FORGET KEYS! WHERE
BE ROCK?
[Or: Some
Merriment Regarding Rocks & Keys]
/ Subject > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / ChristWatch Forum > Bible - The New Testament /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 4 Jan 2000 /"For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." -- 1Corinthians 10:1-4 / NETbible>> Once upon a time that famed champion of Catholicism thus called Chosen1446 wrote: I have the
>> deepest of all loves for Jesus and the Church that Jesus founded, which is the Holy Catholic Church.
.
cybrwurm answers: Dear Cyber-Saints, Chosen1446 fancies that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is contained fully and completely within the ample bosom of Romish propaganda. Methinks that Chosen's brain has maybe been pickled by an overlong soaking in sacramental wine ... hic ... oh, 'scuse me ... :0
.
>> Jesus did not found a bible, he founded a Church.
.
Actually, Jesus of Nazareth wanted only to reform Judaism; and accordingly had no intention of "founding" any new religion or "church". In other words, the Son of Man came to save sinners. He certainly did NOT come to "founded a Church"!
.
>> And this church is the Catholic Church.
.
Before the rise of Constantine there was no "Catholic Church" as such. There was only the early Greek churches, of which Rome was but one. Nor was it the first among equals. The churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were all far more important and influential to the development of the Faith both before and after the so-called Christian Emperor.
.
> On 5Dec99 Seminary Student replied: The Rock - And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this
> rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
.
By removing this verse from the surrounding pericope you rule out any possibility of correctly interpreting it. In order to understand this verse you must see it as the logical conclusion of the preceding verses:
.
When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They answered, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "And who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. - Matthew 16:13-20 / NETbible
.
Let us now examine this very Matthean pericope. Note that Cat exegetes take "this rock" to be a direct reference to Peter. If this is so, then "my church" is built upon a very fallible and very mortal man, namely "Simon son of Jonah". Not a very solid foundation when you think about it, seeing as how Simon Peter was already dead when the author of Matthew wrote these words. And when he died the foundation of the church presumably died with him. But Cat exegetes get around this little problem by claiming that Peter handed over "the keys" to the next pope in line such that whatever it was that made Peter so much more special than the other apostles was likewise handed over along with these non-existent keys. This is why the pope is a glorified reincarnation of Peter, the direct "spiritual" descendant of 'Simon son of Jonah'. Bear in mind that without this non-biblical doctrine of mystical succession (by way of "spiritual" keys), the entire interpretation of "this rock" as referencing Peter collapses into a writhing mass of absurdity!
.
Yet the pericope as a whole makes it quite clear that it is not Peter who is "this rock", but rather the God-given revelation that Jesus is the Anointed Son of Man. It is *this* eternal truth upon which Jesus built his church. This is the firm and solid foundation upon which everything else is placed. This is the Living Word of the Living God! ... By contrast the church of Rome, which builds Her Harlot church upon "special" men, is a fundamentally anti-christ church whose foundations are nothing other than soft and shifting sand.
.
Let us now digress for a brief moment in order to reflect a little further upon the implications of the Catholic reading of Matthew 16:18. So they say that Christ's Church is built upon Peter; as upon a rock. [Note to reader: in the Greek Koine of the original texts these two words have a similar sound and spelling; hence Jesus was making a pun. (And you thought that the Lord has no sense of humor? For shame!)] ... If this is so, then it ought to be apparent that any and all churches not built upon Peter do not belong within the scope of Christ's church. If this seems a trifle obvious to you, consider the consequences.
.
This means, for example, that all of the churches (and their many descendants) that Paulos and Silvanus established (twenty years before the Fall of Jerusalem) are not of Christ's Church, because all of these New Testament churches were fundamentally independent of Antioch and Jerusalem (and its "pillars"; including Peter). If Peter was the pope of Antioch, as James was the pope of Jerusalem, then Paul was surely the pope of the churches round the Aegean Sea. [Of course, Paul writes rather as a prophet than as a pope, but let us not let the facts distract us.] His authentic letters give ample evidence of his efforts to keep his churches uncontaminated by the gospel of the Judaizers (and others). Thus not only are Paul's churches not a part of Christ's Church, but all of his epistles (which grew out of these churches) are likewise not a part of Christ's church. Thus the logic of the Catholic reading of Matthew 16:18 leads to the absurd conclusion that much of the New Testament is *not* of Christ's Church! And yet these same Cats dare to claim that they are the ones responsible for *all* of the early Christian scriptures (ie. all of the canonical ones fer sure)?! . . .
.
I guess they like to have their cake, and eat it too ... :)
.
> The purpose of this study is to determine from Scriptural evidence who Christ really established
> His church upon.
.
Christ did not establish his church on *any* who (as such), but rather established the People of God upon the revelation of truth that comes directly from "the Father of Lights" (as the prophet Jacob calls Him).
.
> SS: When we arrive at a definite conclusion from Scripture, as to who the "rock" Christ is
> speaking of in Matthew 16:18 is, we will then have our answer. <snipsome>
.
You're already barking up the wrong tree!
.
> First of all, let us determine whether or not we can arrive at more than one meaning to this verse.
.
That much is already apparent to everyone. Stu. Get wit da program already, why don't U?!
.
> SS: If it can appear to have more than one meaning, then it is a verse of Scripture which
> requires interpretation.
.
As opposed to a verse which does *NOT* require interpretation?!
.
> You say that Peter is the rock. Another will say, no, that Christ is the rock. So we have
> two possiblities. <snipsome>
.
No. Both of these "possibilities" are wrong because a *careful* reading of the entire pericope shows us *what* "the rock" is (namely, the truth about Jesus).
.
> SS: The following is considered by many to be the best known and accepted method for arriving at the
> correct interpretation of Scripture. When confronted with any verse of Scripture which can be interpreted
> with more than one meaning, then the verse in question, must be considered in the lighl of all other
> Scriptures throughout the Bible which pertain directly to the subject in question. <snipsome>
.
This is the principle of using clear and unambiguous texts to interpret difficult and obscure passages. The only problem with applying this method here is that it is not immediately apparent which other passages are to be used. The NT does not make a mountain out of this rocky mole-hill (ie. most of the rock/stone verses in the NT (and the OT) are references to the Lord). However, there is another passage that speaks of foundations and building houses:
.
"Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house; but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was a tremendous fall!" When Jesus finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed by his teaching, because he taught them like one who had authority, and not like their experts in the law. -- Matthew 7:24-29, entitled 'Hearing and Doing', NETbible
.
Say; you don't suppose that this passage could maybe have some relevance to our understanding of Matthew 16:18, do you? ... Naaah, course not ... :)
.
> SS: Now let us apply this thinking to the Scriptures. Any verse of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit
> and contained in the Bible, has one particular meaning by its Author. God, who is the Author of the
> Bible, had one definite meaning for everything He said and for which He inspired writers of the books
> of the Bible to write.
.
