18 Dialogues on the Essay

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics-1 / 1 Nov 2001 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Theology /
.
 Dear bill, I agree that a faithful person will always be able to get more out of the Word of God than an unbeliever (no matter how skilled and educated), but to rely upon the Holy Spirit in place of all rational procedure and methodology is nothing more than intellectual laziness, and ought not to be tolerated. Reason and faith working together is obviously better than an arrogant, pious ignorance that expects the Holy Spirit to do all the work for the Reader.
.
 Moreover, the Spirit is not given equally to all believers; but rather some receive a greater measure than others (according to the will of the Lord). As Paul says, not all are prophets, and not all are interpreters. What this means is that the wise believer will be attentive to those who are prophets and interpreters (according to the grace of God bestowed upon them), for they are better qualified to read the scriptures rightly. Those who rely only upon themselves (and the HS), and scorn the fruits of biblical scholarship, tend to lord it over the Text, and thus hear only what they want to hear (for they are incapable of letting the text speak for itself). Therefore a truly rational and faithful post-modern hermeneutics necessarily relies upon the soft and subtle workings of the Holy Spirit; although this will by no means be immediately apparent to the casual reader.
.
 As for John 16:13, I regard this as a basic hermeneutical presupposition. If we truly believe that the Spirit "will show you things to come", then we cannot rest content with the idolatrous fantasy that the Bible contains *ALL* truth, and that nothing more needs be said. Such a view inevitably puts a muzzle upon the Spirit, and prevents us from remaining watchful and listening carefully. Why should we listen to anyone when we "know" in advance that the Spirit has nothing more to say? But a rational and faithful post-modern hermeneutics proceeds from the assumption that the Spirit still has much to show us. After all, you simply cannot teach someone who already knows it all.
.
 Dear Metachoi, if you believe that errors and additions have not crept into the Text during all those centuries of transmission, then you have been misinformed, period. God is not the one who was doing all that copying and translating. That was done by men. Human, fallible, and limited men. Men who were prone to make mistakes when they were cold, and tired, and hungry, and in desperate need of sleep. If you believe that God constantly intervened to override the natural results of human fallibility, then I can only conclude that your understanding of the historical process in general is a gross abomination that only dishonors and diminishes the Faith!
.
 You say that "I have never seen an addition to the text that would cause a theological system to crumble". That is not the point, Metachoi. I am not interested in undermining theological systems. But I am *very* interested in correctly understanding the sacred texts, their origins and history, their authors and first readers, and the original intentions of those authors. These additions, or encrustations (as I sometimes refer to them), tend to obscure all these things, and thus prevent us from reaching an adequate understanding and appreciation of the sacred books.
.
 Good quote there, Metachoi. Did you know that one of the implications of Eph.4:11-13 is that apostles, prophets, and evangelists will continue to play their roles within the Body of Christ "until we all attain ...". This means that there are prophets at work even today. Do you believe that there are prophets among us? Perhaps even right here in cyber-space? ... But many believers seem to think that there are no more prophets, since the Bible has rendered them null and void! Why do you suppose that is, eh?
.
 Dear Maelstrom, I agree with you that it is possible, but as I hope my article suggests, it is by no means a simple and easy thing, but rather it demands considerable effort, discipline, determination, and a willingness to listen to others, as well as to new ideas.

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics-1 / 2 Nov 2001 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Theology /
.
>> bill wrote: But if someone claims special knowledge for the whole church from the HS, then as Bereans
>> we better check the scriptures with our tools to see if that special knowledge could be true.
.
 Dear bill, well said. It's true that I expect a lot from my readers; including a willingness to listen, and a mind open to new ideas. But if the reader will sincerely check my claims against the evidence of the texts in a thoughtful and sensible manner, then I am quite content. Indeed, I will even entertain objections and criticisms to the contrary.
.
 Well, after all, that's what we're all here for. Right? ... :)
.
> Metachoi wrote: I have not been shown evidence that there are errors besides transposing a letter with another,
> or a slight misspelling of a word.
.
 Dear Metachoi, here is an example (Song of Songs 5:2-6) of an error (ie. a slipped or displaced verse) that is clearly the result of a mistake made (probably by a sleepy scribe) during the transmission process:

