/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 27 April 1999 / Topic > 

 And so it seems that the always amazing march of history, and the process of cultural rationalization, have together worked many profound changes in the world and the human race. The most obvious development is that now there are billions of naked apes, where formerly (for about a million years or so) they were numbered by the thousands. Thus 'fruitfulness' and the rationalization of the world have always worked together (as manifestations of the same life force, if you will) to the end of making living a better experience for people in general. But now the result of all of this is that the current generations of humankind have propagated themselves to extreme excess, such that the world can no longer support them all. Consequently, large sections of the human population are almost entirely lacking the basic necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, etc), as well as the basics of culture (education, literacy, art, culture, history, etc).
.
 Thus millions suffer unnecessarily in many and various ways; as does every other living creature that shares this world with this greedy and arrogant species. And indeed the world in general is also violated immensely because human beings are *still* the slaves of their most basic animal needs and urges. They are not really rational animals at all; although they often fancy themselves as such, and often employ rational methods to the end of meeting their various needs and irrational whims. And neither are they spiritual creatures; although many like to think that they are. But because some few human beings have tread the lofty plains of Pure Reason, or have become shining spiritual creatures, these few unique and great individuals have served as beacons and models for all ...
.
 Consequently, the number of Christians in the present evil age is counted by the billions. Millions and millions [Insert bad Carl Sagan impression here!] of bright rational and spiritual creatures among billions and billions of barbarians ... ?!?!?!? . . .  [Insert extreme puzzlement and confusion here!]
.
 Consider the significance of this. Indeed, consider the extreme unlikelihood of this!
.
 Consider instead the plain fact that most "religious people" are neither spiritual, nor rational, nor cultured, nor even very well educated. Now this bizarre and paradoxical situation means that there are many ironies and contradictions and inconsistencies and conflicts within church history (and world history in general) and within the People of God themselves. Accordingly, none should be surprised that in our current Information Age (our techno-digital- computerized age) the vast majority of Christians are almost entirely unaware of their own history and heritage. And even if they are not completely illiterate, they are nevertheless ignorant of the contents of their own holy books. They do not know their saints and martyrs and prophets. They do not see the great Christian heroes and warriors and teachers of the past and present. They are a blind and stubborn people! Willful, arrogant, and uncaring. Indeed, they do not even know how to be Christians. Thus they are unable to serve the Lord because they cannot even recognize or acknowledge their dismal condition. And even those that do seek for guides and sages and gurus do not know how or where to find them ...
.
 Of course, the Bible is an enormous asset to all manner of True Believer. Through the Word, the Spirit can ofttimes be guide, consoler, teacher, judge, friend, or whatever the humble or righteous Reader most requires in that moment. Alas, reading the scriptures is one thing. Reading it with a right and Christian understanding is another thing altogether! Oh, but there is no shortage of good guides and teachers here, is there? Many look to long-established and well-recognized church authorities and leaders. They are many and varied. They are eager to assert their right to authority over each and every Believer. They are eager to demonstrate their great knowledge of the sacred text, and their impressive profundity in the holy scriptures.
.
 Others simply allow the Spirit to guide their understanding. And listening to their heart, as it were, trust the Lord to show them the way to read aright . [Now this is a necessary exercise, to be sure, but it is not always sufficient; nor does it really do much real justice to the full depths and richness of the Word of God.] Still others prefer to seek their biblical guides in the best thinkers and writers to be found in the world of biblical scholarship. This too is a good choice, for there are many good and faithful teachers who are knowledgeable in the various Biblical Sciences. But, personally, I think that biblical commentaries are more of an art than a science. At least, it should be; for the sundry techniques and methodologies of rationalized procedures can never be enough to grasp and contain the energies and truth of the divine Spirit. But many others do not even bother about any of this, but rather rely on their local (and/or televangelical) preacher or minister to provide all that they need to know about the Book ...
.
 One "benefit" of all these approaches is that your average Bible Reader rarely, if ever, has to put any effort into the difficult enterprise of reading all of these strange and tiresome ancient books. Some Christians even view the reading of Scripture as a necessary obligation; rather than, for example, a rich and priceless opportunity to serve and praise the Lord ...
.
 And that's about all the options that your average Bible-reading Christian has. Couple this basic inability to read the text with a fundamental disinterest or apathy about whatever might be said therein, and you end up with a strange predicament for the Lord and the People of God. So Tyndale's prophetic vision of seeing a Bible in the hands of every humble Christian has now been realized (more or less), but it seems that the Reader is woefully inadequate to the text!