And just how do you know that God had one (and only one!) "definite meaning for everything He said"? If this applies to *all* of scripture, then how are we to read the psalms and parables knowing that there is only one meaning intended by God, and that all other understandings are false and misleading? Since the reader is not God (Seminary Student excepted), how likely is it that one's reading will always be in harmony with the one (divinely intended) meaning? How can we know with confidence and assurance that the meaning we see is the one intended? ... And what is the basis of your seemingly senseless distinction between 'author' and 'writer' (ie. are the biblical "writers" mere secretaries or what)?
.
> SS: At the same time, we are aware of the fact that God never contradicts Himself. Also that the Word
> of God in itself, cannot contain error. All true Christians uphold the inerrancy of the Scriptures.<sniprest>
.
Well, Seminary Student, since I am a true believer who does *not* uphold the idolatrous and deceptive doctrine of biblical inerrancy, I'd say that you are wrong to imagine that all "true Christians" must think just exactly like you do. Moreover, your ignorance about the scriptures is surpassed only by your unthinking zeal.
/ Subject > Re: Forget Keys! Where Be Rock? / Date > 9 Jan 2000 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
[Preliminary note to Thomas: I am e-mailing you a copy of this article because the good folks at www.christwatch.com have (in their infinite wisdom) elected to remove my posting privileges. Why they did this, I don't know; but my best guess is that the offensive one has offended the powers that be at CW, and they have responded by punishing me in the most sadistic way possible. I apologize for any inconvenience.]
.
> On 8Jan2000 THOMAS wrote: Matthew's Gospel emphasizes Jesus' role as the son of David
> and the King of Israel, sent by His Father to inaugurate the Kingdom of Heaven.
.
textman say: Dear Thomas, Matthew does this in order to emphasize that Jesus is a prophet like unto Moses; and in fact greater than Moses. Hence the significance of the Sermon on the Mount (where Jesus delivers the New Law to the People of God).
.
> Matthew 16:13-19 shows us how Jesus establishes it. He gave Simon three things;
> First, the new name of "Peter" (or Rock);
.
I fail to see what this has to do with establishing the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus gave Simon his new name as a joke (and also to encourage him), because Simon was anything BUT a rock; (witness his threefold denial of the Lord when others accused him of being one of Jesus' followers).
.
> second, His pledge to build His Church upon Peter;
.
There is no such pledge anywhere in the sacred scriptures.
.
> and third, the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
.
Non-existent "spiritual" keys, you mean? If these 'keys' were so all-important as you (and the Romish Catholic Whore) suggest then how do explain the undeniable fact that the Gospel of Mark (which was co-authored by Mark and Simon-Peter himself) makes no mention of such things? Did Peter perhaps forget that Christ gave him the keys to the Kingdom?
.
> It is the third item that is so interesting.
.
I couldn't disagree more ...
.
> When Jesus speaks of the "keys of the kingdom",
.
Correction: When the author of Matthew's Gospel speaks of the keys. This is an important distinction to make please. In Matthew we have several levels of tradition built one on top of the other, and these are often mixed together such that the unwary Reader is mostly ignorant of what is going on within the text. Thus, to grossly oversimplify, the pericope Mt.16:13-20 has two distinct levels (one ancient and authoritative, and the other stemming from the author and his church):
.
(13) When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" (14) They answered, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (15) He said to them, "And who do you say that I am?" (16) Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (17) And Jesus answered him, "You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! (18) And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (19) I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on the earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven." (20) Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. -- Matthew 16:13-20 / NETbible /
.
Here I have set verses 18 & 19 apart in order to illustrate that these verses are Matthean additions to the original tradition (which moves from v.17 directly to v.20). This sort of thing is typical of the author of Matthew, as his gospel is an expansion and commentary and explanation of his source (ie. the original Gospel of Mark and Peter). Yes, the Cat anti-church claims to recognize the validity of this multi-tradition approach to the scriptures, and yet She is curiously reluctant to accept the conclusions of the scholars. Could it be because the truth of things does not sit well with their pathetically self-serving theology? How very like the Fundies, who likewise turn their backs on any understanding of scripture that is not in complete accord with their infantile theologies!
.
> He is referring to an important Old Testament passage, Isaiah 22:15-22, where Hezekiah, the royal heir to
> David's throne and king of Israel in Isaiah's day, replaced his old prime minister, Shebna, with a new one
> named Eliakim. Everyone could tell which one of the royal cabinet members was the new prime minister
> since he was given the "keys to the kingdom." By entrusting to Peter the "keys of the kingdom," Jesus
> established the office of Prime minister for administering the Church as His kingdom on earth. The 'keys'
> are a symbol, then, of Peter's office and primacy to be handed on to his successors; thus it has been
> handed down throughout the ages. <snip>
.
I'm sorry, you lost me there ... "I will place the key to the house of David on his shoulder. When he opens the door, no one can close it; when he closes the door, no one can open it" (Isaiah 22:22 / NETbible). No doubt this is the source of Matthew's expansion of Mark. But here the 'key' is (as you say) a symbol of authority, but note that this key is an actual (visible) insignia worn by Eliakim. It was because this 'key' could be seen that it was recognized and acknowledged by all. Where then is the parallel? What good is a symbol that does not actually exist anywhere (except in the feverish brains of befuddled Cats)? If Jesus did not actually hand anything over, then obviously nothing was handed over.
/ Topic > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 9 Jan 2000 /
.
> On 05Jan2000 The DataRat wrote: The Church of Rome didn't canonize Scripture.
> Only God can canonize His Word.
.
textman say: Dear DataRat, I quite agree with the first observation, but not the second. The early Greek churches recognized the value of Paul's authentic epistles early on, and as such they were the rule (canon) by which they measured the faith, life and doctrines of the various churches. In that sense the core epistles of Paul were a canon (measure) long before the Emperor's bishops formally recognized what the early Greek churches had already long since accomplished ...
.
> The doctrine of Sola Scriptura only could apply after the canon of Scripture was closed.
.
This statement is senseless in light of the fact that there was no doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the sixteenth century. If the many and various churches and believers before Luther and Calvin got by just fine without this fantastically important doctrine, then perhaps this fantastically important doctrine is not nearly as fantastically important as you seem to think it is.
.
> That was before 100 A.D. ... perhaps as much as a couple decades prior to 100 A.D.
.
Just what are you saying here, DR? That all the NT books were finished and completed by 80CE? ... Surely you are not so stupid or ignorant as to believe such a ludicrous and fundamentally unhistorical idea. Such nonsense is suitable to Fundy fantasies that fancy that all the NT books were written within the space of three decades. The evidence of the NT texts, however, clearly shows that such is NOT the case, and that more than a few books were written *after* 100CE.
.
I'm very disappointed in you, DataRat. Frankly, I expected better from one who claims to *expertly* know the scriptures. Obviously, if you think everything was finished by 80CE, then you know far less than you think you do!
.
> God saved people from the time of Genesis.
.
You mean from the time that the book of Genesis was written? Where do get that? Obviously people were saved long before writing was invented; the only requirement for salvation then being that they were found pleasing in the sight of God.
.
> People aren't saved by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But, saved people hold Sola Scriptura as a doctrine!
.