(2a)  (I slept; but my heart was awake ...)
(2b)   Hark! My beloved is knocking.
(6c)   I was stunned by the breath of desire when he spoke:
(2c)  'Open to me, my Sister, my Love;
(2e)   for my head is wet with dew.
(2d)   O my Perfect One, my Dove;
(2f)   and my locks with the drops of the night.'
(3a)   I had already put off my garment; how could I put it on?
(3b)   I had already bathed my feet; how could I soil them?
(4a)   So my beloved put his hand to the hole;
(4b)   and my loins heaved within me.
(5ab)  I arose to open to my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh,
(5cd)  my fingers with liquid myrrh; upon the handles of the bolt.
(6ab)  I opened to my beloved ... but my beloved had turned and gone.
(6d)   I sought him; but found him not.
(6e)  (I called him ... but he gave no answer).

 It's true that this error has no real doctrinal significance. I merely offer it as an example of a transmission related mistake that goes beyond the more minor gaffs you mentioned. Rest assured that such errors are by no means exceedingly rare. They are, however, unintentional alterations; which is certainly not the case with deliberate additions to the text (of which there are many).
.
 Now you say that these additions do not affect doctrine, but they certainly have doctrinal (and other) implications. 4X: 1Peter 5:13 ["The church in Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you, and so does Mark, my son"] is a second-century addition that deliberately intends to make the reader think that the epistle was written in Rome (it was not), thereby serving the end of magnifying the status and authority of the Romish church. The implications of *that* are obvious.
.
> I don't believe the gift of prophecy has ceased. <snip some>
.
 Bless you.
.
> I believe that there are no longer people in the office of prophet,
> i.e. someone like Isaiah, Daniel, John the Baptist.
.
 How you can hold both these views at the same time is beyond me ... 
.
So I guess you don't take Ephesians 4:11-13 as seriously as you've led us to believe? What I mean is that your theological doctrines (ie. no more prophets) supercedes the plain meaning of the text (ie. prophets will remain among believers 'until we all attain').

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics-1 / 3 Nov 2001 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Theology /
.
> Metachoi wrote: The New Testament meaning of prophet is different
> than an OT prophet. An apostle is equivalent to an OT prophet.
.
 It's my understanding that the best definition of 'apostle' is 'prophet of Christ' or simply 'a Christian prophet'. So clearly there is a basic continuity and family resemblance between the OT and NT prophets; the main distinction being, of course, that the later are 'slaves of Christ' rather than 'slaves of Yahweh'. But when you say that the NT meaning of 'prophet' is different from the OT meaning of 'prophet', I'm guessing that you mean something other than this. Could you perhaps clarify this point?
.
 Although the Book of Revelation speaks of 12 apostles, the other NT documents show that there were others (including Paulos and Silvanus). To arbitrarily restrict the number to only twelve is therefore not justified historically. In point of fact, the Christian prophetic tradition begins with John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, and continues from there all the way up to the present day. Christian prophets have been active in every generation, and especially so during the Reformation period.
.
 On a different note, take a close look at this bible-byte:
.
 Then some of the Pharisees began to say, "This man is not from God, because he does not observe the Sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such miraculous signs?" Thus there was a division among them. So again they asked the man who used to be blind, "What do you say about him, since he caused you to see?" "He is a prophet," the man replied.  -- John 9:16-17/NETbible
.
 Here's a trick question for you: Was the former blind man wrong in his reply?

