THE DISTASTEFUL POLITICS
OF FAITH!
[Or:
Authority? Who's Got that Darned Authority?]
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion / Date > 25 Feb 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
And just as the early Greek churches shaped the Greek-Christian scriptures according to their mighty concern for apostolic authority, so too did the priests change, shuffle, and distort the holy books (and the readings of them) to the favor of the priestly vision of all things (ie. theology, rituals, social structures, leadership, etc). Now none of this should really surprise any competent bible-student; for it is common human nature to magnify and expand those things that seem most important or valuable to them. We all "adjust" our own personal memories so as to benefit ourselves most of all.
.
Myths and legends in general also operate the same way in explaining the whys and wherefores of things. Thus in the ancient thinking about Jesus of Nazareth there was an irresistible pressure to inflate and magnify and glorify such that, a mere two centuries after his death and resurrection, the Son of Man was all but forgotten so as to make room for the wondrous Son of God. Later, when the Faith became the imperial cult, the all-mighty Pantocrator became the guiding image for all good and pious thinking and theology about Jesus. In the same way, the apostles were also magnified and glorified, and this process also began early in the history of the Greek churches. Peter and Paul had assumed mythic proportions already by the end of the first century, and those churches that best appropriated them would stand the best chance of surviving and thriving amidst the confusion and anarchy of competing practices and theologies and religions.
.
Thus the Roman church (and also the Romish author of Luke-Acts) spared no effort to bring Peter and Paul to Rome ... In the public's imagination at least; for the great apostles never did set foot in Rome in their actual historical lives. But it was important for the priests to foster the illusion that coming to Rome was the crowning achievement of their brilliant super-hero careers. Here they came to establish Rome as the new Holy-City and Center of the Universe. Here they came to hand down their magical authority and apostolic powers to their chain of legitimate successors. And after Paul's glory waned, he was prompted discarded so that the popes could emphasizes their direct descent from Simon-Peter (the first and primary leader among all the apostles yet).
.
So you see how all that works. And if church history and the Greek scriptures get bent and distorted along the way (just a little bit at a time, and here and there only, of course), well, it's all for the greater good of the politics of religion, isn't it? ... And lest our dearly beloved Fundy-Evangelical brothers and sisters should boast, they *also* distort church history, and magnify the scriptures, in their biased and self-serving readings that place all infallibility, authority, and sufficiency within the Holy Bible. Thus the Roman Catholic Church places Rome and priestcraft at the center of the Faith. The Orthodox churches place Tradition and priestcraft at the center of the Faith. The Quakers and Anabaptists place themselves (individually and corporately) at the center of the Faith. The Anglicans (and others) place Reason at the center of the Faith. And Fundies (bless their feeble little minds) place their KJV's at the center of the Faith ... Let the Reader know it well: All of these distortions (these vile idolatries really) are equally corrupt and distasteful unto the Lord!
/ Topic > Re: The Distasteful Politics of Faith! #1 / Date > 28 Feb 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 25Feb00 DWS wrote: The word you present is truth. By his imagination, will, and desire,
> man has created false images of the reality of what transpired many years ago.
.
cybrwurm sayeth: Dear DWS, that's true enough. On the other hand, prior to the Enlightenment people simply didn't have the ability or opportunity to approach history in anything like unto a rational and scientific manner. Of course, this doesn't excuse the priests for their deliberate corruptions of texts and distortions of early church history, but it does underline the fact that our current historical awareness was hard won, and a long time coming.
.
> DWS: Reality is not part of religion for religion is created and established on belief in
> these false images, idols, and teachings of man.
.
The whole purpose of myths and religions is to provide meaning and significance to human life, and to answer the really BIG questions and mysteries posed by life, the universe, and everything. We can hardly fault our ancestors for being wrong most of the time. After all, we remain, even now, largely ignorant of the many and subtle ways and byways of the cosmos ...
.
> Hence, man is unaware of a Living God.
.
Most people today are unaware of the Living God simply because they don't want to know anything about the Living God. They think they can get along just fine without the Creator and Center of All Things!
.
> Man possesses no true image of the Living God nor does man possess any knowledge
> nor understanding of the Living God.
.
Jesus Christ is the true image of the Living God. And through him we possess saving knowledge and understanding of the Living God.
.
> Man only knows religions and religious doctrines and teachings created in the tradition
> of man which is to reject God and create religion.
.
But through our Lord Jesus Christ we are able to come to true Faith, and thus overcome the tendency to falsify true religion with the traditions of men.
P.S. "Do not be carried away by all sorts of strange teachings. For it is good for the heart
to be strengthened by grace, not ritual meals, which have never benefited those who
participated in them." (Hebrews 13:9 / NETbible)
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 2Mar00 Priskah replied: erasmian, Where do you fit in with all of this?
.
erasmian answers; Dear Priskah, that's a darn fine question actually; and I'm very tempted to simply say that I fit in wheresoever you decide I belong. That would be the easy way out, alright. But I'll assume that your question is meant seriously, and therefore merits a serious response ...
.
Ummmm, well, let's see:
.
>> erasmian previously wrote: <snip> Myths and legends in general also operate the same way in
>> explaining the whys and wherefores of things. <snip>
.
Right. So I guess what I do is to explain "the whys and wherefores of things". Not by building up myths and legends, but rather by pulling them down; such that the long-forgotten past can emerge from beneath all the dross and piety that we have piled high upon the Faith of the early Greek churches (such that we can barely even see them clearly anymore).
.
And if that answer is unsatisfactory, I could always direct you to the very end of the previous post, where I state quite plainly where I "fit in with all of this":
.
>> - one who undermines authority - cybrwurm ;>
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 4Mar00 Danderu replied: Just curious, but where do you get your history from in this post?
.
erasmian answers: Dear Danderu, most of "my" history comes from the copious evidence provided by the early Christian literature (canonical and non) critically assessed and compared with many and various accounts of early church history. Indeed, the secondary literature is quite immense; and I do not pretend to have seen it all.
.
> Who says Peter and Paul never made it to Rome?
.
Duh? Where have you been? This observation is hardly new to the biblical sciences. There are a significant number of scholars and historians who have carefully examined the scriptures and the early history of the churches, and found nothing substantial to support this claim ... Unless you're of a mind to suppose that Luke's fanciful account of Paul's activities is historically reliable. I am not one of these, because Lk-Acts is obviously more legendary and theological than historical. Moreover, since Lk-Acts is an early second century document (as all the evidence *clearly* suggests), it cannot even be considered as *primary* evidence for the first century. In other words, only the gospel of Mark & Peter, and the authentic epistles of Paulos of Damascus, can *validly* be used to answer the question regarding Peter & Paul being in Rome; and these documents give not the slightest hint that either man went there. All the "evidence" within the later documents suggesting otherwise (4X: the end of Hebrews) must be regarded as *extremely* suspicious historically (from a purely methodological standpoint, that is).
.
> What studies do you refer to?
.
There are many scholars who will not object to the observations outlined above. Just check around; (4X: see especially the more recent commentaries on Acts of Apostles).
.
> Whose writings? It's one thing to come out and say the history is distorted,
.
Yes. It's "one thing" indeed, as you say. But it is hardly a *little* thing. It is the first and most important fact to impress deeply upon our minds. If we are to rest content with the general scholarly consensus, or the Magisterium, or our church's traditions, or conservative scholarship, or your favorite preacher, or some televangelist's emotional exegesis, or whatnot! ... then we have no motivation, no drive, no need, to uncover the *real* story behind, within, and in front of, the scriptures. Canonical history, early church history, and all the biblical sciences must be *constantly* criticized and re-evaluated to the end of burning off the chaff, and purifying the remaining substantial core of historical reality. Only in this way can we separate legend and opinion from rational historical probabilities (which are ultimately based upon the *assumption* that God's good universe is consistent, coherent, and runs according to a rational design). For history, you see, is (at bottom) based upon faith every bit as much as the requirements of any religious system!
.
> but without references, it's just your opinion.
.