Some do. Some don't. Frankly, I think it's a pretty stupid doctrine myself; but then I place far more importance on having a Christian heart and attitude toward life, than on having a skull full of "correct doctrine". Theology is one thing, but it is how we live that counts with the Lord.
/ NGZ: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.calvinist /
>> The cyber-prophet previously wrote: <snipmuch>
>> The early Greek churches recognized the value of Paul's authentic epistles early on ... <snip>
.
> On 09Jan2000 The DataRat replied: So, what's your point?
.
textman answers: Mostly that Simon-Peter didn't say or write (or even think!) that Paul's letters were equal to the Torah (in authority, inspiration, etc). It may seem a minor point to many perhaps, but it is weighty in its significance. 4X: The evidence of the NT texts as a whole suggests that Peter's attitude toward Paul's writings was rather very different; and also one of the forces motivating the authors of the original written gospel (ie. the Gospel According to Mark [and Peter]). However, the implications of all this remain obscure unless we are able to abandon an over-literal reading of Second Peter ... Which I consider a necessity, btw; *if* we wish to understand aright what the Word of God here sayeth :)
.
> Are you rejecting Romanist claims to have canonized Scripture?
.
Absolutely!
.
> And, asserting the Greek Ortho church did, instead ?
.
Heck no! I draw a very clear distinction between the Greek (and other eastern) Orthodox churches of today and yesteryear, and the original NT Greek churches of the first three centuries (built around the great cities of the Empire in the eastern half of the Mediterranean Basin; eg. Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc). The cradle of the Christian scriptures; as it were ... Think about it ...
.
> Churches can only "receive" the canon of Scripture.
.
On the contrary, churches and synagogues actively participate in the formation of the scriptures and the canon. Indeed, the canonical process as a whole is intimately bound up in the affairs of believers (and people in general). What do you suppose the gathering of rabbis after the destruction of the Holy Temple (and City) was all about? Do you seriously suppose that they just sat around all day all nice and humble-like receiving things from On-High? ... Hello? Wakey, wakey, DR.
.
> The Lord does the actual canonization ... NOT human institutions!
.
The Lord *AND* the Emperor Constantine (and his bishops), eh Rodent?
.
>> tx: This statement is senseless in light of the fact that there was no
>> doctrine of Sola Scriptura prior to the sixteenth century <snip>
.
> DataRat: Like the Trinity, and other major doctrines, it was presumed from the First Century on.
> Like the Trinity, and other major doctrines, it was not argued as a doctrine until such time that it
> was challenged by false teachers and false churches.
.
] FiP315 replied: The DataRat has turned into the RevisionistRat. Sola scriptura wasn't being challenged.
] IT was the CHALLENGER. There is not ONE scrap of evidence that a belief in Sola Scriptura was
] "presumed" before the time of the Reformation.
.
tx: Indeed. I would very much like to know what sort of evidence (if any) the Reformed Rodent has in mind. More to the point, since the word 'trinity' nowhere appears in the scriptures, it seems highly suspect to claim that it was presumed by all the pre-Constantinian churches (and by the scriptures). Presumed by whom exactly (I must immediately ask)? Presumed by Paulos of Damascus, perhaps? Let us see if this so:
.
"From Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!" -- 1Corinthians 1:1-3 / NETbible
.
Hmmmm ... Doesn't seem to be any Trinity lurking about here (as far as I can tell). Perhaps the DataRat sees something in the text that escapes the cyber-prophet?!?!
.
>> tx: Just what are you saying here, DR? That all the NT books were finished and completed
>> by 80CE? ... Surely you are not so stupid or ignorant as to believe such a ludicrous and
>> fundamentally unhistorical idea. <snip>
.
> DataRat: At least by 100 A.D. Perhaps as early as 80 A.D. Read what Bro. Rat wrote.
.
I read it. I just couldn't believe it.
.
> Surely you are not so stupid or ignorant as to believe such a ludicrous and fundamentally
> unhistorical idea as a date later than 100 A.D. ?
.
Duh? What is so unhistorical about supposing that the composition stage of the canonical process was spread out evenly over the space of a century (50-100CE)? The NT books show *many* signs that this is the case. One can easily see how the gospels developed from the "primitive" Mark to the expanded and improved version of Matthew to the spiritual version of John to the "historical" and "complete" version of Luke-Acts. Surely it is far more ludicrous to suppose that these four great books just suddenly appeared at the same time without the bother of sticking readers anywhere into the magical process; let alone all the editing and revising and collecting and compiling and copying and distributing, etc etc, of the many and various documents that was necessary to whip the texts into the canonical shape and format that finally went into the Emperor's Fifty Great Bibles (ie. the so-called 'cathedral bibles'; the first standarized edition of the Greek Bible).
.
So you think all of this happened over-night, do you, DR? ... Uh huh; riiiiiiight
.
>> I'm very disappointed in you, DataRat <snip>
.
> The Reformed Rodent won't be crying himself to sleep at night over it.
.
Oh, no! Please don't cry on my account, DR! I'd never be able to live with myself if I ever suspected that my feeble prophetic scribblings made any single one of my readers cry himself (or herself) to sleep at night! But I don't mind if a few readers lose some sleep now and then; hint, hint ... :)
.
>> You mean from the time that the book of Genesis was written? <snip>
.
> No. Rather, as Bro. Rat wrote: "...from the time of Genesis".
.
Which means what exactly? From the creation of the universe? From fifteen billion years ago? From 6000 years ago? From *when* did you say? ... You think that what you say is crystal clear to one and all; but that is NOT the case, Rodent. Your short-hand codes may be clear to you; but not all cyber-saints share your particular thoughts and experiences ... Copper ...
.
>> tx: Some do. Some don't <snip remainder>
.
> DataRat: True religion was NEVER multiple choice !
.
What's that you say about true religion, Mister Rat? Care to know what the prophet says about "true religion"? ... Check this out:
.
"So if anyone thinks they are religious, when they do not bridle the tongue (but deceive the Heart), this one's "Religion" is worthless! Pure & Unstained Religion before God the Father is this: To visit Orphans & Widows in their Affliction, *AND* to keep oneself from being defiled by the WORLD!" -- Book of James 1:26-27 / Prophet Version
.
Kind of reminds me of that cute Pontius Puddle cartoon:
.
King (to his advisers): Theologians have made scripture too difficult to understand. Bring me a prophet who can explain faith simply.
Prophet: Love the Lord with all your heart, your neighbor as yourself, and give generously to the poor.
King: Umm. On second thought, bring back the theologians!
.
[timeout for rolling on the floor LOL]
.
> DataRat: Ok, Textman, you troll,
.
That's *major* troll, if you please! :)
.
> this was your one big chance to challenge The DataRat.
.
Hey, I was just asking for clarification, dude. I don't recall throwing down no gauntlet.
.
> You blew it, and now back into the killfile with you ! -- DR
.
Oh oh. Now I'm in big ca-caz, alright. Shoot! And here I was all ready to surprise DR by informing him that I am currently reading 'The Institutes of Christian Religion' by John Calvin, and that I find it to be a most fascinating book. Now he'll never know. Boo Hoo. [time-out while the cyber-prophet cries himself to sleep] ... [Later that same day: Yawn! ...] BTW: the introduction to my copy of Institutes has a most curious passage that I would like any Reformed reader to comment upon (*if* they are *able* to, I mean ): <- reverse unsmiley?