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics-1 / 16 Nov 2001 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Theology /
.
> On 13Nov2001 Carl Smuda wrote: Textman, you do the work, I'll listen.
.
 textman replies: Hi Carl; deal!
.
> Sounds like you're involved in "lower criticism". <snip some>
.
 Actually, I dabble in most of the biblical sciences; although I still prefer the supposed solid soundness (theoretically speaking, of course) of historical-criticism. Textual criticism is tough going at times, I'll admit, but ya gotta love it anyway ... :)
.
> So something was added to the beginning of Peter's letters? <snip some>
.
 Actually, Peter didn't write any letters, or anything else for that matter (he was illiterate), but yes, there were many additions made to the early NT documents. Most of them date from the second and third centuries, before standardization set in; and most of these encrustations are unfortunate and misleading at best, and totally uninspired at worst.
.
> From Paul: Philemon, Rom, Gal, 1&2Cor, Philippians, 1Thes Pauline School: 2Thess, Ephesians, Colossians,
> 1&2Timothy. What do you make of that? <snip some>
.
 I tend to agree with the bible-scholars here, with one significant exception. I'd place 2Thes in the authentic category (where it rightly belongs). As I understand it, most scholars consider 2Thes pauline because it contains some non-Paul flavored theological and doctrinal elements. From this observation the scribes automatically conclude that it must be a document from post-Paul times (ie. after 70CE). Their reasoning fails to take into account the collaborative nature of the earliest Christian epistles (ie. the original four letters now edited into canonical 1&2Thessalonians) whereby the non-Paul flavor comes via the prophet Silvanus (who contributed as much as Paul did to the creation of the Christian epistle as a vehicle for the Good News).
.
 For those who may be interested in how the first Greek scriptures came about, there is a detailed exposition available to the cyber-saints at the following URL: https://cybrwurm.tripod.com/bs/thes/t-link.htm
.
> In fact, just reading this section of this dictionary gives one the impression that the way they treated the
> Apostolic writings is chaos compared to the way the Hebrew scriptures were treated.
.
 Well, I wouldn't say 'chaos' is the right word exactly, but I would agree that the Jews in general have a healthy respect for the scriptures that expresses itself even in the way that they handle and transmit the sacred texts.
.
> High criticism is the big questions. Low criticism is essential. German High criticism is built
> on sand IF NOT for the hard work done by Low criticism.
.
 It's true that the more speculative branches of the biblical sciences depend on the more rigorously scientific endeavors of textual-criticism and historical-criticism, but even these supposedly more rational scribes and pharisees often ignore or bypass sound methodological procedure in the interests of pious or theological concerns. Faith is necessary to any proper study of the scriptures, to be sure, but it should never be allowed to overrule any rational investigation simply because we don't like the theological taste of its conclusions. Truth is truth, and no truth (even a measly historical fact) can ultimately be in conflict with the Logos of God.
.
> that must be true cause I read it in a book.  sincerely, Carl
.
 Ha ha, very funny there Carl. Actually, out of the mountains of secondary literature relating to the scriptures, only a very small percentage is of exceptional quality (and so well worth studying). The rest is just so much trash that we would all be much better off without. Burn it all, I say! ...  :)

P.S.  There are three religious truths:
1. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Faith.
3. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters.

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics-3 / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 23 Nov 2001 /
.
> On 21Nov01 Carl Smuda wrote: charismental Textman, what does our PoMo
> Hermeneutics think of the manifestations of holy spirit? <snip some>
.
Hi Carl. Well, we're not too crazy about "tongues" - chiefly because it appears to be inherently irrational - but we very much approve and support the other life-giving qualities on your impressive list. I especially like interpretation (of scripture, not tongues), discernment (of scripture, not people), word-of-knowledge, word-of-wisdom, and (of course) prophecy; but then I'm biased that way - being an exegete and cyber-prophet, and what all :)
.
> The only thing that looks sure to me is the churches utter inability to
> articulate their functions with specific application today.
.
Ha! The only thing that looks sure to me is that the churches remain as convinced as they ever were that they can get along just fine without recourse to the ministry of the prophets thank you very much indeed. I can understand their reluctance to admit the reality and necessity of the prophets (for these slaves of Christ are a threat to their well-established authority over the faithful), but (to my mind) denying the prophets (past or present) is functionally equivalent to an outright denial of the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit. Remember that the Encourager was promised to us (as believers) in part to lead us into *ALL* truth. But what kind of "truth" is being served up to the People of God every week during "worship services", eh? Certainly nothing offensive to the delicate ears of the average Christian! Introduce a prophet (whose job it is, in part, to offend) among the post-modern churches, and outrage and scandal are sure to follow.
.
> I am a thinking charismatic, which, in my experience, seems to be an oxymoron
> to mainstream Christianity. - sincerely, Carl
.
I tend to agree. It's unfortunate that so many believers who love the Faith and the scriptures are so resistant to study, criticism, and analysis of same. It's like if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. If 1&2Peter weren't written (or 'talked', as the current trend has it (thus conveniently disposing of the bothersome illiteracy problem)) by the Apostle Simon Peter himself in person, *then* we just have to TOSS the entire Bible as fundamentally untrustworthy yet!
.
I don't agree with such "reasoning", of course. I think that the Faith and the Word of God are essentially (ie. spiritually) solid and sound; and despite all errors and imperfections can take all the analysis and criticism we can dish out
.
... and then some!