That is incredibly dismissive of you, sir. The strength of my "opinions" (as you call them in negative pre-judgment) resides in the fact that they make every effort to conform to the facts and evidence of the early Christian documents as we have them. Every one is free to follow my reasoning and compare it to the texts and the best available (historical) evidence. I'm certainly not asking anyone to trust my exegesis merely on the basis that the cyber-prophet is a humongous SOB!
.
> That said, I agree that the books of the OT were rewritten and changed by the priests
> and scribes to fit their times and needs.
.
There would be little point in denying this since the texts give ample evidence of ongoing editorial activities.
.
> And I agree that over time the crusade started by Jesus and carried on by his apostles has been altered.
.
If you mean that the NT texts have also undergone growing pains, then I quite agree.
.
> One would think that the powers bestowed upon the apostles when the Holy Spirit entered
> them at the return of the crucified Jesus would have been passed on to the others who
> followed, but that never happened.
.
Just so. The Holy Spirit is not a thing to be taken possession of and handed on like some family heirloom. The Holy Spirit is a divine person in Her own right; and She goes wheresoever She wills. Those who claim to have captured and domesticated Her are (at best) liars and frauds.
.
> Still, I would suggest reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel.
> It is a well written study into the authentication of the 4 gospels.
.
You mean that it deals with the history of the canonical process up to the fourth century CE?
.
> Danderu: I believe that the gospels we have are pretty much intact; it's the message
> they convey that has been distorted.
.
I'm not sure I follow you. If the gospels are (for the most part) "pretty much intact" (and I agree that they are that), then how has the message they convey been distorted? Through the priestly interpretation and domestication of the texts, perhaps? ... That would be my first guess.
.
> Jesus didn't want worship or a cult following. He came so we could see we are one with God, and
> one with each other. He preached love, unconditional love. He called people to account for lack of
> vision and faith, but condemned no one. I do not think even the apostles grasped the totality of
> what Jesus was saying, though they did their best.
.
Sure they did. But being mere fallible mortals, like the rest of us, they saw everything within the particular context of their personal lives as set within the Empire. An unbiased universal vision is the hardest thing of all to achieve, and the early believers did not always manage it.
.
> They were not scholars, but ordinary men in an extraordinary situation. Paul was a scholar of sorts,
> and knew the scriptures intimately. He was a zealous Pharisee, and became a zealous Christian,
> and it's no surprise that his ministry differed from Peter's and the rest. He never met Jesus, except
> in a vision, as he relates it.
.
The prophet Jacob of Alexandria (ie. the author of the NT book of James) was also a scholar. He not only knew the LXX intimately, but also much of the best pagan and secular literature as well. This emphasis on knowledge began in Paul's day, and continued in the church of Egypt up to Clement and Origen. In other words, the true Christian gnosis was an essential element in the prophetic faith of the early Greek churches. Thus scholarship and faith have always been partners to strengthen and support each other. It is only in this post-Christian era that believers piously despise the efforts of bible scholars in the name of faith; which only goes to show how little they know of their own early traditions.
.
> Has the history of the early church and the apostles been altered? Of course, that's the nature of
> human understanding, but don't let that color your perception.
.
It doesn't color my perception, except that the effort to recover that lost history requires a constant suspicion of the prevailing (and oh so very comfortable) vision of that history.
.
> The core of Christianity can be summed up in Mark 12:28-31; the rest, including the crucifixion and
> resurrection, just illustrates that point.
.
If you say so; but I think that the fullness of the Faith just might be a little more complex than that.
.
> Jesus showed that love and life are eternal, that what we do in this short time on earth doesn't
> really matter in the long run, for the kingdom of God is within us. The questions I leave you with
> are: what will you do with eternity?
.
I can only tell you that when I get there.
.
> What will you do with immortality?
.
I'll let you know if and when I get it.
.
> If everything we acquire in this lifetime is just stuff, stuff we cannot take with us when we leave,
> what good is it?
.
It's no good at all. What matters is those things that we *can* take with us: Our personalities, our memories, our humble and contrite hearts. Therefore it is our duty as believers to live well (according to the will of God for us).
.
> Does the joy of buying a new car compare with the joy of touching another soul,
.
Certainly not!
.
> of helping someone in need,
.
Oh, no ...
.
> of watching a breathtaking sunset?
.
Well, I guess it would depend on the car ... :)
.
> Where do your priorities lie?
.
With the People of God.
.
> What are you doing with eternity?
.
Eternity I don't know. All I know is my own tiny and transient existence here and now; which I have given over to the Lord (to be an instrument for the good service of his lost and wayward People).
.
> Have a wonderful journey. -- Love and Peace, Danny
.
Thx, Danderu. And I hope that I have answered all your questions to your satisfaction; although I admit that I fail to see the sense of some of them.
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #4 / 12 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 8Mar00 Danderu replied: Hi Erasmian, thanks for the epic response.
.
erasmian answers: Dear Danderu, you're very welcome. And there's plenty more where that came from ... :)
.
> It seems at the core we are on the same wavelength, but all I was asking for were some references.
> Erasmian, you do not seem a person who takes things at face value; you prefer to research for yourself.
.
Quite right on both counts.
.
> All you had to say was "Paul and Peter probably never made it to Rome according to a study done by
> Maximus Studius in 3 AD." That was my point. List a couple of those 'early Christian documents.'
> Then, if I decided to, I could go read it for myself.
.
Understood. You'd like to know exactly where you can find such opinions expressed within the secondary literature. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with the references you seek, as I just don't have them handy at the moment. I have literally hundreds of books relating to biblical studies, and in order to find something specific I'd have to systematically comb through each and every one of them looking for the views in question. Clearly, such a project is practically impossible as I have neither the time, nor the energy, nor the will, to carry out such a pointless enterprise. The best I can do at the moment is to direct you to the popular commentaries that ought to make mention of these things. Try the Anchor Bible commentaries, and/or the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, and/or Calvin's commentaries.
.
> On the other hand, for me it is not important whether or not they
> got to Rome, for it doesn't alter the message of Jesus either way.
.
You are, of course, "technically" correct. However, I am of the opinion that the way we view early church history has a *profound* impact upon the way we read the scriptures. For example, if we accept the popular and pious view that Peter and Paul were both killed at Rome, then this has a direct bearing on how we approach certain verses in the NT; such as the end of Hebrews. That is, this vision of church history will naturally lead the reader to suppose that Paul is "probably" the author of Hebrews. And *that* view will naturally resist the idea that those final verses were NOT a part of the original MS, but were tacked on at a later date (which is true).
.
Do you see what I'm getting at? Early Church history and biblical studies are not two distinct fields of study; but are, in fact, intimately connected so as to be part of each other. *Therefore* a sound and sensible approach to early church history is absolutely vital to any approach to the scriptures that wishes some grounding upon the truth of things. That's why the question of whether or not Peter and Paul were in Rome IS very important! It's a question that should concern all believers simply because the Faith is fundamentally based upon real, actual historical events. Thus it is desperately important to be able to distinguish between pious legends and historical facts. This is, alas, a distinction that most Fundies and Cats are simply incapable of comprehending or appreciating.
.
>> erasmian previously wrote: <snip> I'm not sure I follow you. If the gospels are (for the most
>> part) pretty much intact (and I agree that they are that), then how has the message they
>> convey been distorted? Through the priestly interpretation and domestication of the texts,
>> perhaps? That would be my first guess.
.
> And you would be correct. It's our interpretation of the NT and the OT that makes them both fluid,
> and gives us so much trouble.
.
I quite agree. Nor is this a novel discovery. Even in NT times (ie. 50-150CE) it was known that some people were twisting Paul's theology to their own ends (cf. 2Peter). Hence the importance of an authoritative interpretation was a problem that had to be addressed by the early churches. In Egypt it was the prophets who had the authority to make definitive interpretations, but after the second century the priests took total control of the churches, and then they were the ones who made *all* the authoritative interpretations. Even today, Fundies (and other "People of the Book") find it virtually impossible to break away from the priestly vision of all things; even as they vehemently deny any dependence upon Rome and her traditions!