 Now look here, don't be so hung up on which English translation is better or best or perfect or eternal or whatnot. The fact is that most modern bibles are a great improvement upon those that the vast majority of Christians of previous generations had to use. And all through those many centuries and translations and ever-changing materials and forms of the Word, the Lord was ever able to provide the heart of flesh with a word of life and light and truth. And this often happened not by reading the text directly, but by hearing the word being read out loud to an assembly of believers. This was the case with the early generations of the pauline churches, with St. Francis of Assisi, with the early Anabaptists, and so on.
.
 In fact, most Christians never even had the option of actually reading the Word for themselves; let alone owning the entire scriptures in a form that fits the hand, and makes for easy reading with its perfectly proportioned letters, and its just so rows and columns. All modern editions are new and novel things really. And those that are best are those that remain more faithful to the best Greek texts; for no translation can ever be anything other than a dimmer shadow of the original Koine manuscripts. That's just a simple fact of life, folks; and hardly something to get over-excited about.
.
 So the biblical science of textual criticism is hard at work to reconstruct those ever-elusive original autographs; and this remains a work in progress, of course. But they have done their part in providing high-quality Greek copies of all 27 New Testament books. That's the good news. The bad news is that the full beauty and power and truth of these new improved Greek texts rarely gets transferred over into the modern English translations. Much of the blame for this sad fact goes to the translators, of course; but I think that most of the blame should go directly to the Bible-makers themselves. These unions and corporations and whatnots have basically hurt the People of God by failing to seize the golden opportunity that the textual critics have so graciously presented to them.
.
 Yes, there is a very popular kind of bibliolatry that considers even the Bible's secondary apparatus to be sacred and of divine origin (and therefore never ever to be changed or tampered with in any way, shape or form already!). This includes the canonical format, of course. Even though *that* particular form of the Word of the Lord was a rather late development of the texts; (would you believe fourth century CE?). Even though *that* form is hardly helpful to the post-modern reader. Even though *that* form is certainly NOT sacred and divine; and in no way should be placed as having equal authority with the Eternal Logos!
.
 In fact, the canonical format is an artificial invention of the Emperor's bishops; (which is to say, a product of the traditions of men). Just as the book/chapter/verse numbering system in all modern bibles stems from the modern traditions of modern men. Shall we then make the Word a slave of the traditions of men? Yet this is precisely what even the best English version does! In the NASB one can open the Book at any page, and find the 'bare text' neatly chopped up into nice little bite-size portions; each with a bold header (ie. chapter/verse numbers) proudly proclaiming the identity of this particular verse ...
.
 What could be more appalling to the People of God than to have these noble testimonies and revelations presented to us in such an illogical and unseemly manner?! We have encased the Word in strangling bonds of numbers and headers. We have entombed the Word in a fossilized and frigid sarcophagus that chokes and distorts the living and dynamic energies and potentials of a text that never was static and frozen (except that it was made so by the traditions of men and worldly churches) ... !!! ...
.
 Yes, Dear Reader, you know it as well as I do. The Word of life and light and truth is spiritual meat and drink for all true believers. But it is the wine within the bottle that lifts our hearts and gives us hope. The bottle that holds the wine is not sacred; for it is not the Word, but only the means by which the wine is to be held. And not for its own sake, but for the sake of the wine drinker. In no way is the secondary apparatus more important than the Drinker (or the Wine). In no way should both the Drinker and the Wine be made secondary and subservient to the Bottle!
.
 Obviously the Bible makers are not willing or able to improve upon frozen traditions long-held in icy immutability. Only you can break through the barriers obscuring the truth in a clinging shroud of foggy piety and misguided reverence! So if you love and know the Word (or might wish to), be advised that the English translation bible-makers are doing their utmost to prevent you from approaching the dual-edged sword of the Lord with clarity and reason, and some small measure of respect for its origins and history among the early Greek churches ...
.
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
 Now, lest I be accused of attempting to change the sacred canon (so as to destroy the Faith perhaps?), let me hurriedly assert that I am NOT attempting to change the canon, only the canonical format (which is a nightmare and an abomination). Look, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. Let us take the Thessalonians letters as a prime example of what I am talking about. Christians who read 1&2Thes from start to finish in the way that their Bibles present these epistles are bound to misunderstand what is going on therein. For one thing, the canonical format forces the Reader to imagine that what we have here are two letters. This is incorrect. In fact, what we have in 1&2Thessalonians is *four* letters; and wouldn't it be nice if we could read these four letters in chronological order, in the forms they had when they first left Athens and Corinth for Thessalonika (c.49-50CE)? It would make reading AND understanding these early epistles only about a thousand times easier!
.
 So if you would like to try this approach for yourself, here is what you must do: (1) First photocopy 1&2Thessalonians and separate the columns (if necessary). Arrange your strips of text before you in the proper canonical format. (2) Now comes the tricky part. You must arrange these strips of paper in four separate piles according to the following scheme:
.
          Letter A -> 1T. 2:13-4:2
.
          Letter B -> 2T. 2:13-17; 3:6-18
.
          Letter C -> 2T. 1:1-2:12; 3:1-5
.
          Letter D -> 1T. 1:1-2:12; 4:3-5:28
.
 Cut and paste these four piles of snippets to four blank sheets (one letter per page) and arrange them in their proper order. Now you are ready to read the Thessalonian letters as Paul and Silvanus originally wrote them. I have no doubt that you will find that this format will greatly enhance your understanding and appreciation of these very important early Christian epistles ... Is it not apparent, then, that this presentation of the Thessalonian letters ought to be the one which we find when we open our bibles? This is what I mean when I say that the canonical format is *very* not helpful to today's Christian Bible-Reader ...