P.S. If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics-3 / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 29 Nov 2001 /
.
> On 26Nov01 Carl Smuda wrote: <snipabit> I enjoyed reading Enoch this weekend and
> some of "Adam & Eve" from "the LOST books". they are pseudepigraphic, yes?
.
 textman answers: Oh yes, and sometimes it's easy to see why these secondary scriptures were once considered sacred texts. Some of that literature is quite good, and much can be learned from reading them. Enoch is especially relevant for those interested in the contemporary sources of early Christian thought.
.
> <snipabit> Their prophet DID predict a war eight months before Saddam invaded Kuwait.
> I found that to be impressive.  -- shalom, Carl
.
 Not me. Predicting a war is sortta like predicting that your teeth will fall out one day. Difficult to avoid, given enough time, if you know what I mean. As for myself, I'm not much into fortune-telling and sooth-saying. That sort of thing really has very little to do with true Christian prophecy (ie. as it was practiced by the prophet-writers of the NT). Anyway, I find all the melodrama we need in the Word of God, and in the interpretation thereof ...  :)

P.S.  Here's another little blast from the past that has somehow managed to survive the forgetful centuries:
.
"God has granted two ways to the sons of men, two mindsets, two lines of action, two models, and two goals. Accordingly, everything is in pairs, the one over against the other. The two ways are good and evil; concerning them are two dispositions within our breasts that choose between them. If the soul wants to follow the good way, all of its deeds are done in righteousness and every sin is immediately repented. Contemplating just deeds and rejecting wickedness, the soul overcomes evil and uproots sin. But if the mind is disposed toward evil, all of its deeds are wicked; driving out the good, it accepts the evil and is overmastered by Beliar, who, even when good is undertaken, presses the struggle so as to make the aim of his action into evil, since the devil's storehouse is filled with the venom of the evil spirit." [From 'The Testament of Asher, the tenth son of Jacob and Zilpah.']

> On 3Dec01 Carl Smuda wrote: Textman, You're doing a fine job of deconstructing.
.
 textman answers: Hi Carl. Thx 4 sayso ...  :)
.
> Do you offer anything for reconstructing?
.
 Well, could be.
.
> A lot of what you're saying is probably more true than I'd like to admit, but what's the solution?
.
Well, I'd maybe say: 'Pay attention to the cyber-prophet!'
.
> I mean step-by-step plan of attack?  - sincerely,  Carl
.
 A good start might be to stay tuned for the next installment of PoMo Hermeneutics.

P.S.  Don't do today what you can put off till tomorrow.