.
> When I say: "The core of Christianity can be summed up in Mark 12:28-31; the rest, including the
> crucifixion and resurrection, just illustrates that point," it is not to filter out the 'complexity' as you
> say, ("If you say so; but I think that the fullness of the Faith just might be a little more complex
> than that.") but to show that we make it harder than it has to be.
.
Yes, I think you may be right about that. The essence of the Faith does tend to get obscured by an unfortunate over-emphasis upon rituals, sacraments, doctrines, dogmas, authoritative interpretations, creeds, habits, customs, traditions, stubborn & apparently immutable patterns of thought, etc etc. As the Lord says, we cannot see the Kingdom by observation (ie. with our physical eyes).
.
> Think about those verses and what they imply.
.
OK: Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is: 'Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, with your whole soul, with your whole mind, and with your whole strength.' The second is: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." -- Mark 12:28-31 / NETbible
.
Obviously these verses imply quite a lot!!!
.
> Love God with your whole being (yes I'm paraphrasing) and love your neighbor as yourself. If we did
> truly put God above all else - family, money, possessions, pride, fear - what more could we need?
.
How about: A good idea of who and what we're talking about when we refer to "God". For example, Jesus here clearly states that "the Lord our God, the Lord is one". And yet most Christians believe that 'God' refers to *three* distinct persons. So is God one, or is God three? This is but one of the many problems that need to be addressed if we are to love God "with your whole mind"!
.
> If we truly love our neighbor as OURSELF,
.
Practically impossible for just about everybody. The closest that most people can come to this is a kind of selfless devotion to the immediate family. A rather poor approximation to the commandment at best!
.
> not as we would have them love us, but as we love ourselves, as if they WERE us, we would not
> covet, be jealous, compete, criticize, judge; instead we would cherish and help and lift them up,
> and in doing so we would be cherishing and helping and lifting ourselves up too. It really is that
> simple. If we act as if we are all one, if we act as if hurting someone else hurt us as much, imagine
> what the world would be like.
.
Radically different from what it is now, I expect.
.
> You said, in response to my question of eternity: "All I know is my own tiny and transient existence
> here and now; which I have given over to the Lord (to be an instrument for the good service of his
> lost and wayward People)," and that is perfect, and perfection. But the masses are concerned with
> their own corner of the world.
.
That's just human nature; or: the 'old man' in classical Christian theology. One philosopher put it best, I think, when he said that most people are bound and determined to spend their entire lives "licking the earth" ... :)
.
> You and I can run to the grocery store, or go eat at a restaurant,
> while our brothers and sisters die of malnutrition and starvation.
.
Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
.
> We go to the doctor for check-ups and for sore throats, while others die of polio and measles for lack of
> healthcare. People bury themselves in the Bible, cheer when God KILLS hundreds of thousands on the
> battlefield and feel justified when young men and women die in wars that have nothing to do with right
> or justice or love, but only greed and fear.
.
The 21st century will demonstrate to one and all that the new corporate world is evil and rotten to the core precisely because it is firmly based upon apathy, greed, selfishness, and utter indifference towards the suffering of others.
.
> Is that 'loving your neighbor as yourself?'
.
No. It's just the basic nature of this post-Christian world; a world that has apparently outgrown the supposedly oppressive restraints and restrictions of the Faith. In fact, however, the Faith is the only hope this world has!
.
> And would a just loving God do that in the first place? God doesn't play favorites, in my opinion.
> My faith tells me we are all one, to be in the moment, to love unconditionally, and to see the joy
> and perfection in everything.
.
You seem to think that anything more than this is not required because this is the sum and substance of what Jesus taught. However, there is more to the Lord's teachings than this; and therefore your emphasis upon just these elements could also be considered 'slanted'. 4X: To love "unconditionally" does not necessarily preclude the need to also make distinctions (eg. between believers and pagans) and many and various sorts of judgments required by daily life ...
.
> In the movie "Contact" they talk of the theory of Occam's Razor. It states: ... that a person should not
> increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, or that the person
> should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.
.
Quite right. Because the more assumptions we add, the greater becomes the probability that we will be wrong! In the cyber-prophet's approach to the scriptures, Occam's Razor is a basic methodological necessity.
.
> We make God so much more complex than he/she has to be. Faith, love, charity, what more is there?
.
Brotherhood! I wish there were a better word for it than that, but I am referring to the bond between all true believers that *ought* to be stronger even than family ties:
.
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers came and stood outside, asking to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside wanting to speak to you." To the one who had said this, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother and who are my brothers?" And pointing toward his disciples he said, "These are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." -- Matthew 12:46-50 / NETbible
.
> Have a wonderful journey. Love and Peace -- Danny
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #5 / 15 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 12Mar T. Matthew wrote: Erasmian, I have been looking with great interest for info on your
> assertions as to the authorship of James. I have searched for some time on the net, as well as
> in various commentaries here at the homestead. I do not have the three commentaries you listed
> in your previous post on this thread, but have commentaries on the epistle itself. Thus far, I have
> only found support for the authorship being of James. I can't find any info on Jacob of Alexandria.
> <snipsome> I will continue to research.
.
Dear T.Matthew, please don't waste your time on such a project. The plain truth is that you will not find what you are seeking because Jamesian scholarship in general is dismal and pathetic beyond measure. There are NO bible scholars who share the cyber-prophet's views on the book of James because these views come out of my own study of the texts, and owe little or nothing to the efforts of others (except in a very general way).
.
If you wish more information on Jacob of Alexandria, the only place you will find it is at my website ...
.
> <snip> None of the online commentaries I've seen are much help.
.
I agree fully and completely! The available popular commentaries (both online and offline) on the second century Egyptian prophets (ie. James, Jude, 2Peter) are all of them - without exception yet - horrible and revolting, and *almost* totally useless!
.
> Do you have any favorite on line commentaries you use? What are the addresses? Thanks in advance.
.
Actually, I don't really use online commentaries very much (if at all). The ones I have found are grossly outdated and/or otherwise worthless as an indicator of current scholarship. Hopefully this situation will improve somewhat in future, but at the moment I'm pretty much restricted to the hardcopy books that I have here in my own library (most of which are also outdated). I think some of Calvin's commentaries are available online, but I don't know the URL; and his views (although still valuable) are several centuries behind the times.
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #6 / 16 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 13Mar00 Danderu wrote: <snipsome> I do agree that church history and biblical study are tied
> together, but in a very fundamental way they are not important in my faith. As a writer, I know
> about inspiration, about how a writer can be in the grip of a 'feeling' and the words just tumble
> out 'on their own.' Still, nothing that has been written, scripture or not, has not been filtered by
> the writer and the writer's experiences.
.
erasmian answers: Dear Danderu, yes, but I fail to see how all this makes church history and biblical study irrelevant to the Faith ... ???
.
> For me, the 4 gospels are the essence of my faith. Four distinct (and sometimes differing) versions
.
And also sometimes conflicting versions
.
> of the same story, but their basis is the same.
.
Yes, the basis of all four canonical gospels is the original written account co-authored by Mark and Peter during the years of the Jewish War leading up to the Fall of Jerusalem (70CE). Matthew (c.85CE), John (c.100CE), and Luke-Acts (c.115CE) are all basically just reworkings of that first unique and unprecedented gospel that changed forever the course and destiny of the Faith. Whether one accepts the importance of history or not, there can be no doubt that these four accounts are NOT of equal weight and authority. Primacy MUST go to the Gospel of Mark, for it is the only one that stems *directly* from the original inner circle of disciples!
.
> Paul's espistles, despite his claims of visions and inspirations, are still PAUL'S epistles.
.