/ Newsgroups > alt.christnet.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 12 Dec 1998 /
.
  And someone said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them, "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the householder has risen up and shut the door, you will begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, open to us.' He will answer you, 'I do not know where you come from.' Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.' But he will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart from me, all you workers of iniquity!' There you will weep and gnash your teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. [Luke 13:23-28]
.
 Yes, the early Christians often found themselves labeled insane; or (to put it another way) were charged with being possessed by demons. Now these are the same charges that were directed against Jesus; and it is very revealing to note that even today many True Believers are subject to the same abuse and insult. Indeed, these very charges often come directly from the priests themselves. So this is all the more curious because these very same priests not only dub themselves the final and absolute authority on all things Christian, but even go so far as to fancy themselves the divinely appointed 'representatives of Christ'.
.
 Let the reader understand this! The priest is NOT a man like other men. Rather, the priest is the very material manifestation of Christ. When you look at a priest, you are looking at Christ! And so, with such abominable arrogance to bolster their satanic vanity, it is little wonder that the foolish and thoughtless People of God place their faith, not in Jesus, but in priests and their ludicrous priestcraft; thinking that the soothing noises and magical gestures of all these "little Christ's" will surely save them.
.
 In this way, millions are led directly into the Kingdom of Satan, and looking around them say: "Thank God we have arrived. The kingdom of heaven is ours!" Thus has the World taken and conquered by force the spiritual Kingdom, so that *many* may enter therein. Nor is it at all irrelevant that the demonic phenomenon of "Christian" lesbianism is called simply (by its more passionate advocates) "the Force". In this forceful way, the perverse and corrupt Woman-Church fosters hatred against all unemasculated adult hetero-males, while at the same time hypocritically promising Salvation "to all" ... If only they submit to being sprinkled in the Romish bath (ie. baptism), place their hope in the magic of priestcraft, and offer full obedience to the priests who hold the keys to this 'kingdom'.
.
 "I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is  accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division ..." [Luke 12:49-51].

/ Subject > Re: On Taking it by Force / Date > 13 Dec 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> alan wrote: textman, In 1 Tim. 6:16 Paul says only Jesus has immortality, even though Jesus says in John
> 3:16, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
> not perish, but have everlasting life." Paul said only Jesus had immortality, while Jesus said others have
> everlasting life as well. If Paul had said only Jesus could provide immortality to others, there would have
> been no problem. But he said only Jesus HAS immortality. How can only Jesus be immortal when everyone
> is immortal whether willingly or not, according to xian beliefs? Whether in heaven hell, purgatory, or limbo,
> immortality is inescapable.
.
 Dear alan, I fail to see how any of this is at all relevant to my previous post, but I will answer only because I am a super-nice and very polite prophet-type creature. Firstly, Paul did NOT write 1Tim, so your attribution of that idea to Paul is both misleading and erroneous. [We know that 1Tim is not a genuine Pauline epistle because it was written in the early second century, long after Paul had gone to his great reward.]
.
 btw: The author of 1Tim is NOT saying that Jesus is immortal. Please read the entire statement very carefully:
.
 "In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; and this will be made manifest at the proper time, by God the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen." [1Tim 6:13-16]
.
 Did you catch that? The author is saying that only GOD *has* immortality. In other words, only God is eternal, having existed from the begining of time. I fail to see why you should have a problem with this. It strikes me as simple enough. But your problem is that you think that the Bible teaches that everyone is immortal ... Care to cite me some *relevant* cites? Personally, I don't believe that everyone will live forever. Only those who are saved will live on (ie. have everlasting life, as the Johannine Jesus says). Yes, sinners will surely perish, as is only right and proper. Glory be to the Lord of Hosts and the Father of Lights!