> On 9Dec geoff wrote: textman, aka tondaar...
.
 textman answers: Oy Vey!
.
> heretic of the highest order:
.
 Oh well, I've been called worse than that. Much worse even. But you are at least technically correct in that I do maintain beliefs and opinions that are very contrary to the established religious orthodoxy.
.
 On the other hand, so did our Lord.
.
> Here is textman's statement of faith, before you all get too carried away:
.
>> This web site is brought to you by the grace of our Lord, and the providence of the Father of
>> Lights, and Theophilus Productions Ltd. The goal of this cyber-church is to increase love and
>> respect for the Word of God among all the Lord's cyber-saints by providing articles and
>> discussions on the NT prophets Jacob and Judas, and their wonderful - and (alas) all-too-
>> neglected - New Testament books. ... Nor should anyone misunderstand the purpose of this
>> online ministry: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but rather against the rulers,
>> authorities, and powers of this World of Darkness; and against all the spiritual forces of evil in
>> the heavens." [Ephesians 6:12 / Prophet Version].
.
 Our readers may be curious to know that the above quote is NOT my statement of faith, but rather is my
mission statement (as it clearly states on the web-page in question). For those who may be interested, I do have a statement of faith. Here it is:
.
 "I can pray this because his divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence. Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection; to brotherly affection, unselfish love. For if these things are really yours and are continually increasing, they will keep you from becoming ineffective and unproductive in your pursuit of knowing our Lord Jesus Christ more intimately." -- 2Peter 1:3-8 / NETbible
.
> from his webpage: https://cybrwurm.tripod.com/title2.htm
>> quote: Welcome to the
.
 I like to welcome web-surfers. Common courtesy.
.
>> First CyberChurch of Jacob & Judas
.
 That's the name of my web-site devoted to the authors of the NT epistles 'James' and 'Jude'; and which, btw, is now undergoing a major revision (chiefly by removing a lot of articles that have no bearing on bible-study). Completion of this project is still a long way off ... alas.
.
> Say no more.
.
 I'm afraid that more needs to be said . . .
.
> "It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them." -- Alfred Adler
.
 I tend to agree with this observation; even though it is made by a pagan philosopher 
.
> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius
> - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."  -- E. F. Schumacher
.
 It takes courage to simplify things? I think maybe not. Maybe all it takes is blindness and a determination not to let complexity open our narrow and impoverished minds?

> On Dec11 geoff wrote: <snip some rubbish>
.
>> textman previously wrote: But you are at least technically correct in that I do maintain beliefs
>> and opinions that are very contrary to the established religious orthodoxy.
.
> geoff: That's because your beliefs are a fairy tale. They are about as based in fact as Lord of the Rings.
.
 If you have any evidence to back up these outrageous assertions, I'd very much like to see it. It's easy enough for someone to say that I don't know what I'm talking about. That's been done many times before. But when it comes time to offer a considered critique of my exegesis, the nay-sayers are curiously silent. And why is that? Is pompous arrogance supposed to be more persuasive than a well-reasoned and well-considered argument?
.
>> That's the name of my website devoted to the authors of the NT epistles 'James' and 'Jude'; and which,
>> btw, is now undergoing a major revision (chiefly by removing a lot of articles that have no bearing on
>> bible-study). Completion of this project is still a long way off ... alas.
.
> Alas, your fictional second century prophets do not exist.
.
 Not anymore, to be sure, but they did exist in the second century of the common era.
.
> They are figments of your imagination.
.
Really? Are the epistles of James and Jude also figments of my imagination? They must be, since the bulk of what
I know about these 2 Christian prophets comes from there.
.
> I'd like to see some proof they exist. Hard evidence.
.
 Someone must have authored those letters, geoff, since it is highly unlikely that they wrote themselves. My second century Egyptian prophets are by far the most plausible options for the authors. The evidence is all there in the texts: "Jacob, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jm1:1a). What's that? Jacob the prophet? Looks pretty 'hard evidence' to me.
.
> All I see is a bunch of radical claims which have no support or proof.
.
 Well, I can only do so much in the space of one small posting, geoff; but there are plenty of articles at my web-site which forward arguments and observations in support of my radical claims. Do you have any arguments, support, or proof to back up your claim that my proposals are "a fairy tale"? If so, bring them before the people so that we may see if indeed they hold any water.
.
> Jacob and Judas... proof they lived, proof they wrote pseudepigrapha, let alone james and jude.
> I dont want proof they wrote these 2 books, first prove they lived.
.
 And just how am I supposed to do that, sir? Shall I pop round in my time-machine and take you back there for a
spot of tea and crumpets with the authors in question? You know that if I could, I surely would.
.
 Hey, I'm NOT a first-class type of prophet, but merely a lowly second-class type of prophet. So don't ask me to do the impossible or to perform miracles. That is very NOT my assigned mission.
.
 btw: For those who may be interested in such obscure matters as the methodology of interpretation, it is well known that "hard evidence" and "incontestable proof" are things rarely seen in the biblical sciences. Most of the progress gained comes about by finding tiny little fragments of evidence, reasoning about them (their meaning and implications), then trying to fit these new facts into the body of knowledge already gained, and in general just trying to fit the evidence of the texts into some sort of coherent overall vision of the New Testament and the history of its texts. This is the way that most bible scholars (and second-class cyber-prophets) proceed.
.
 4X: How do I know that the author of James was a Christian prophet? Simple. He tells us so at the very start of his letter: 'Jacob, a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ'. In the Bible a 'slave of God' is just another way of saying 'prophet'. So is there *any* possibility that Jacob was not a Christian prophet? ... None whatsoever! This is about as 'hard evidence' as it gets in the fuzzy realm of hermeneutics. And if you can't accept that 1+1=2 then I suggest you get out of bible study pronto, since it's obviously not suited for narrow and inflexible minds who already know all the answers before the first question is even asked!