.
"In the later editions another aim comes to the fore. The Institutes is intended as an introduction and guide to the study of the Bible. The Institutes is intended to complement Calvin's commentaries. He was concerned to keep his commentaries brief. Because of the Institutes, he did not need to digress at length on theological issues in his commentaries. Thus the Institutes and the commentaries are designed to be used together: the Institutes to provide a theological undergirding for the commentaries and the latter to provide a more solid explanation of the passages cited in the former." -- Tony Lane's Introduction to Calvin's (edited) 'Institutes', Hodder & Stoughton Christian Classics pocket-book edition, page 14.
.
I rather like this explanation of the meaning of the Institutes myself; especially in light of the fact that many consider it to be "The most important book of the Protestant Reformation" (K.S.Latourette). Calvin is certainly one of the Faith's greatest exegetes. His commentaries were (and remain) remarkable in many ways.
/ Topic > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 26Jan2000 / NGZ: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics /
/ alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, alt.christnet.calvinist /
.
The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread." But he answered, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" - Mt 4:3-4 / NETbible
.
> On 25Jan2000 Timothy Consodine wrote: You Protestants are split up into 28,000 sects for exactly the
> reason which the Bible warns against. <snip a whole series of bible-bytes that in no way, shape, or form
> prove or establish Timothy's absurd Romish delusions>
> 2 Peter 1:20 ... Romans 10:14 ... 2Peter 2:1 ... 2Peter 3:15
> The Bible teaches that the Church is the final authority: Matt 16:18
.
erasmian replies: The Cat interpretation of this verse is a joke. Only those utterly ignorant of church history and the contents of the Holy Bible could be gullible enough to believe that in this verse we have Christ "founding" the Roman Catholic Church!
.
> Matt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church ...
.
What Matthew means by "church" is certainly NOT what Timothy (and many other Romish) means! You may get a better understanding of this verse if you read it this way: "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly (ie. the gathering of true believers) ...". In other words, for Matthew (as for the NT in general) the church is nothing other than the totality of those who have faith in Christ. Those who (like the pagans) place their faith instead in churches, priests, bishops, and popes have indeed already gone astray.
.
> Mt 28:18 ... 1Tim 3:15 ... When you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church,
> you are rejecting Christ.
.
When you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, you are finally mature enough to think for yourself, to take responsibility for your own spiritual life, and to dare stand before God, naked and alone. But when you lick the priestly anus and call it chocolate, you prove yourself to be nothing other than a lame and helpless 'babe in Christ', handing all responsibility over to the priest (whom you foolishly suppose has the power to save you).
.
> Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me [Jesus], and he who rejects you rejects me [Jesus],
> and he who rejects me [Jesus] rejects him [God the Father] who sent me."
.
Timothy fancies that the first and second "you" in the verse above refers to the popes and bishops of the Romish Cummunion. This is the way that Cats read the whole of scripture (ie. with an eye to the glorification of their favorite idol, the RCC).
.
> Mark 16:15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
> 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
.
I cannot help but note that the apostles Mark and Peter rather foolishly forgot to specify that it is faith in the RCC that saves:
.
"They who believe in the Roman Catholic Church, and are baptized by a Roman priest will be saved; but they who do not believe in the Roman Catholic Church will be condemned" (Mark 16:16 The Revised, Improved, AND Corrected Romish-Whore Version).
/ Topic > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 26Jan2000 / NGZ: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics /
/ alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, alt.christnet.calvinist /
.
> On 26Jan00 bam wrote: Spoken like a true ex-Catholic.
.
erasmian answers: Dear BAM, yes, I do believe you're right about that. ...
Hey, CB, did you catch this? BAM is actually right about something for a change! Will wonders never cease?
.
> The lowest of the low. -- BAM
.
Thx. You're way *too* kind, good sir. ... Of course, I won't trade insults with you, BAM, because I have far too much love and respect for my favorite rabid-romish ... :)
/ Topic > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / Date > 29 Jan 2000 /
.
>> On 26Jan2000 erasmian emanated: Topic > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 26Jan2000 /
>> <snip remainder owing to lack of relevance ... Oh No!>
.
> On 26Jan2000 Alan W. Craft comments: Textman, your disguise failed. -- Alan
.
erasmian replies: Dear Alan, oh yeah? Well, it was a very *thin* disguise after all. It's not like I make any real effort to prevent people from recognizing "the real me". Indeed that would be quite impossible in any case, since my singular views on the early Christian prophets would at once proclaim my identity to anyone the least bit familiar with the cyber-prophet's many silly adventures in cyber-space.
.
Now available FOC to all good cyber-saints at my online website ...
.
So anyway, it hardly rates as much of a failure if the occasional wise-guy is once in a while able to correctly discern the author of the cyber-prophet's many many prophetic scribblings ... :)
.
Sorry Alan, but there are really no disguises here. Only those who worship the Lord in Spirit and in Truth, and those who worship the abominable idol that calls itself the Roman Catholic Church.
P.S. "Pen-names are like hats: You can put them on, and you can take them off, but the best ones always reveal the
character or nature of the person wearing them." -- textman
.
P.P.S. Just a small slice from Star Trek: Voyager ...
Seven: You are a peculiar creature, Neelix.
Neelix: Thanks ... I think.
/ Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 14Feb2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.calvinist /
/ alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.bible /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Dear Stephen, why don't you just say that 'faith is ludicrous'?
.
> On 11Feb2000 Stephen Bayzik wrote: Never would say that "faith" is ludicrous; however,
> I would say that your brand of "faith" is ludicrious. Does that clear up my statement?
.
erasmian say: Dear Stephen, not really, but it does raise other problems. 4X: just what is so ludicrious about the prophetic faith of the early Greek churches? It was, after all, *this* faith that gave us their lasting legacy in the Greek Christian scriptures (later collected as 'The New Testament').
.
] Stephen previously wrote: I'll be glad to discuss Scripture as just another book.
.
>> tx: To proceed from such a biased prejudgment is excessively ludicrous (and ignorant), since
>> it ought to obvious (even to spiritually dead unbelievers) that the Word of God is certainly
>> NOT "just another book".
.
> SB: Whether or not it is "just another book" (ie. the Bible) is not my central interest; but all I will discuss is
> the Bible as just another book. I do not wish to preach (though indeed I slip at times). To study "the Bible"
> is to study and analyse the said in and of itself with no personal beliefs as to its being holy, its value as a
> liturgy or its possible use to instruct.
.
Well Stephen, I quite agree with you that if we wish to seriously study the scriptures, it certainly helps at times to cultivate an approach that is non-theological; so as to maintain an open mind that can thus discover treasures previously unfound. But I disagree with you that one must assume the position that the Bible is "just another book". I know the Bible to be holy, yet this does not prevent me from reading it without the grossly distorting lenses of theological or denominational assumptions and preconceptions.
.