If you are speaking of only the authentic Pauline epistles (ie. not including Col, Eph, 1&2Tim, Titus, etc), then you are correct. With one minor exception. The earliest of the epistles, the four Thessalonian letters (fully contained in canonical 1&2Thes) were a collaborative effort (just as the original gospel). Paul and Silvanus were *equally* responsible for the creation of the Christian epistle as a vehicle for the Word of God. It is this co-authorship that accounts for the various irregularities within the Thessalonian letters; which many scholars today stupidly answer by suggesting that 2Thes should be classified among the later pauline literature. They are, of course, incredibly silly, and just plain wrong, to do so!
.
> He was writing his opinion of how the church should function and conduct business. People don't
> even agree that he wrote all the letters attributed to him, as you point out. Peter, James, John, Luke
> all write their opinions, yet we're asked to believe them all and take what they write as GOD'S WORD.
.
Of course. This is because all of them were inspired to write the truth as they saw it. But this does not mean that everything they wrote is perfect and infallible, or of equal value and authority. Nor does it mean that we must (like ignorant baboons) ignore the contradictions in the various accounts; (4X: there are many historical inconsistencies between Acts and Galatians).
.
> There are how many sects and denominations of Christianty? <snip>
.
It is the very nature of the Faith to express itself in varied traditions. Even before the Fall of Jerusalem, the still emergent religion had spread out into four separate and distinct traditions under the unique leadership of the main pillars: the Jerusalem tradition under James the Lord's brother, the Antioch tradition under Simon Peter, the Alexandrian tradition under the apostle John, and the Aegean tradition under Paulos of Damascus. Even at that time there were notable distinctions between these four traditions; and yes, even a bit of mutual distrust and antagonism. The evidence for all this is still right there (plain as day) in the earliest NT documents ...
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #7 / 18 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>>> On 13Mar00 Danderu wrote: <snip> Doesn't anyone get it yet? You said:
.
] tx: For example, Jesus here clearly states that "the Lord our God, the Lord is one". And yet most
] Christians believe that 'God' refers to *three* distinct persons. So is God one, or is God three?
] This is but one of the many problems that need to be addressed if we are to love God 'with your
] whole mind'!
.
>>> Interesting example. Is God One, or is God a triune God? What is your opinion?
.
erasmian replies: Dear Danderu, I agree with Jesus ... :)
.
>>> Let me give you my opinion, for what that's worth. God IS. God IS ALL THAT IS. God is whatever
>>> we perceive her to be, for there is nothing God is not. Was Jesus God? Yes. Is God a spirit? Yes.
>>> Does God 'dwell' within each of us through that spirit? Yes. Is God an all knowing all seeing entity?
>>> Yes. When Jesus said, "I am," that was God speaking. When Jesus said, "I and the father are one,"
>>> he knew that: (a) God is all there is (b) he and God are one (c) he is God
.
Then why does Jesus constantly and consistently refer to himself as 'Son of Man' rather than 'Son of God'? And why did Jesus ask: "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18)? It seems that here Jesus is making a clear distinction between God and everything else; which would be the very contrary of all that you have just said above!
.
>>> I too am all that is. I am made up of particles, energy, as are we all. But more than that, more
>>> than our physical appearance, there is a 'life force' within us, our soul/spirit. That spirit leaves,
>>> the bodies ceases to function (and returns--eventually--to 'dust'). But I say this and people roll
>>> their eyes and say, "Oh, so now YOU'RE God?" And I'd say, "yes, what else would I be?
>>> What else is there?" <snip remainder>
.
Sinners, for one. Surely you're not going to suggest that even sinners are God!
.
>> On 13Mar00 PACKARD wrote: THIS IS THE REAL STARTING POINT IN DISMISSING SO-CALLED
>> HIGHER CRITICISM: <snip a *TON* of worthless Fundy propaganda!>
.
erasmian answers: Dear Cyber-Saints, rather than burden the Reader with a point by point critique of Packard's excessive Fundy foolishness, I'll simply bring your attention to one assertion as a typical example of how Fundies do grave violence to the sacred texts through their gross inability to pay attention to the text and what it says, rather than to what they *want* the text to mean!
.
>> EVEN SO CALLED Higher criticism finds the most reliable NewTestament Scripture to be that
>> showing Jesus' view of the Bible's authority, such as Matt. 5:18, Man doesn't live by bread
>> alone but by every word that proceeds from God's mouth.
.
There's no mention of the Holy Bible in this verse, Packard. If you can show us any version or translation that has the word 'Bible' in Mt.5:18, then either post it or spare us your lunatic "reasoning" ...
.
>> <snip> ( EVEN THE TENSE IS INSPIRED)
.
Sure, Packard. Hey, even the particular shade of blue on the cover of my RSV is inspired ...
.
>> If the skeptic doesn't like this . . . let him be crucified and rise from the dead 3 days
>> later, and I'll listen to him.
.
There you have it, folks! Unless the cyber-prophet walks on water and resurrects the dead then none of us has any reason whatsoever to even listen to him! ... This is a perfectly reasonable Fundy attitude, no doubt.
.
> On 15Mar00 DonW wrote: <snip> Similar tests of textual criticism have been proposed, but
> I know of no textual critics willing to subject their own methods to the level of scrutiny they
> apply to the scriptures.
.
You are in error, DonW. You do know *one* bible scholar who is willing to subject his methods to *any* level of scrutiny you'd care to apply . . . Want to take a wild guess as to who that might be?
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #8 / 18 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
> On 13Mar00 Apologeticjedi wrote: A few corrections. While perhaps an argument can be made
> that Peter never made it to Rome, the vast majority of evidence points to Paul's journey.
.
erasmian sayeth: Dear Apologeticjedi, you mean the vast majority of evidence FROM THE SECOND CENTURY (such as Acts)! Show me some evidence from the first century, and then I'll agree that there is a real *possibility* that Paul went to Rome. Otherwise, forget it!
.
> The fact that within five years of Paul recorded journey, Christians
> began being persecuted is EXTREMELY difficult evidence to get around.
.
Do you really think so? ... LOL ... It's not difficult at all, once we understand that the persecution tradition (of which both Paul and Silvanus were a part) began with the expulsion of the Hellenistic-Jewish believers two and a half decades before Nero's sadistic excesses. Consider carefully the first words of the NT:
.
... For you brothers and sisters became imitators of the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea. You suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the [Christian] prophets, and also drove us out. [This is a direct reference to the expulsion of the Greek-speaking believers in Jerusalem. Note that both Paul and Silvanus identify themselves as being part of this group: "drove *us* out"] They [ie. the non-Christian Jews of Judea] displease God and are hostile to all people by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved. -- First Thessalonians 2:14-15 / Prophet Version
.
Thus the NT has its first deep roots in persecution; and this ongoing persecution colored the Faith both before and after the great fire in Rome. In other words, your so-called evidence is not evidence of anything, least of all Paul's presence in Rome!
.
> Likewise, Paul’s letter to the churches arrived from 40-55 AD and they were immediately
> circulated widely and were available to anyone who could make copies.
.
All of Paul's authentic letters were written in the fifties (49-61CE), and they most certainly were NOT "immediately circulated widely". The process of copying, collecting, and circulating was a very gradual one that took decades to advance. It is typical of Fundies to reduce decades of events into mere months. This is because they are in a very great hurry to make sure that the entire NT was finished and complete before the end of the first century. FOR THIS VERY REASON they simply cannot tolerate the suggestion that the process of composition of the NT documents was a slow and gradual one that was spread out evenly over the course of a century (ie. 50-150CE). This despite the fact that all the evidence of canonical history *cannot* be made to fit the absurdly unhistorical 50-year composition scheme so beloved of those who idolize the scriptures!
.
> The synoptic gospels (not John’s) were probably written in the 50-60 AD time frame
.
This idea is utterly, totally, and completely ridiculous! If you had a year to give me, I could demolish this absurd suggestion so thoroughly that you would never again propose it to anyone. As it is, I don't even know where to begin to convince you of your humongous error. ... Here is but one point: in the sixties of the first century the Faith was still firmly embedded within the Jewish context (as Paul's authentic epistles clearly testify), and yet Lk-Acts is very obviously addressed to churches within the context of the Roman Empire (ie. it comes out of a second century setting). This is a colossal contradiction that only stubborn ignorance and pious stupidity is able to ignore!