P.S. "But if any one of you is lacking wisdom, let that one ask God, who gives generously and without reproach, and it will be given. But let him ask in faith (doubting nothing); for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, being blown and tossed about by the wind. And do not let that one think that he will receive anything from the Lord; for he is a double-minded man (unstable in all his ways)" (The Book of Jacob 1:5-8 / Prophet Version).
.
P.P.S. Dear Carl, what do you mean by "What's up"? Clarity PLEASE! I have no idea what you're asking ...

On Getting Lost Among the Details

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics / 13 Dec 2001 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Theology /
.
>> textman previously wrote: If you have any evidence to back up these outrageous assertions,
>> I'd very much like to see it.
.
> On 12Dec01 geoff replied: They arent outrageous assertions... they are defendable understandings
> held by the Christian Church for over 1500 years.
.
 textman interrupts to add: Maybe even longer than that. As to how defensible they are: Well, my view is that they are defensible *only* to the extent that no one [and that means YOU, dear reader!] takes the bother of actually asking any questions that may or may not test these noble and honorable hermeneutical paradigms ... these "understandings" of the Word that are oh so enshrined in the long and long and LONG traditions of faithful Christian commentary according to the unsurpassable wisdom of the scribes and pharisees . . . Good Grief!
.
> The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
.
 So in other words, I have to prove everything I say, while you need never bother to explain or defend *any* of your claims or beliefs?  . . . Oh, that's a sweet deal alright!  :)
.
> Your claim is the one that is against the norm, so you must prove it.
.
 Umm, *which* claim are we talking about, exactly?
.
>> It's easy enough for someone to say that I don't know what I'm talking about. That's been done many
>> times before. But when it comes time to offer a considered critique of my exegesis, the nay-sayers
>> are curiously silent. And why is that? Is pompous arrogance supposed to be more persuasive than a
>> well-reasoned and well-considered argument?
.
> You dont have a well reasoned and well considered argument, either here or on your website.
.
 Ow! ... yer such a meanie!
.
>> Do you have any arguments, support, or proof to back up your claim that my proposals are "a fairy
>> tale"? If so, bring them before the people so that we may see if indeed they hold any water.
.
> As I said, it is YOUR burden to prove your claims, not mine. If you want to prove the world is flat,
> now that we believe it is round,
.
 I do NOT believe the world is round. I *know* that the world is round because I have seen (over the years) overwhelming evidence in support of that simple physical fact. There is a subtle, but very important, distinction between knowing something and believing something. I know that I shall surely die. I believe the Lord will save me. It is this very failure to make these sorts of distinctions that so characterizes the sloppy scholarship of the scribes and pharisees. Thus, for example, the bible scholars *know* that James was the first NT book written because it is Jewish and makes no mention of the Fall of Jerusalem. This they take to be certain knowledge so solid that they can claim James' early date to be an established fact. An established fact! Ha! A classic example of stupid and sloppy scholarship is the only "fact" to be found around here. This is because the Jewish features of the text most certainly do NOT prove that Jacob had to be a so-called Jewish-Christian in Jerusalem in the years between 45-65CE. Nor do these features prove that the epistle is explicitly intended for some nebulous and hard to find (but apparently widespread) population of Jewish-Christians. Yet both of these baseless and down-right stupid *opinions* are widely taken to be established facts!
.
 Want to know what pisses a cyber-prophet off? Want to know why the cyber-prophet can't say enough bad
things about these thoughtless and illogical "bible-loving" post-modern Christian scribes and pharisees? ... Grrrrrrrr
.
> then the burden is on you to convince us.
.
 Sometimes I think that it really might be easier to convince the cyber-saints that the world is flat than to convince them that the early Christian prophets are the very heart and soul of the New Testament ... and the Faith!