> BTW my simple friend the "Word" of God is the "Logos" ie. the Christ both carnate (Incarnation)
> and eternal. The liturgy of the Historical Church is Scripture and is traditionally alluded to as the
> "word of God" - the two are not the same.
.
I am well aware that the Eternal Logos and its manifestation within the pages of the Holy Bible are two different things. You need not remind me of *that*. btw: You just happen to owe *all* your knowledge of these matters to the prophetic traditions of the early Greek churches in Egypt (ie. the "prophetic" gospel of John). So I guess you don't mind biting the hand that feeds you, eh Stephen ... :)
.
] Stephen: Likewise, I'll be glad to discuss the Historical Church as just another human institution,
] I'll be glad to discuss any Reformation based denomination as just another human institution.
.
> SB: My offer still stands.
.
I'm not interested in "offers". If you think that your approach to the scriptures is *much* better than mine, why don't you put your money where your mouth is. I propose we both fix our attention on one passage or bible-related problem, and we'll both offer our thoughts on it. That way our readers can compare both answers and judge for themselves whose methodology is soundest. Are you up for something like that, Stephen?
/ Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 15Feb2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.christnet.calvinist /
/ alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian.presbyterian, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.christnet.bible /
.
> On 15Feb2000 Stephen Bayzik wrote: Paul predicted that the Christ would return; He didn't.
> Are you still waiting for Him after two thousand years. :-)
.
textman answers: Dear Stephen, I believe he will return; not because Paul said so, but because the Lord said so. Paul (and many other early believers) believed it would happen in their day, but there is no evidence that Christ himself was so small-minded (time-wise). So I'm still waiting, sure; and I'm perfectly prepared to wait another 2000 years. Or another 10,000 years; if that's what it takes. The point is that he *will* return ... someday, we know not when.
.
> So we disagree; but no discussion with an individual who has reservations held in terms of its "holiness".
> In brief "no holds bared".
.
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't follow you. Could you perhaps clarify what you are trying to say by all this?
.
>> textman previusly wrote: <snip> btw: You just happen to owe *all* your knowledge of these matters
>> to the prophetic traditions of the early Greek churches in Egypt (ie. the "prophetic" gospel of John).
>> So I guess you don't mind biting the hand that feeds you, eh Stephen
.
> Yep! The gnostic John included.
.
Well, Stephen, perhaps you are unaware of this (though you really shouldn't be if you study the scriptures), but the prophetic tradition just happens to *be* the true Christian gnosis. Nowhere is this truth better expressed than in John's Prologue. But the prophet who wrote 2Peter also makes much of the fact that the true Christian gnosis is an essential element of the Faith:
.
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. - 2Peter 1:5-8/NETbible
.
>> tx: I'm not interested in "offers". If you think that your approach to the scriptures is *much* better
>> than mine, why don't you put your money where your mouth is. I propose we both fix our attention
>> on one passage or bible-related problem, and we'll both offer our thoughts on it. That way our
>> readers can compare both answers and judge for themselves whose methodology is soundest.
>> Are you up for something like that, Stephen?
.
> SB: Fine with me; though I doubt that most (but not all) of the participants on this newsgroup are
> mentally astute enough to judge, let alone to drop their preconceived beliefs on the "holiness" of
> Scripture and its authors.
.
Well, perhaps I have more faith in the innate sensibility of the People of God than you do, but either way, I'm sure that some good will come out of it ...
.
Here then is an interesting (but relatively easy) little problem regarding the Gospel of Mark:
.
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1 / NETbible
.
On the surface this saying appears to be a straightforward prophecy, so my question to you is this: Did this prophecy actually come about in the stated manner, or is this an example of a prophecy that failed to materialize? Give your answer simply and clearly, and state your reasoning for it.
.
Oh, and good luck, Stephen! You'll need it ... :)
/ Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 24 Feb 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>>> erasmian wrote: <snip> Here then is an interesting (but relatively easy) little problem regarding
>>> the Gospel of Mark: And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who
>>> will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power." -- Mark 9:1 / NETbible
>>> On the surface this saying appears to be a straightforward prophecy, so my question to you is
>>> this: Did this prophecy actually come about in the stated manner, or is this an example of a
>>> prophecy that failed
.
> On 21Feb00 meerkat wrote: I have been led to understand that conventional (ie, Catholic &
> Orthodox - I wish I had an adjective for that) theology treats this as a prophecy of pentecost ...
> I might be mistaken...
.
erasmian answers: Dear meerkat, I too seem to recall some interpretations along those lines, but Stephen is quite right when he said that it "relates to story of the Transfiguration, the said quote appearing just before the telling of the said story". The rest of Stephen's article wanders about everywhere after that observation (rather than dealing with the text directly), but we have to give him points for correctly tying the prophecy to its fulfillment in the Transfiguration account.
.
It is also notable that Stephen should refer to that account as 'story'. This suggests that for him the prophecy story is pure fiction and ought to be treated as such. But believers do better, I think, to suppose that this episode is (at the very least) based on actual events occurring during Jesus' public ministry. This is not to deny that that this is also a very carefully crafted story, rich in symbolic elements and weighty in its suggestive details.
.
For example, consider the companions Jesus elects to accompany him up the mountain: "Now after six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John and led them alone up a high mountain privately" (Mk 9:2). The significance of these three is that they personify or represent three of the four major traditions within the emergent Christian religion at they existed in the second half of the first century.
.
Thus Peter represents the churches in and around Antioch, and is considered the first and most authentic tradition-line. This argues strongly for the view that Peter and Mark wrote the gospel within the context of the Antiochan church and her traditions. After this comes the "mother church" of Jerusalem, represented here by James (the name-sake of 'James, the Lord's brother; who was the 'pillar' of that church). And this is followed by the Johannine prophetic tradition of the churches of Egypt, who also had close ties to their common Jewish roots (expressed here in this pericope in the persons of the 'Old Age' prophets Moses and Elijah).
.
Notable by his absence, is the apostle Paul, who represents the fourth great tradition: the new Greek churches. All of this may suggest that for the authors of the gospel, the Pauline traditions are acceptable within the prophetic glory and power of the Faith, but only insofar as they are in harmony with the three main tradition-lines centered in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria.
.
In other words, the pericope in question is rich in multiple levels of meaning and historical value. A simple straightforward exposition of this text however (such as we find in most popular commentaries on Mark), fails to uncover these deeper meanings, and thus fails to do justice to the full complexity and depth of the passage.
/ Topic > Re: Catholics wrote the Bible / 28 Feb 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
] erasmian previously wrote: <snip> Here then is an interesting (but relatively easy) little problem
] regarding the Gospel of Mark 9:1: And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, there are some standing
] here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power." On the surface
] this saying appears to be a straightforward prophecy, so my question to you is this: Did this prophecy
] actually come about in the stated manner, or is this an example of a prophecy that failed <snip>
.
>>> On 21Feb00 meerkat wrote: I have been led to understand that conventional (ie, Catholic &
>>> Orthodox - I wish I had an adjective for that) theology treats this as a prophecy of pentecost ...
>>> I might be mistaken...
.