.
> and they somehow appear everywhere at once.
.
Oh, of course. They just *magically* appear everywhere at once! Here we see very clearly that the conventional pious view of the history of the NT texts is firmly established upon a solid bedrock of magical thinking. Of course, history doesn't *really* work that way, but what do pious believers care about historical realities, eh?
.
> (Even John, which was written either at Ephesus or on Patmos,
> immediately shows up in North Africa within a couple of years.)
.
Actually, it far more likely that the Gospel of John was written in Egypt (where, 4X, the Gnostic traditions were strongest; as also the Christian prophetic tradition that resisted them). This is NOT conjecture or mere speculation, folks. There is actual *physical* evidence from Egypt that (more or less) proves my contention. It is called P52; which is the ONLY fragment we have from all the original NT autographs. Please do check it out! And bear in mind that while scholars will stupidly claim that this is part of a mere copy, the evidence of the text itself bears witness that this is NOT the case (ie. the original MS contained *numerous* typos which could only exist in the original first draft -> BEFORE any copies were made).
.
> <snip some> By historical and Biblical accounts, around 35 AD a great persecution
> broke out against Christians.
.
Broke out (in Jerusalem) against the Greek-speaking Jewish followers of the Messiah from Nazareth (see. 1Th.2:14-15).
.
> Biblically this is represented in one by the name of Stephen becoming the first (or one
> of the first) to die (Acts 7:54-8:3).
.
Perhaps one of the "prophets" that Paul and Silvanus refer to.
.
> At the center of the persecution was a man named Saul.
.
Paulos of Damascus was never called 'Saul' except in Luke's fanciful and legendary account.
.
> Not only would this be confirmed in Luke’s "Book of Acts" (written between 50-60 AD)
.
Where is your evidence that Lk-Acts was "written between 50-60 AD", eh? Certainly the text itself gives precious little cause to forward such a ridiculously early date. Indeed, the opening of the gospel of Luke in and of itself rules out any possibility of a pre-Fall date. In fact, this opening only makes sense within the context of the early second century, but I certainly can't expect you to apply anything as mundane as common sense to your reading of the Word of God!
.
> but also by Saul himself (as Paul)
.
Paulos of Damascus was a real actual historical person. Saul of Tarsus is nothing more substantial than a literary character. Do you know the difference between fact and fiction? Obviously not!
.
> in his epistle to the Galatians (also written around 50 AD). Biblically, this is something confirmed by two
> separate sources, both of which are released within 3 decades after Jesus’ resurrection and within 2
> decades of Saul’s conversion.
.
Thou art full of BS, sir! In fact, there are many discrepancies between Galatians and Acts, and to ignore these obvious contradictions surely requires considerable ignorance and stupidity.
.
> The admittance of helping to stone Stephen in and around 35 AD means that in LESS THAN 5 years
> after Jesus died on the cross, Christians were being put to death for their belief that they had seen
> a risen savior. Why is that significant? <snip>
.
It is significant in that it demonstrates that your arguments and "evidence" are just so much hogwash, and that your reading of the scriptures is *extremely* illogical and unhistorical!
.
> If we were to date Mark we’d first start with the external evidence. The external evidence is no
> where near conclusive, but should be considered. Clement, Origin, Eusebius, Tertullian, and
> Jerome all seem to agree that it was written prior to the death of Peter. <snip>
.
Since none of these witnesses was present in the first century, their testimony can (by definition) be nothing other than speculation and hearsay. In other words, they have *no* evidential value, as such. The fact that you are unable to make such a necessary and fundamental distinction clearly demonstrates that you are a methodological imbecile who has not the vaguest conception regarding the things you speak of!
.
> The internal evidence is a little more reliable and more stable. We can conclude the gospel of Mark was
> written prior to 70 AD, for there is no allusion to the destruction of the Temple which would have been
> mentioned as the fulfillment of prophesy in 13:2, if that event had already taken place.
.
A rather tenuous hypothesis upon which to establish a date, if you ask me.
.
> On the other hand 16:20 most likely could not have been written
> until after the first Apostolic journey of Paul (49 AD)
.
Your ignorance never ceases to amaze me, Apologeticjedi. Everybody knows that Mk.16:9-20 were NOT a part of the original MS but was added much later (ie. in the second century).
.
> or at least after somewhere within the idea that the gospel was going out.
.
What on earth are you babbling about?
.
> Taking the two, external and internal, evidences, we get a date of 40-67 AD as the date
> for the writing of Mark.
.
That is incorrect, sir. There is no so-called "evidence" that Mark was written as early as 40CE; and plenty suggesting that it could only have been written *after* Paul's death (ie. c.62CE at the very earliest). Moreover, NOTHING that you have given us here is *primary evidence* in any way, shape, or form. I suggest you go back to school and spend a few years studying textual criticism if you wish to avoid presenting yourself to all the world as a colossal ass!
.
> If the ressurection was in 33 AD then Mark could have been written as close a 7 years from it,
.
There is NO possibility of *that* at all!
.
> or as long as 34.
.
But you much prefer the earlier date, don't you, Apologeticjedi? It fits so well with your absurd Fundy myth that the whole purpose of the first century was to create the NT; so that 19 centuries later fools and arrogant buffoons could abuse the sacred texts to their hearts content (in the name of piety and faith, of course!).
.
> Pretty much, all of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written within that time frame.
.
No they were not. The gospels followed each other slowly and steadily, with one author building on the work of the previous evangelists. That is what the evidence of the texts suggests to anyone not hopelessly wrapped up in the self-serving myth of the magical instant-genesis scheme that you dream about. Thus a far more accurate and historically reliable scheme would run as follows: Mark (c.70CE), Matthew (c.85CE), John (c.100CE), Luke-Acts (c.115CE). Any other scheme is simply untenable historically and realistically, and also contrary to the evidence of the texts.
.
> If it was as late as 34 years from Jesus’ birth (taking the maximum)
> would that be considered being tardy to hit the scene?
.
Only to silly Fundies who fancy that each and every Christian of the first century went running around declaring to each other: 'Oh do hurry up you! We have to be finished the New Testament before the end of the century, else Fundamentalist Christians two thousand years from now will not believe us! Oh Boo Hoo!'
.
> I would say that it was a little slow,
.
Yeah Gee, I'm shocked beyond measure to hear that! btw: Did you know that they didn't have e-mail, telephones, and jet-planes back in the first century? It's true, you know! Maybe you should check it out?
.
> but not as much as some detractors might say. People did not profit from writing in those times.
> In fact, writing was a somewhat tedious thing to do.
.
Plus most people were illiterate. Plus the first generation of early Christians expected an immediate end to the world -> AND SO HAD NO MOTIVATION to create a new set of scriptures for the benefit of future foolish Fundies. Therefore we *must* expect that the NT would NOT have got off to a flying start, but rather would have come about slowly and steadily (as I have been suggesting all along).
.
> It usually required a scribe, and the necessary utensils and parchment. It wasn’t vastly expensive,
> but there were valid reasons to try and avoid it ideally. There also needs to be a motive for writing.
.
No shit, Sherlock. My ascribed motive for the writing of Mark was that Peter and Mark had to make an answer to the growing popularity and power of Paul's epistles (which were already being slowly circulated among the Aegean churches in the sixties). Thus the original gospel was a deliberate effort (better late than never) to re-assert the original non-pauline traditions of the early Greek churches. ...
.
btw: What's your ascribed motive for the writing of the Gospel of Mark and Peter?
Do you even have one? Or are you just so much hot air?
.
> I’m not sure the early church had a motive.
.
Only a Fundy could say something so incredibly stupid! :(
.
> The church at Antioch and Jerusalem
.
The Greek-speaking assembly in Antioch + the Aramaic-speaking assembly in Jerusalem = TWO churches!
.
> were so close that visiting was more acceptable. And writing to the Gentiles would have been a hard
> task without having first visited them which didn’t happen until Paul’s journey which are dated in 49 AD.