.
> Otherwise we shall continue to consider you a crackpot making untenable claims.
.
 Thx a bunch there geoff. And a very merry Christmas to you too!
.
>> And just how am I supposed to do that, sir? Shall I pop round in my time-machine and take you back
>> there for a spot of tea and crumpets with the authors in question? You know that if I could,
>> I surely would.
.
> I can offer evidence to show that there was a real Jesus, john, Paul, Lames,
.
 Who's Lames?
.
> Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter. They are real historical characters and there is evidence they existed.
.
 Right. There is evidence they existed (with the possible exception of this Lames person). But the only tangible evidence that exists *now* is contained in the texts of the Greek scriptures. You are asking me to prove the existence of Jacob and Judas without reference to those texts, and I am trying to tell you that there is no such evidence apart from the texts. Jacob and Judas are the authors of James and Jude because they *ARE* the authors of those texts. ... Is it just me? Why is this simple fact so difficult to understand?
.
> One of the principle actions of an exegete is to determine who wrote the passage in question, and to
> try and determine their historical reality. If you cant do that, then you have failed in your task.
.
 I'm sorry, geoff, but I just don't see things that way. For me, the historical reality of Jacob and Judas is established in and by the fact that the texts of James and Jude are direct extensions of their concrete personalities. *That* they existed is therefore already an established fact and not something that can be doubted or questioned. *Who* they are, and *when* they are, are not such brute facts, but rather are things that must be carefully coaxed and squeezed out of the texts (without doing undue violence to the person of the author, or to the integrity of the Word).
.
> As for the name Jacob. Jacob is the Hebrew name, in Greek iakobos is James.
.
 Either you're not explaining this well enough, or I'm not understanding you well enough. Let's at least get our facts straight. The Greek text gives the author's name as 'Iakobos' (in Greek characters of course), which we can legitimately translate as 'Jacob' firstly because there is no Greek equivalent to the letter 'J', and secondly because 'Jacob' is to 'Iakobos' as 'Paul' is to 'Paulos'. Now when we substitute 'James' for 'Jacob' (or 'Jude' for 'Judas'; or 'Paul' for 'Paulos') we are taking *another* step toward modern English; one that is not so much legitimate as it is convenient. I hope I'm making myself clear on this matter: There is no 'James' in the Greek New Testament! 'James' and 'Jude' rule *solely* and *entirely* by common consent alone. It's like saying that 'Bob' is the equivalent of 'Robert' because we say so, and who would be so foolish as to dispute this, eh? ...  :)
.
 Where do you get your information, geoff? I think maybe there's something wrong with your sources. So what I did was to have a quick look around the WWWeb, and what I found is pretty much summed up in your quote above. This suggests to me that the cyber-saints who put up these Christian bible-study websites are entirely lacking for any real interest in Jacob's universal epistle. And this disinterest doubtless stems from the fact that the scribes and pharisees are still very comfy-cozy with their grossly dismissive attitude toward Jm (so ably manifested in Martin Luther), and which they justify on the basis of their "certain" and "doubtless" knowledge of the book's "Jewishness"!
.
 Want to know what pisses a cyber-prophet off? Want to know why the cyber-prophet can't say enough bad things about these dismissive and disrespectful "bible-loving" post-modern Christian scribes and pharisees? ... Grrrrrrrr
.
> Jesus' brother James (Matthew 13:55; 27:56; Mark 6:3; Luke 24:10; Galatians 1:19; 2:9,12),
> the head of the Jerusalem Church was probably known as Jacob,
.
 I'd say more than probably, but I'm with you so far ...
.
> when at home with the family.
.
 And why not outside the family?
.
> James is the graecised version of his Hebrew name.
.
 You're wrong, geoff. 'James' is NOT a Greek word. Latin maybe, but not Greek.
.
> So, there is absolutely no reason why we should not believe they are the same person.
.