/ Subject > BIBLICAL FALLACIES / Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible /
.
> On 22Jan99 Wayne Harrington in soc.religion.quaker wrote: IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION?
> GALATIANS 1:20  -->  In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!
.
 On 7Jun99 textman replies: The rest of this fascinating article presents a series of biblical snippets from 'Galatians' and 'Acts of Apostles', with Wayne's commentary, showing the contradictions and inconsistencies that exist between Paul's account of things, and Luke's presentation of those same events. Now for those who believe that the Bible is inerrant in every detail without exception, this article is good cause for confusion and many agonizing sleepless nights. However, inerrancy is a modern myth, and in no way required for Faith. Thus it is not necessary for True Believers to adopt the simplicity and stupidity that goes hand in hand with the absurd dogma of biblical inerrancy. Once we leave the foolishness of the fallacy of inerrancy behind us, we are much better situated to deal with the substance of the article. Let us use the first constrasting pair as our starting point:
.
> GALATIANS 1:15-17 Paul says when it pleased God to reveal his Son in him, "immediately" he conferred not
> with flesh and blood; but went away into Arabia. ACTS 9:1-26 contradicts Paul and says immediately after
> the revelation, rather than going to Arabia and not conferring with flesh and blood, Paul was told he must
> enter Damascus, for there he would be told what he is to do. Not only must the Paul of Acts (Saul) confer
> with flesh and blood to find out what he is to do; but even receives the Holy Spirit from one of flesh and
> blood! According to Acts, Paul doesn't go to Arabia at all, but remained in Damascus until he was forced to
> flee to Jerusalem. <snip remainder>
.
 In other words, Paul's account of what happened to him after his conversion is dramatically different from Luke's. They cannot both be right. Either Paul is wrong, or Luke is wrong. My view is that Paul is far more likely to know the facts of his own life better than the second-century author of Luke-Acts. Paul's account of things must therefore be accepted as having the greater historical credibility.
.
 Now Paul is very concise in relating these important events in his life. He does not give us much information, and there can be no doubt that this is deliberate (as the use of the vague "Arabia" suggests). So this scarcity of reliable information regarding Paul's early years was regarded as most unfortunate to the churches of the early second century. By that time Paul was widely recognized as a great hero of the Faith; and thus a prime candidate for legendary embellishment. Enter Lk-Acts; which is a story-history relating how the religious center of the world shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. And it is the great hero Paul who brings the Faith to Rome (at the very end of Acts). [This despite the fact that there is no evidence that Paul ever went there, and the fact that there were already believers in Rome c.60CE (cf. Romans).] Thus while Paul tells us very little about his conversion, Luke considers the matter so important that he relates the event three times; with each version being slightly different from the others.
.
 But critics of the Bible (ie. belittlers and detractors) point to these contradictions between Luke and Paul and assert that God is the author of confusion. Yet in reality there is no confusion here. Paul tells us the truth of things as an eyewitness and particpant to these momentous events in early church history. But Luke's history in two parts sets out to tell the stories of two great heroes (ie. Jesus and Paul). His account of early church history is not an objective and scientific history in the modern sense. Rather it is a vehicle for his own theological vision of the meaning of these events, and the significance of these early heroes. Thus while Lk-Acts remains an important resource of ideas and information for church historians, it behooves us to always bear in mind that Lk-Acts is more 'story' than 'history'. Lk-Acts serves the purpose for which it was intended; as do the authentic epistles of Paul.
.
 Thus the only confusion that exists is that which is brought to the text by immature minds unable to understand that the Bible is a library of books of various types and genres. There is much valuable historical information there, to be sure, but none of the biblical authors were objective and dispassionate writers of "scientific history" after the modern manner. Only a fool could read the holy books with such an absurd assumption in mind. They seem to think that if, for example, the Book of Jonah were not an accurate account of actual historical events, then it must be worthless (or worse, a pack of lies). But this is sheer stupidity! The value of Jonah does not depend on it being an accurate historical account; rather, its value resides in the truth that it reveals. The same applies to the book wrongly split into two independent and completely autonomous halves (or is that 'wholes'?): the Gospel According to Luke, and the Acts of Apostles.

P.S.  Hey! Did Luther say: Intrepid? ... Or: In-tepid? ... Or maybe even: Insipid? ... Oh, I'm so confused!