>> erasmian answers: Dear meerkat, I too seem to recall some interpretations along those lines,
>> but Stephen is quite right when he said that it "relates to story of the Transfiguration, the said
>> quote appearing just before the telling of the said story".
.
> On 26Feb2000 [cybrwurm's 42nd birthday yet!] Stephen Bayzik replied: My friend, I did not say it
> relates to the Transfiguration - what I did say is that it preceeds the story of the Transfiguration in
> the canonical Gospel of Mark as well as the sequence contained in the other canonical synoptic
> Gospels, but with differences.
.
erasmian sayeth: Dear Stephen, the logic of your distinction seems clear, but the sense of it escapes me; since the verse in question not only relates AND precedes the Transfiguration account, it is obviously an intimate member of that very pericope. Surely you would not care to dispute this? :)
.
>> The rest of Stephen's article wanders about everywhere after that
>> observation (rather than dealing with the text directly),
.
> I did deal with "the text" directly -
.
I think I must have missed that part ...
.
> at least as far as the "translation" of the text based upon the Vulgate.
.
Right. You talked about translations, and variations of this and that and the other thing, and also many other irrelevant and inconsequential things and whatnots. What you didn't do was say anything meaningful about the pericope in whole or in part. That's why I just barely gave you a passing grade; because you said that it *relates* "to story of the Transfiguration, the said quote appearing just before the telling of the said story".
.
> I do not have the over 25,000 plus codicies, parchments, fragments etc. (that are still extant)
.
So what? Neither do I have access to all these lovely things, Stephen. That does not mean that we cannot benefit enormously from the methods and processes and results of the *almost* science called textual-criticism. All good bible students will sooner or later have to face down that nasty and nice monster. However, sensible teachings about scripture can hardly be restricted to the limited (but necessary) scope allowed by the careful examination of the physical evidence; (that is to say, of the physical remains of the Living Word).
.
> which we assume were used to form the canonical liturgy of early proto-churches.
.
"canonical liturgy"? "early proto-churches"? ... Just where exactly do you get this stuff, anyways? Surely not from any reliable scholar or authority; oh surely not! ... Perhaps you should be more willing to adopt a more critical stance towards your own assumptions ... ???
.
>> have to give him points for correctly tying the prophecy to its fulfillment in the Transfiguration account.
.
> SB: There was no implication of some "fulfillment" of a "prophecy" in my account -
.
Oh brother! Just like a bloody pagan to say something like that! :)
.
> I took the text as is and speculated.
.
You took the text as is and did what? ... I think that you took the text as is and promptly misplaced it.
.
>> It is also notable that Stephen should refer to that account as 'story'. This suggests that
>> for him the prophecy story is pure fiction and ought to be treated as such.
.
> Yes, I did - for there is no objective and verifiable account given outside of the Christian
> milieu to establish the said stories as event transcriptions.
.
Gee Stephen, if you mean to say that the gospels in general are not written according to the stringent demands and regulations of modern history writing, I'm with you on that 110%. But if you mean to imply that the gospels contain no traces (or remembrances) whatsoever of actual historical events and happenings and movements, well then I'd say that you're way off base on that!
.
>> e: But believers do better, I think, to suppose that this episode is (at the very least) based on
>> actual events occurring during Jesus' public ministry. This is not to deny that that this is also a
>> very carefully crafted story, rich in symbolic elements and weighty in its suggestive details.
.
> Remember what I stated before I ventured to explain the meaning of the "given text".
.
Are you referring to the Transfiguration account? You explained the meaning of it, you say? ... I think I missed that part too!
.
> I will discuss Scripture as just another book,
.
An impossible task, no doubt; since the Holy Bible is NOT "just another book", but rather an entire library of sacred texts originally written (and edited and re-edited!) in three different languages (ie. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) over the space of a thousand years and more. Not too many "just another books" like that at my local bookstore last time I looked. Better check the soundness of your methodological techniques before coming through the cyber-door into an assembly of Believers (and yes, non-believers too) looking for meaningful AND sensible discussions regarding this "NOT just another book"!
.
... You like tilting at windmills too, maybe?
.
> I will discuss The Church (Roman and Orthodox)
.
But Stephen, these are *two* separate and distinct churches. Where is the sense in thinking of these two [Why just these two?] as "The Church"? That's very NOT historical or scientific thinking. Hey; you *are* supposed to be a rationalist, aren't you?
.
... Or does it just come in spurts? :)
.
> as just another historical institution,
.
Whatever *that* means!
.
> and likewise I will discuss the multitude of Denominations as just another institution(s).
.
There being, of course, no distinctions to be made between the countless thoughts, beliefs, faiths, and lives of a veritable multitude of churches and sects and movements and assemblies and gatherings that have formed around the Name of Jesus Christ for the last two thousand years ... Ummm, is that right?
.
> No "Holy", no "inspired" etc.
.
'Only matter and energy exist in Realty'. Right. Gottcha ...
.
> If one cannot do that
.
Do what? Adopt a senseless and absurd philosophy? Adopt a senseless and absurd view of history? Adopt a senseless and absurd approach toward the Sacred Scriptures? ... Well, I don't know about the rest of the cyber-saints, but the cyber-prophet certainly cannot do *that*!
.
> then please have the courtesy of not taking up my time in the "study" of the latter artifacts.
.
Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole purpose of bible-study newsgroups is so that people could get together and - you know - study the Bible. ... That IS why we're all here, right? Oh please somebody tell me that IS why we're all here for! PLEASE!!!
.
> I'm not here to preach a faith -
.
I can study the Word, and preach the Faith both! ... So there! Nyah!
.
> though I have one.
.
I'll bet. ... Hey, cyber-saints! Check this out:
.
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC LITANY
[Stations of the Spectrum]
.
And there is light, before and beyond our vision, for which we give thanks.
And there is heat, for which we are humble.
And there is power, for which we count ourselves blessed.
Blessed be Balmer, who gave us our wavelengths.
Blessed be Bohr, who brought us understanding.
Blessed be Lyman, who saw beyond sight.
.
Tell us now the stations of the spectrum.
Blessed be long radio waves, which oscillate slowly.
Blessed be broadcast waves, for which we thank Hertz.
Blessed be short waves, linkers of mankind, and blessed be microwaves.
Blessed be infrared, bearers of nourishing heat.
Blessed be visible light, magnificent in angstroms.
.
(On high holidays only: Blessed be red, sacred to Doppler.
Blessed be orange. Blessed be yellow, hallowed by Fraunhofer's gaze.
Blessed be green. Blessed be blue for its hydrogen line. Blessed be indigo.
Blessed be violet, flourishing with energy.)
.
Blessed be ultraviolet, with the richness of the sun.
Blessed be X rays, sacred to Roentgen, the prober within.
Blessed be the gamma, in all its power; blessed be the highest of frequencies.
We give thanks for Planck. We give thanks for Einstein.
We give thanks in the highest for Maxwell.
.
In the strength of the spectrum, the quanturn, and the holy angstrom, peace!
.
[from 'To Open the Sky', by Robert Silverburg, 1967]
.