> All things considering, to have the gospel of Mark (and 2 others to agree with it) show up on the scene
> between 7 to 34 years after the death of our Lord is not all that tardy.
.
No. But it IS historically *IMPOSSIBLE*; which is evident to anyone who understands the enormous time and effort involved in creating a literary masterpiece. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me. You just carry on with your ludicrous *magical* thinking, and your ridiculous *magical* church history.
.
> In short, the closeness and continuity of the gospels and the epistles of Paul (and Peter,
> James, and Jude for that matter)
.
James, Jude, and 2Peter were written in the second century; and indeed were among the last NT books to be composed. The facts of canonical history demonstrate the truth of this assertion; 4X: Origen is the earliest witness to the Book of James -> an obvious impossibility *IF* it was written in mid-first century (as almost everyone stupidly imagines (ie. CONTRARY to the established facts!))!
.
> all seem to give strong proof that the resurrection was a real occurrence. John, who wrote his work
> in the later part of his life, was almost synoptic-like in his portrayal of the resurrection experience.
> There are some that claim that there are contradictions between the four gospels,
.
That's right. And I would be one of them.
.
> (and that is another longer essay to defend) but the truth of the
> resurrection is always agreed upon with every writer of the NT
.
Really? . . .
Or perhaps this is just yet another example of thoughtless Fundy exaggeration and histrionics (see below)?
.
> (certainly none come to mind that do not at least mention that Jesus was risen).
.
For starters: How about the Universal Epistle of Jude?
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #9 / 21 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 20Mar00 DonW wrote: Hmmm, OK. As I recall from your site, you present absolutely no historical
> evidence for your structure of Thessalonians, for example. It is an interesting conjecture, but no more.
.
erasmian replies: Dear DonW, it seems to me that you do not appreciate either the complexity of the problem, or the significance of my solution. I do not present any historical evidence for the four Thessalonian letters for the simple reason that there is none as such. This is not a problem of history so much as it is a problem of form-criticism. Consequently, it is the methods of form-criticism that must be used to untangle the original letters from their current canonical format. I'll grant you that some level of conjecture and speculation were required in my wrestling with the texts, but the validity of my results depends entirely on the inherent cohesiveness and integrity of the four letters A, B, C, and D. Therefore I reject your easy dismissal of my work as "an interesting conjecture, but no more", and suggest that you compare my scheme with the anemic and inadequate proposals offered by other commentators; most of whom are not even aware that we are dealing here with four separate and distinct letters!
.
> You seem to buy into the standard late authorship premise of the school of textual criticism.
> That, too, has absolutely no historical evidence for support. More scholarly conjecture.
.
That is incorrect, DonW. My essay makes quite plain my view that the Thessalonian letters are the *earliest* NT documents, and in fact were the proving grounds for the creation of the Christian epistle. They were co-authored by Paulos and Silvanus round about 49-51CE. Consequently I firmly reject the proposal that Second Thessalonians was written decades later by someone from the so-called pauline school.
.
> You seem to demand historical accuracy in the text, but not in
> your own efforts to "restore" what you consider to be "accurate".
.
The historical value of the Thessalonian letters stems, in large part, from a clear recognition that these four letters are genuine and authentic, and represent the earliest attempts by Christian writers to set the Word of God down in writing. Moreover, my restoration is accurate only because it respects the integrity of the texts, and flows out of a minute and precise appreciation of the general shape and contour of the letters as we now have them (ie. the canonical version is clearly an expertly edited version).
.
> The tests I could propose are impractical over the internet, especially in the format of this forum.
.
Again I must reiterate that the validity of my proposal stands or falls more on the strength of the text of the four Thessalonian letters, and NOT so much on the manner in which I came to them.
.
> But in essence, take a historical document of multiple authorship; the Declaration of Independence
> or the US Constitution might do. Then apply your method to determine which passages, phrases,
> or words were supplied by how many and which different authors.
.
Dear DonW, I have no motivation whatsoever to do such a useless and pointless thing. Since the Thessalonian letters *are* an example of what you call multiple authorship, I see no reason why we cannot examine my methods in relation to them. Offer me some specific questions and/or critiques in this regard, and I will attempt to address them. But don't ask me to work on documents that I have no interest in, or any knowledge of!
.
> You may not consult any ancilliary documents by those present in which the works
> in question are discussed.
.
I have no intention of doing so.
.
> Unrelated documents may be consulted as stylistic references.
.
I have no intention of studying either of the documents you mentioned.
.
... Hey DonW, I'm a *bible* scholar, not a bloody politician. Get with the program already!
.
> Of course, for the scriptures themselves we don't even have stylistic
> references, so if you want the Iron Man challenge do without.
.
Huh? [Insert much confused scratching of head ...]
.
> There is no time limit. Present your findings whenever you feel them to be complete.
.
They're about as complete as they'll ever be, DonW. Can we turn our attention back to the more substantial matter of the problems raised by the Thessalonian letters? Eh? Please?
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> On 20Mar00 DonW wrote: LOL! That's a good one, erasmian.
.
erasmian answers: Dear DonW, I thought you were you were going to say: "That's a LONG one, erasmian" ... :)
.
>> You can no more prove any of your assertions than can those of whom you demand
>> proof for their assertions.
.
I don't demand *proof* for their assertions ... OR mine. What I DO demand is consistency with the Word of God and the history behind it. What makes my exegesis far more valid (and true) than the BS spouted by Apologeticjedi and other Fundy lame-brains is that I respect BOTH the Word of God *and* the history out of which that Word was given.
.
>> But you do like tilting at the windmills of popular belief, so I'll not detain you from your pursuits.
.
But that is exactly what you are doing when you reject the cyber-prophet without bothering to express *specific* statements and areas of concern. If there is anything I have said that you disagree with, then point it out and tell us why and how I am wrong. Surely you do not expect to convince me or anyone else of the errors of my ways simply by pointing out that I "like tilting at the windmills of popular belief" ... ???
.
> On 20Mar00 Son of Democritus wrote: Isnt the usual abbrieviation for fundrmentalist "fundie"?
> Just wondering . . .
.
Dear Son of Democritus, 'fundy' and 'fundie' are BOTH valid labels for those believers who idolize "The Book" without troubling themselves too much about thinking through the things that they read therein.
.
BTW: I suggest that you get thyself a spell-checker, and learn how to use it. Obviously you are in desperate need of one. And may I also suggest that you bend your mind toward coming up with some more interesting and pertinent questions?
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 20Mar00 Danderu wrote: Erasmian, you, as with everyone else on this and other forums (myself
> included), pull out samples from other people's posts that serve your purpose or give you the 'ability'
> to assert your views, while ignoring other comments and quotes that you cannot debate or cannot
> answer. This isn't a criticism, just an observation.
.
erasmian replies: Dear Danderu, would you rather that I ignore you altogether? :)
.
> For example, you glom on to Jesus' statement, "the Lord our God, the Lord is one," while
> ignoring his other statement, "I and the father are one."
.
Since when is "I and the Father are one" the equivalent of "I and the Father are one God"? ... These are two VERY different assertions, Danderu, and I think that it is very dangerous to simply *assume* that they are one and the same; especially in light of the fact that the NT does *NOT* support such an assumption. In fact, the Greek scriptures are consistent in making a clear distinction between Jesus and Abba: "God" refers to the Heavenly Father, and Jesus is the Lord. There's no cause for confusion there!
.
> Both statements are true, yet you use one to support your view
.
It is not "my" view; it the view of the Word of God.
.
> and conveniently ignore the other because it opposes your views.
.
I have no problem with the statement "I and the Father are one".
It is your interpretation of it that I have problems with.
.
> There is no contradiction. There is but one God, and God is all that is.
.
This is not the Christian view. The Bible makes a clear distinction between the Creator and his Creation. You keep saying "God is all that is", now show us where in scripture this statement is to be found.
.
> We are but aspects of God, individual, yet part of the whole; that is how Jesus can make both
> statements and both be true.
.
