believe in the Holy Ghost. I believe in the holy catholic church. The communion of saints. The
>> forgiveness of sins. The resurrection of the body. And the life everlasting. Amen. Please notice
>> that the creed does NOT say that Jesus is equal to God.
.
> Actually, it does. What did you _think_ 'only begotten Son' means?
.
 It means the Word of God. The same that was revealed in Jesus.
.
>> tx: Nor does it say that Jesus IS God.
.
> MJ: Again: you are failing to take into account what 'only begotten Son' must mean.
.
 It means the Word of God. The same that was revealed in Jesus.
.
>> How do you explain this gross oversight, Matthew?
.
> Which gross oversight? The only 'gross oversight' I see is your failure to take into account what
> 'only begotten Son' must mean.
.
 It means the Word of God. The same that was revealed in Jesus.
.
> Matthew: But now for a real surprise: I will cut you some slack ;) It was precisely because so many people
> failed to understand what 'only begotten Son' means that -- after much collective soul-searching -- the
> Church decided it _must_ add the clarifying comments we now see in the Nicene Creed, as it has become
> standard throughout the whole Christian world:
.
 I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven  and earth, of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, through whom all things came to be.
.
> M: The comments in asterisks are the clarifying comments that show that 'only begotten Son' means
> 'consubstantial to the Father' AND show what this in turn must mean.
.
 So we have here an early fourth-century emperor-begotten creed that uses words and ideas nowhere to be found in the sacred texts. hmmm ... So then it took roughly two centuries or so for the scribes and pharisees to figure out that 'son of god' *really* means 'god the son'? And that "the Father and I are one" must therefore be taken *literally* to mean exactly 'consubstantial' and nothing else? Is this right? Because those early believers couldn't - wut? - couldn't know that the words in 'son of god' could be used to form the phrase 'god the son'? What if that phrase *was* used as early as the second century:
.
 "3 This know we: that our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is God the Son of God, who was sent of God the Lord of the whole world, the maker and creator of it, who is named by all names and high above all powers, Lord of lords, King of kings, Ruler of rulers, the heavenly one, that sitteth above the cherubim and seraphim at the right hand of the throne of the Father: who by his word made the heavens, and formed the earth and that which is in it, and set bounds to the sea that it should not pass: the deeps also and fountains, that they should spring forth and flow over the earth: the day and the night, the sun and the moon, did he establish, and the stars in the heaven: that did separate the light from the darkness: that called forth hell, and in the twinkling of an eye ordained the rain of the winter, the snow (cloud), the hail, and the ice, and the days in their several seasons: that maketh the earth to quake and again establisheth it: that created man in his own image, after his likeness, and by the fathers of old and the prophets is it declared (or, and spake in parables with the fathers of old and the prophets in verity), of whom the apostles preached, and whom the disciples did touch. In God, the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word become flesh: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body, begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the flesh, but by the will of God: that he was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it."
.
 Now this quote is from the so-called 'Epistle of the Apostles', being a mid-2C Roman document of considerable historical and theological interest. For one thing it just happens to be the *direct* literary and historical source of the 'Interrogatory Creed' which Hippolytus of Rome recorded about 215CE. And which continued to develop into the Apostles Creed of c.700CE; ie. the creed originally came from the epistle, naturally.
.
 Yet the phrase 'god the son' never made it into the earliest creeds! Interesting historical datum, yes? Could it be because they knew better than to do something like that? Yes. Which would certainly explain why there's no such phrase or idea in the Apostles Creed! So I guess what I'm saying by all this is that the Nicene Creed is not really much of an improvement on the Apostles Creed. Not from the perspective of a slightly more biblical theology, I mean. That is to say that prophetic literature is generally more authoritative than the stuff that the scribes and pharisees get up to when they're all in an uproar about some silly thing or another.
.
>>     - the untransfigured one - textman ;>
.
> Finally, a brutally honest self-assessment ;)
.
 Wuddaya mean "finally"? 
.
 So anyway, the authority of the Nicene Creed appears to reside more in its popularity than in its supposed inspiration. No doubt it was good for Christendom at the time, and perhaps in the long run, but all this does not prove it to be true. Why? Because creeds tend to be political and theological statements rather than 'inspired teachings' as such. Have you seen some of the more recent creeds that define the Faith in terms of allegiance to the LORDGODHOLYBIBLE? The Lord sayeth, "It is a great stench over all the land!"