>> e: For example, consider the companions Jesus elects to accompany him up the mountain: "Now
>> after six days Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John and led them alone up a high mountain
>> privately" (Mk 9:2). The significance of these three is that they personify or represent three of the
>> four major traditions within the emergent Christian religion at they existed in the second half of
>> the first century.
.
> How can you establish the story as actually having taken place and the exchange between the
> characters? You can't! You may "believe", you may swear by it - but you can't establish (ie. prove)
> it as a fact (a phenomena) which took place.
.
My dear Stephen, yet again you are *totally* missing the point. The historical value of the pericope does NOT depend on the account being an "objective, verifiable, provable" account of established facts. The historical value of the pericope rather lies in the fact that it accurately reflects the concerns AND conditions of the pre-Fall-of-Jerusalem churches. You don't have to approach the text after the manner of the Foolish-Fundies (and others of small mind) in order to believe. Stephen, I think that your basic problem is that you like to over-simplify things to irrational and unreasonable extremes.
.
>> In other words, the pericope in question is rich in multiple levels of meaning and historical value. A
>> simple straightforward exposition of this text however (such as we find in most popular commentaries
>> on Mark), fails to uncover these deeper meanings, and thus fails to do justice to the full complexity
>> and depth of the passage.
.
> The meanings are defined by The Church historical
.
By the what? ... No. Actually, the meanings emerge from out of the dynamic (and always unpredictable) encounter between Reader and Text. ... Boy, you've got a LOT to learn about hermeneutics there Stephen. Better set thy nose to the grindstone at once, I say!
.
> as used in their liturgy - outside of the said they have no meaning.
.
Outside the liturgy the texts have no meaning, you say? Good Grief! Are you aware that what you are doing is nothing more than aiding and abetting the Babylonian Captivity of the Scriptures by the priests and their sniveling scholarly scribes?!
.
> Whether you accept or reject the said meanings given by the latter is not my concern.
.
Me neither ... I think ... :)
.
> Scripture is not the basis of The Church;
.
That's true. The cornerstone and foundation and rock of all the assemblies of all believers throughout all church history has always been faith in the Son of Man (Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed Lord).
.
> its "tradition" is, and gives meaning as well as authority to a part of itself (ie. Scripture) -
> self proclaimed to be sure.
.
Not surprisingly, I beg to differ. I'll agree that scripture has authority over all True Believers, but part of that authority depends on the clear recognition that the sacred text is not just a part of past traditions, but also a part of the past, present, and Eternal Logos by whose mighty word all things were made (including a certain stubbornly silly Stephen).
/ Re: On Dancing Round the Pericope / 2 March 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
] On 26Feb2000 [cybrwurm's 42nd birthday yet!] Stephen Bayzik replied: My friend, I did not say it
] relates to the Transfiguration - what I did say is that it preceeds the story of the Transfiguration in
] the canonical Gospel of Mark as well as the sequence contained in the other canonical synoptic
] Gospels, but with differences.
.
>> erasmian sayeth: Dear Stephen, the logic of your distinction seems clear, but the sense of it
>> escapes me; since the verse in question not only relates AND precedes the Transfiguration
>> account, it is obviously an intimate member of that very pericope.
.
> On 29Feb00 Stephen Bayzik replied: Not obvious at all; except if one approaches the said script with
> preconceived theological constructs; which as you recall, I precluded from any discussion of Scripture
> (ie. holy, inspirational - a book as a book).
.
erasmian answers: Dear Stephen, theology has nothing to do with it. Even on the basis of a purely non-theological approach (eg. literary or form criticism) it is clear that verse 9:1 is the necessary prelude to the Transfiguration pericope. Surely the fact that verses 9:2-10 follow immediately upon the completion of verse 9:1 is significant?
.
>> Surely you would not care to dispute this? :)
.
> Dispute what; are you using this so called periscope as a part of your liturgy?
.
Nope. ... btw: that's 'pericope', NOT 'periscope' (which is a visual instrument used on submarines, and having nothing to do with the scriptures).
.
>> <snip> Right. You talked about translations, and variations of this and that and the other thing,
>> and also many other irrelevant and inconsequential things and whatnots.
.
> Yes, I told you my translation from the Vulgate; the latter as well as the Lucinian Septuagint are
> the only official standards in determining the liturgy of the two portions of the Historical Church.
.
Who cares about that? I am interested in studying the scriptures; NOT the liturgical texts of what you call "the Historical Church".
.
> Other "Bibles" are just that "Bibles", with no liturgical use within the Church.
.
Again, so what? As a bible scholar the two translations you mention have no authority with me; nor do I use them in my study of the Word. I *do* use many and various English translations (eg. NASB, NIV, RSV, etc), but my favorite version (being also the most authoritative) is 'The New Greek-English Inter-Linear New Testament'; which uses the United Bible Societies' Fourth Corrected Edition. Now there are some who claim that any translation will do, but there is really no substitute for drinking the pure waters of the best Greek text!
.
> What things were "inconsequential and or irrelevant"?
.
Ummm, would you believe: everything!
.
>> What you didn't do was say anything meaningful about the pericope in whole or in part.
.
> The liturgy is used in the Mass / Eucharist; I am not a priest (Roman or Orthodox) conducting a mass
> on a newsgroup. :-)
.
Then why do you keep bringing up the utterly and totally irrelevant matter of liturgy?
.
> BTW, Meerkat is correct in that the traditional interpretation of the said text by the Church is in the
> Pentacost story.
.
Which only goes to show that the ecclesial interpretations of the scriptures are biased, self-serving, and do great violence to the sacred text. Let us therefore put the "traditional interpretation of the said text" where it belongs: In the Trash Bin!
.
>> that's why I just barely gave you a passing grade; because you said that it *relates* "to story of the
>> Transfiguration, the said quote appearing just before the telling of the said story".
.
> Since when is the liturgy and its use subject to being graded?
.
My dear Stephen, I am NOT grading the liturgy, I am grading *you*. And now that I think on it, it seems clear that you do not deserve a passing grade at all, since you failed to answer the questions I posed in my post of Feb15: "Did this prophecy actually come about in the stated manner, or is this an example of a prophecy that failed to materialize? Give your answer simply and clearly, and state your reasoning for it."
.
] SB: I do not have the over 25,000 plus codicies, parchments, fragments, etc. (that are still extant)
.
>> So what? Neither do I have access to all these lovely things ...
.
> Then why ask me a question that would require the full study of a
> book/manuscript without access to all parts of the said manuscript?
.
The question (which I just quoted above) does NOT require the full study of the manuscripts. Indeed, any competent translation will do. What IS required is that you pay attention to (and think about) the text in question; something that you seem incapable of doing!
.
>> That does not mean that we cannot benefit enormously from the methods and processes
>> and results of the *almost* science called textual-criticism.
.
> "Almost Science"? ROTFL!
.
Wut? You don't believe me? ... I'm shocked and dismayed!
.
> Textual criticism was a technique primarily developed by Protestant (mostly German) theologians
> in the last century when they finally realized that the basis of their faith/religion (ie. the Bible)
> was intellectually useless.
.