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 13 Aug 1999 /

     "Now, then, clear out all the thoughts that take up your
       attention, and pack away all the old ways of looking at
         things that keep deceiving you" (Letter to Diognetus, 1:2).
.
 Dear Cyber-Saints, prepare to strap on your safety belts, and hang on to your stars and garters ...
Cause we're about to set sail for uncharted waters (in order to attempt to solve a mystery that has
baffled scholars for generations even)! ...
.
 But first; a word from our sponsor -> Here's how it is with historians and Bible scholars: One may be pondering a minor mystery involving some obscure verse in some obscure passage; trying to solve a problem that perhaps has vexed you and other scholars. Various proposals and solutions have been offered. Offered and tested. Tested and rejected (for many and various reasons). The problem remains, yet now there seems to be no remaining clue or hint or sign to show the way out. Many headaches and sleepless nights follow. Many bottles lose their vapors as colleagues go round and round over the same faulty reasoning leading to nowhere. And so it goes. Sometimes for years, or even decades. Sometimes for longer. And sometimes no solutions are found, and the problem is quietly misplaced; and then forgotten ...
.
 But sometimes what happens is that some scholar will be following a paper chase on an entirely unrelated matter (having temporarily tabled "the problem"), and will suddenly find in his hands a piece of evidence that seems relevant not to the current concern (whatever the hell it was), but rather to the tabled monster of abounding grief and misery. And the curious thing about this is that this 'new' evidence is not new at all; but was sitting there on the shelves all along. It was being overlooked because the nature of the evidence was misread such that the real significance of it was never noticed amid all the drinking and shouting about the place. Thus, in large measure, it is unexpected chance encounters between the scholar and the evidence that creates that first clue that points the way to yet another attempted solution to "the problem".
.
 Now the Clementine literature is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There are many problems remaining with that particular body of literature! Many mysteries that remain unsolved. Some progress has been made over the last two centuries, to be sure; but even so, it is apparent that there are many problems and inconsistencies and vexing irregularities involving the entire manner in which this literature is regarded and treated. So this is the first thing that I want to impress upon the Reader. The history of the Clementine literature is a sad and sorry one. Politics and corruption have had their way with the texts, such that the process of transmission was deliberately interfered with; for the good of the Church (in the eyes of those responsible), but also to the detriment of the integrity of the texts. Nowhere is this textual corruption more apparent, more unfortunate, and more important, than in the so-called First Epistle of Clement of Rome ...

On Unauthorized Teachers

/ Newsgroup > alt.christnet.bible / Date > 14 May 1999 /
.
 Now here's a little item that ought to warm the cold hearts of Usenet's many faithless critics of the scriptures:
.
 Most educated Christians are by now aware that Matthew's Gospel is a midrashic expansion of Mark and Peter's Gospel. That is to say; it is a revision of the first (and still greatest) 'Good-News'; also incorporating many additions and "improvements" upon Mark and Peter's sincere, but very rude and crude, enterprise. Now there can be no doubt that Matthew's achievement is a remarkable, and even inspired, effort to re-present the Gospel of the first apostle ... But it is also true that the evangelist who authored and edited the second Gospel (ie. Matthew's) was also concerned to correct some of the (perceived) mistakes and errors of that original Gospel.
.
 One of these Matthean "corrections" is worthy of closer inspection, as it is both very interesting and most unfortunate at one and the same time. Here is the relevant text from Mark and Peter: "John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us'. But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward'" (Mark 9:38-41 / RSV).
.
 Here we see the awesome and inclusive embrace of divine love which wills that none should perish. Only those are cast out of the Kingdom who deliberately and willfully turn against the Son of Man. Surely all this is an accurate reflection of the mind of our Lord! And can such divine generosity give offense to the early Christians? Apparently it can: "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters" (Mt 12:30 / NASB). Here Matthew's Jesus directly and deliberately contradicts the authentic saying of our Lord. The most natural question at this point is: Why? The answer has less to do with theology, and more with the particular circumstances of the Evangelist's unique community, and the problems which beset his church.
.
 The most relevant of these problems was the need for unity and consolidation (among believers) amid an ever increasing diversity and plurality among the People of God. Some of these 'other Christians' were doubtless doing things, and teaching doctrines, that were not consistent with the Evangelist's conception of the Faith, and these clearly required a strong rebuke (see also Mt 7:21-23).
.
 Bearing all this in mind therefore, we are able to forgive the imperfect author of the Gospel According to Matthew for his unfortunate error in this regard. Nor should this blatant contradiction cause any scandal or anxiety among Believers, for although all of Scripture is inspired, not all parts of it are of equal authority or worth. For all True Believers, the Gospel of Mark and Peter has primacy over every other holy book ... (owing to its greater authority and authenticity); and so it should always be foremost in the hearts and minds of those who bear the Name!

textman