Jesus taught that we are all the sons and daughters of the Heavenly Father. He did not teach that "we are but aspects of God". Obviously some foreign philosophy is distorting your reading of the sacred text.
.
> You answer one of my statements thusly: And I'd say, "yes, what else would I be? What else is there?"
.
>> erasmian answered: Sinners, for one. Surely you're not going to suggest that even sinners are God!
.
> That is exactly what I'm saying.
.
And I'm telling you flat out that this is NOT the Christian view. The Gospel and letters of John make it quite clear that sinners are of the Devil, not of God.
.
> We are ALL God, all aspects of THE ONE.
.
Ah-ha! You've been reading Spinoza perhaps?
.
> One good analogy to explain this is a lava lamp. When cold, the lamp contains one blob of 'lava,'
> but when you turn it on, the blob separates into little blobs, but still they are from the original,
> and as they move about, some come together, some separate more; once you turn it off, they
> return to the one. We as souls individuate (when our 'lamp' is turned on) from God to experience
> this existence, then when we 'die' (our lamp goes out) we return to the one.
.
I think that Reality is considerably more complex than a lava lamp, Danderu. Therefore I reject your analogy as being far too simplistic *AND* un-Christian.
.
> Of course our existence and connection with God is far more complex than that,
.
So then you recognize that you are wrong?
.
> but I think you get the idea.
.
Oh I get it alright. I just don't agree with it. Are you sure that it's a *Christian* forum that you want?
.
> Sinners and saints alike are part of this wonderous cosmic existence.
.
I have no problem with *that*.
.
> It is our seeing ourselves as different, as separate, that gets us into trouble. Once you see the
> connection, once you realize we are all one, once you hear what Jesus said when he says, "love
> your neighbor as yourself," and "love your enemies," then you'll not worry about where Paul and
> Peter went, but where you are and how to get back to God. And that is easy, because you never
> left God, nor has God left you. Have a wonderful journey. -- Love and Peace, Danny
.
Your interpretation of Jesus is about as wrong-headed as the popular evangelical view that Christ is a Fundy. You know I love you Danny, but your faith has a lot of growing up to do.
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #12 / 24 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 22Mar00 Danderu wrote: Erasmian, maybe you can enlighten me about this statement:
.
>> textman previously wrote: Since when is "I and the Father are one" the equivalent
>> of "I and the Father are one God"? These are two very different assertions.
.
> What part of 'one' don’t I understand? If Jesus says they are one,
> but you say that they are not one God, then they are one what?
.
tx: Maybe he means that they are of one heart and/or mind and/or will.
This does not automatically mean that they are one person, being, and/or deity.
.
> Your statement reminds me of Clinton when he said, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
.
Huh?
.
> You tell me, "You keep saying "God is all that is", now show us where in scripture this statement
> is to be found." Now I have to go to scripture?
.
Only if you wish to remain consistent with the authentic faith of the early Greek churches.
Which, obviously, is of no great concern to you.
.
> This from a man who says,
.
>> tx: And just as the early Greek churches shaped the Greek-Christian scriptures according to
>> their mighty concern for apostolic authority, so too did the priests change, shuffle, and distort
>> the holy books (and the readings of them) to the favor of the priestly vision of all things.
.
The integrity of the Word of God remains somewhat intact (more or less) regardless.
.
> Scripture says Peter and Paul went to Rome,
.
Where does scripture say that Peter went to Rome?
.
> while you say,
.
>> tx: Thus the Roman church (and also the Romish author of Luke-Acts) spared no effort to bring
>> Peter and Paul to Rome ... In the public's imagination at least; for the great apostles never did
>> set foot in Rome in their actual historical lives.
.
> Which is it?
.
It is as I just said.
.
> If you want me to prove my faith through scripture, you first have to believe what's in there.
.
Faith, belief, and trust in the Word of God does NOT mean a simplistic and literal reading of the text!
If that were the case, then we should *all* be Fundies!
.
> When you say, "And if church history and the Greek scriptures get bent and distorted along the
> way (just a little bit at a time, and here and there only, of course), well, it's all for the greater
> good of the politics of religion, isn't it?" you already have a built in defense for anything I quote.
.
LOL ... I guess I just can't tolerate shabby and sloppy hermeneutics.
.
> In other words, scripture is bent and interpreted according to the reader or writer, correct?
.
Scripture is abused according to every Reader who fails to respect the text, and/or the real meanings and intentions of the author; (that's why questions of dating and authorship *are* important -> they help us to a better view of the actual author and his real intentions).
.
> So whether or not I find a scripture to illustrate my point doesn't matter.
.
Sure it does.
.
> So when you say, "This is not the Christian view," you mean it's not YOUR Christian view, correct?
.
Nope. I mean it's not ANY Christian view that tries to be in harmony with the faith of the early Greek churches as expressed in the NT.
.
> So you should amend your statement: "It is not "my" view; it is the view of the
> Word of God," to read, "as I interpret it."
.
"as I understand it" would perhaps be a better way of putting it.
.
> When it suits your purpose, the Bible is "the Word of God,"
.
The Bible is *always* the Word of God!
.
> D: but when it doesn't, you say:
.
>> tx: it is common human nature to magnify and expand those things that seem most
>> important or valuable to them. We all 'adjust' our own personal memories so as to
>> benefit ourselves most of all.
.
This observation hardly implies a rejection of the authority of scripture.
.
> You state: "And I'm telling you flat out that this is NOT the Christian view."
> Which 'Christian' view are you referring to?
.
The *authentic* Christian view of the early Greek churches who wrote and collected and used and handed-on the Greek-Christian scriptures (some of which were later collected as the New Testament).
.
> Pick one: <snip list of 100-plus various named denominations>
.
Well, the cyber-prophet is not affiliated with any of these (although he once was a Cat). And I never even heard of the so-called 'Church of God of Prophecy', but it certainly *sounds* promising ... :)
.
> I’m sure I’ve missed a few here,
.
No kidding. "a few" is an understatement!
.
> but I’m sure almost all of them can give you chapter and verse as to why their view is the RIGHT view.
.
And I'm just as sure that textman could find and identify the *many* errors and inconsistencies and shortcomings of the various hermeneutics of ALL of these churches. That is, they are all *wrong* to a greater or lesser degree; (4X: few churches are as wrong as the Romish Whore) ... For they all fall short of the prophetic perspective of the cybrwurm.
.
> Still it escapes most people that in 2000 years we’ve not learned Jesus’ lesson.
> Don’t you think that speaks VOLUMES for the Christian view?
.
No. But it does speak volumes about the long and creeping corruption and distortion of the authentic Faith of the early Greek believers.
.
> We are probably worse off spiritually, and more separate than ever before.
.
As long as we have the prophets with us, we cannot say that we are completely lost; but I will agree that we have a long way to go before believers in general can boast of a proper appreciation of the faith and zeal of the early Greek churches.
.
> So at the risk of boring you,
.
It's a risk you take often, I see ... :)
.
> here again is my statement of faith: God is ALL THAT IS. We are all part of God, created by God,
> and loved by God unconditionally. Jesus came to instruct us how to find God within us. He showed
> us that we have eternal life by dying and coming back. He taught love, acceptance and brotherhood.
> He taught us we are all one, brothers and sisters created by God.
.
Well, Danderu, that's all very cute and smurfy and all, but it's not very biblical now is it? It's not biblical, not historical, not even much Christian (if you ask me). So why on earth should you expect real True Believers to chuck the Word of God away in favor of your silly post-modern gospel of love love love?
.
> Again, as long as you see yourself separate from God, you will not
> hear the true meaning of "Love your neighbor as yourself"
.
Your 'we're all gods' assumption is basically just a simplified neo-platonic philosophy (cf. Plotinus) that surely had (and still has) a strong influence on biblical hermeneutics. However, such heavy reliance upon any philosophical "conclusion" as an unshakable foundation for all reading of the sacred text strikes me as illogical in the extreme. We do not require your smurfy gospel of unconditional love to tell us what the text means! Sheesh!