Actually, a rational approach to the subject matter of textual-criticism was first begun by Origen of Alexandria (way back in the third century CE). He is accordingly called the Father of Biblical Studies. One may indeed consider him as the patron saint of bible scholars. Having said that, you are quite correct to say that it was mostly developed by Protestant scholars; but certainly not for the reasons you give.
.
>> All good bible students will sooner or later have to face down that nasty and nice monster.
.
> Bible Study is a "occupation" which is much ado about nothing -
.
If that is so, then I humbly suggest that you're hanging out in all the wrong newsgroups! Why not go visit your atheist buddies in alt.let's.all.hate.the.buybull.already! ... You're sure to get a more encouraging response in those types of ngz.
.
> for such "Bible Studies" are loaded with a incoming intellectual bias (ie. the study of that
> which is holy and inspired).
.
Most bible studies are certainly biased in one way or another. One need look no further than the pathetic 'conservative' commentaries to see how such preconceived notions do tremendous violence to the text. This is why the cyber-prophet's ministry is so important. Nowhere else will True Believers find an exegete who places the Word (and the innate integrity of the Word) first and foremost, and to hell with what the (apostate) churches (and their sniveling scholarly scribes) may think!
.
>> However, sensible teachings about scripture can hardly be restricted to the limited (but necessary)
>> scope allowed by the careful examination of the physical evidence; (that is to say, of the physical
>> remains of the Living Word).
.
> The only sensible teaching taken from Scripture is liturgical
.
I could hardly disagree more! Frankly, I can't even imagine why you should say such a ludicrous thing ...
.
> and can only legitimately be practiced with the traditions of the Historical Church.
.
Wrong again, Stephen. There is nothing 'legitimate' whatsoever about these apostate churches that you insist on calling "the Historical Church".
.
> A similar approach can be said of the Tennach which can only be legitimately used
> within the Orthodox Rabinniate.
.
You mean that the more reform-minded Jewish believers (not to mention Christians) have no right to the Tanakh? Oh brother! I would *never* be so presumptuous as to say something like that.
.
] SB: which we assume were used to form the canonical liturgy of early proto-churches.
.
>> "canonical liturgy"? "early proto-churches"?
.
> Gee you seem to ask too many questions when you don't seem to
> understand what I have said in plain English (as a book qua book).
.
"qua" is *not* "plain English"!
.
> Canon:- that liturgical script which had been authorized by the Historical Church.
.
'Canon' refers to the scriptures; NOT to the liturgy. Strike one.
.
> Liturgy:- that which is used in the Mass/Eucharistic of the above Church.
.
'Liturgy' refers to the sacramental rituals of the priestcraft churches (including the Mass/Eucharist). Strike two.
.
> Proto-Churches:- that which existed in communities prior to the 1st Ecumenical Council,
> those communities often having conflicting Christologies as well as local liturgies.
.
The 'churches of God' existed long before the fourth century. Even Paul does not make reference to any "proto-churches" when speaking about assemblies of believers: "From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia" (2Cor.1:1). Nope; no 'proto-churches' here, sorry. Strike three; and yer out!
.
> The Church:- that which was born in consensus at the 1st Ecumenical Council - the individuals /
> communities which did not conform to the said consensus declared to be out of the Church and
> commonly called heretics.
.
Your "The Church" is a creation of the Emperor Constantine and his bishops. It has little, if anything, to do with "all the saints". Strike four! Why break a streak now (when yer batting a thousand)?
.
>> Just where exactly do you get this stuff, anyways?
.
> Comon historical knowledge about the development of Christianity and
> its liturgy. Seems like you may be wanting in this area - not so?
.
I doubt it very much, Stephen, since it is my business to be well acquainted with the ways and byways of church history; especially the pre-Constantine centuries (ie. the age of the prophets).
.
>> Surely not from any reliable scholar or authority; oh surely not!
.
> Though there be some notable exceptions, Reformation based communities (churches) do
> not have a very scholarly tradition to draw from.
.
Aren't you the one who just said that it was the Protestant scholars who developed textual-criticism (and bible study in general)? ... You can't have it both ways!
.
>> Perhaps you should be more willing to adopt a more critical stance towards your own
>> assumptions ... ???
.
> I have; I said I was willing to discuss the Bible,
.
Yeah, but on your terms only:
.
> as just another book,
.
I rest my case.
.
> and The Church or for that matter "churches/denominations) as just
> another human construct. You don't seem to be able to do this.
.
No. I'm afraid my approach to scripture and church history demands a far more authentic and realistic attitude (and method) than that.
.
} tx previously say: ... have to give him points for correctly tying the prophecy
} to its fulfillment in the Transfiguration account.
.
] SB: There was no implication of some "fulfillment" of a "prophecy" in my account -
.
>> tx: Oh brother! Just like a bloody pagan to say something like that! :)
.
> SB: Get off the "pagan" crap; do you want me to call you just a bloody
> heretic who denigrates the Holy Mother Church? I hope not.
.
I have no objections; since I am glad to be considered a heretic by the Unholy Lesbian-Mother Church :)
.
] SB: I took the text as is and speculated.
.
>> You took the text as is and did what? ... I think that you took the text as is and promptly misplaced it.
.
> Not at all; I never said I would take the text as anything other than a book. I blew your
> chance to illustrate your Bible Study skills - eh?
.
Well, I wouldn't say that ...
.
>> Gee Stephen, if you mean to say that the gospels in general are not written according to the stringent
>> demands and regulations of modern history writing, I'm with you on that 110%. But if you mean to imply
>> that the gospels contain no traces (or remembrances) whatsoever of actual historical events and
>> happenings and movements, well then I'd say that you're way off base on that!
.
> SB: But then I would have to have all 25,000+ manuscripts to determine the "traces" of the said
> events being fact, myth, or pure fiction; as well as collaborative none Christian writings of the
> said described events - not so?
.
Not so. Since there are (almost) no extant contemporary non-Christian writings relating to early church history, we are pretty much restricted to the early Christian literature itself (both canonical and non-canonical). And these documents MUST, of course, be handled critically according to the best methods of modern "scientific" historical studies. For the most part, this sort of work has only just begun.
.
> You know what; I don't have them;
.
You don't need them ...
.
> and as to the latter (none Christian sources)
.
... (non-Christian sources) ...
.
> there is no collaboration rather just a recognitions of "Christians" existing other than
> a note of a few of their beliefs as related by the none-Christian collaborators.
.
In other words, they're not very helpful to the church historian. But this does not mean that we cannot recover the history of the early Greek churches; only that we must (of necessity) handle the primary sources with *extreme* care and attention.
.
> My friend; there is no way that one can establish the existence of "the character" of
> the Christ as depicted in Scripture.
.
Sure there is; we establish it by grace through faith.
.
> Our faith/trust is in an institution called the Historical Church
.
My faith/trust is in a real, actual, historical person called Jesus of Nazareth, who was also the Son of Man; according to his own statements as recorded in the gospel of Mark and Peter (ie. an eyewitness account).
.
> and what it proclaims (be that proclamation right or wrong).
.
What the apostate post-modern churches proclaim is one thing. What the living Word of God proclaims is something else again!