.
> Whether you believe in creation (we are all descended from Adam and Eve) or in science
> (we’re all made of the same stuff-energy), we all come from the same place, we are all one.
.
We are all stardust, we are all golden ... Hey, where'd all those great black-plastic disks go?
.
> What do you think LIFE is, Erasmian?
.
Basically, it is little more than a rather swift going from one place to another ... :)
.
> What is that force that keeps us breathing and thinking and laughing and crying if not spirit?
> If not GOD?
.
Spirit and Life and Truth are all of God, no doubt. You'll get no arguments from me on that particular point!
.
> What is your statement of Faith?
.
I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence. Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately. But concerning the one who lacks such things — he is blind. -- 2Peter 1:3-9 / NETbible
.
> Where has all your studying got you?
.
Well, Danderu, for one thing, it has given me a tremendous insight into the infinite depths and eternal power of the written Word of God as a revelation of the Eternal Logos. Jesus said that human beings do not live on bread alone. He meant that we are fundamentally spiritual creatures, and that our lives depend upon God as the source of all our life. This is why Christians cleave unto the Bible. It is our spiritual meat and drink. Yet even so, many abuse the Word by either placing more authority in their own traditions (or in their own biased and personal understanding), or by simply reducing the sacred text to a mere liturgical tool (bereft of all life and power). It seems to me that ALL Christians abuse and distort and misunderstand the scriptures in many and various ways. All of this stems directly from arrogance, vanity, and a profound disrespect for the sacred text. Thus the only place that 'all my studying has got me' is to the point of some basic gratitude and respect for the value, diversity, richness, power and meaning of the Word of God, and its essential importance to a sound and authentic faith.
.
> I love you too my friend and Brother, but "there are more things in
> Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
.
You shouldn't oughtta say things like that, Danderu, unless and until you have some small conception of the full scope and depth of my prophetic vision as it is expressed in *all* my many and various scribblings. In other words, you have no idea of the limits of my "dreams". Perhaps they are considerably wider than yours? ... Yes? No? Maybe?
.
> You say, "I think that Reality is considerably more complex than a lava lamp Danderu."
> And I said that too, but God is much more than words in a book too.
.
No kidding. I have never limited the grace of God to the Book.
.
> Open your eyes to the wonder all around you.
.
Open your eyes to the wonder of the Word. The main difference between you and me is that you have the scriptures firmly under your control, while in my case the scriptures have *me* firmly under control (ie. this is what it means to be a slave of the Word).
.
> Don't you see God in the beauty of a sunset, or hear God in the laughter of children, or smell
> God in the fragrance of a field of flowers, or taste God in the sweetness of an apple, or feel God
> in the touch of your lover? You don't have to believe me, just ask Job. Have a wonderful journey.
.
Sure Danderu. I also hear the angels singing in the music of Mozart; but all of this does not change the fact that believers have a duty (and it is truly a *joyous* duty) to spend time everyday within the biblical world, for by it we come to a better knowledge and love of our Lord Jesus Christ.
.
> P.S. My apologies for the length of this. I guess I got carried away. -- Love and Peace, Danny
.
Me too! :)
/ Re: The Distasteful Politics Of Faith! #13 / 24 March 2000 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion /
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 23Mar00 DonW wrote: erasmian, The restructuring of Thessalonians was one
> point: "conjecture," I called it.
.
erasmian replies: Dear DonW -> BYTE ME!
.
> The issue of late authorship is an entirely separate point,
.
Oh yeah?
.
> and I tried to phrase it generally: "more conjecture," I called it.
.
More BYTE ME!
.
> For example, your critique of Luke-Acts. I apologize if that wasn't clear.
.
What isn't clear is the validity and rationality of your *general* rejection of the cyber-prophet's exegesis.
.
> Regardless of your area of proclaimed expertise,
.
Oh ho! So my expertise is merely "proclaimed" now, is it? Well, that viscious prejudgment ought not to impede an objective evaluation of my work, right DonW?
.
> your method should be applicable to any historical document.
.
Where is the sense in this? As a bible scholar my methods are derived from the methodologies of the various biblical sciences. Thus they are very clearly tailor-made for the scriptures. Moreover, each document (or group of related documents) requires its own unique approach according to the nature of the text and its inherent problems and characteristics. Why, then, should you imagine that I can simply do for any document what can only be done for the sacred texts?
.
> If you aren't a historian of the documents in question so much the better,
.
Oh yes, I'm sure that abounding ignorance is *very* useful in the study of any particular piece of literature ... Sheesh!
.
> having not been exposed to the contemporary comments on the authorship of passages therein.
.
Right.
.
> Are you willing to test your methods, or were you just blowing hot air?
.
Obviously it's not my methods that are the source of the problem here, but yours!
/ Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 25Mar00 DonW wrote: erasmian, I have no doubt you invest much effort and study in
> the work you've done. But whether that qualifies you as an expert I am yet unsure.
.
erasmian answers: Well, DonW, if you have so little faith that you doubt my scholarly skills, it seems a foregone conclusion that you will not accept my authority on the basis that I am a prophet sent unto the People of God by the grace of our good Lord ... "O ye of little faith!"
.
> If you think that qualifies you above any of the others here who may have spent as much or more effort
> in peircing the haze of history surrounding the texts I am even less sure that makes you an expert.
.
Are these others prophets then? ... No? ... Then why should you imagine that they have more authority to speak about the scriptures than I? Truly, effort, time, and study is all that is required to make an "expert" on the scriptures; but only the Spirit of Truth can invest a scholar with the authority and ministry of a prophet: "Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2Peter 1:20-21 / NETbible). That seems plain enough to me. Or are you perhaps of the opinion that there are no such things as prophets?
.
> I was merely pointing out that you conflated two of my points into one, which twisted the meaning
> of what I am saying. It appears you are (sadly) too thin-skinned for the area of expertise you have
> chosen, since you don't seem to take even the most minor corrections very well.
.
Nonsense. I am perfectly capable of accepting criticism and correction ... Once it has been shown to be valid and justified. But you have not offered us anything even remotely resembling a considered critique. All you have done is to claim that my work on the Thessalonian letters is mere "conjecture" without the bother of backing up this dismissive judgment with sound observations and rational arguments.
.
I would also like to point out to our Readers that there is a world of difference between "mere conjecture" and a reasonable extrapolation from the evidence at hand. So while I'll agree that *some* conjecture is required in dealing with the sacred texts, and with the obscure history of the early Greek churches, most of my findings are based upon carefully piecing the scattered bits of evidence together, and building up a picture that is consistent with the general patterns and probabilities underlying the texts.
.
> So, I repeat my honest querry: are you willing to test your methods or are you just puffing
> yourself up to intimidate readers from questioning your findings?
.
I welcome any and all opportunities to explain my prophetic vision of the scriptures, but I also expect a certain amount of logical thinking from the other end. This seems not too much to ask for ... Although I probably *am* asking too much! :)
P.S. Well, that's it for me, folks. I'm about to develop a massive case of writer's block. Due to numerous prayer requests, and various circumstances beyond my control, I'll be going off-line very soon, and for an indefinite period of time. You know I don't like to leave the Cyber-Saints without a prophetic guide to the Word, but at least you should know by now that your 'experts on the scriptures' know far less than they think they do. Question especially those who are most confident that they know *exactly* what the Word says and means; for chances are that their "knowledge" is based largely on vanity and arrogance, and very little else. As for my unfortunate absence from cyber-space, think of it as an enforced exile into the Real World. I'll leave you now, wishing you grace and peace in the love of our good Lord Jesus Christ. And for heaven's sake, be good to each other!
.
P.P.S. "Now I ask you:
How does the love of God abide in one
Who has the good things of the world,
And yet closes her Heart to her Brother
(Keeping her Love & Affection from him)
When she sees him in need?
.
Little children,
Let us not love in word
(Or by the lips and tongue),
But in Deeds & Actions;
And in Reality, and in Truth!"
.
[1John 3:17-18 / Prophet Version]