 WUT?!?! Whoa there tonto! Slow down a minute. You can't just jump in and out of warp speed without so much as a 'by your leave'. There are so many assumptions embedded in this last statement that I hardly know where to start unraveling this tangled mess. Just what are you saying here, geoff? Are you saying that because the Lord's brother happens to have the same name as the author of Jm, that this proves that he is the author? Don't you think that maybe such a radical conclusion is a bit hasty given the sheer flimsiness (not to mention absurdity) of your alleged evidence?! The fact that the Lord's brother and the author of James have the same name proves *ONLY* one thing: namely, that they had the same name. And that's all it proves. Any assertions added to this goes far *far* beyond what the evidence (if you can even call it that) can legitimately support.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 12Dec (a bit later) geoff reads PMH6 and to his chagrin discovers that it makes no reference to his
> previous post, and so then wrote: textman, not a jot of an answer in there, try answering the questions,
> evidences offered, ie interact with my post, instead of posting heretical propaganda.
.
 textman answers: Dear geoff, PMH6 is not intended as an answer to your criticisms, hence the lack of interaction with your previous posting. Please forgive me. I did not intend to subject you to such painful "heretical propaganda". In future when you see any posting of mine that begins with the document icon please please ignore it, as it is doubtless chock full of prophetic spirity goodness and must be avoided at all cost! :)
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 12Dec (a little bit latter even) Carl Smuda wrote: Textman and Geoff, God Bless you both
> in the name of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah.
.
 textman answers: Thx Carl. And many blessings on thy kin as well.
.
> Textman, what's up is what's up with Geoff's charges?
.
 Well I'm none too sure about that exactly, but I'd suspect that friend geoff is somehow voicing the concern of the prevailing hermeneutical paradigm in the face of its - How shall I say? - imminent destruction under pressure of massive common sense powered by faith and spirit and the grace of the Father of Lights.
.
> I respect Geoff's work,
.
 Is that what he calls it? :)
.
> I've read much of him on other websites. He said you are spouting Fairy-tales.
.
 Yes, I heard that too.
.
> He pooh-poohed your work
.
 If you mean he constantly and constantly defecates upon the cyber-prophet's scribblings, then you're right!
.
> and gave me your website. That's all.
.
 All of wut?
.
> I suppose I have to read your stuff on your website, don't I? But I'm reading this thread.
.
 Of course you don't have to. In fact, I'd recommend against doing so, as there are a great many articles available there, and the unwary believer could easily succumb to a prophetic overdose, dazed and confused for many days on end. ... Maybe it's best to revise one's hermeneutical paradigms slowly and gradually rather than suddenly and violently. Reading one thread at a time is fine. Indeed it's the best way to learn what's what with textman.
.
> It looks like I'm waiting for another shoe to drop.
.
 Ha! I know the feeling.
.
> This isn't the first time I've heard the claim Peter didn't write the epistle with his name on it.
.
 Oh no. I certainly didn't discover that rather obvious textual fact (although geoff may wish it were so). I think even Calvin was aware of this fact, although he takes great care in saying so without actually coming straight out and saying so, if you know what I mean.
.
> Geoff, what exactly is Textman saying that is off-color? respectfully, Carl
.
[A deep and awesome silence descends upon the world as the cyber-saints await geoff's cunning, wit, and
wisdom. And none more so than the offensive one.]
.
                                              - the one who works on two things at once - textman ;>
.
P.S.  . . .  No p.s. today! This post is long enough already, already.

On Defending the Early Christian Prophets

/ Topic > Re: On Getting Lost Among the Details / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 15 Dec 2001 /
.
> On 13Dec01 Carl Smuda wrote: Textman, God Bless you in the name of Jesus the Christ! I've read that
> maybe the letter from 'James' and Paul's letter to the Galatians may have been written about the same
> time. Is this your finding also?
.
 textman answers: Oh no, far from it. Galatians witnesses to the mid-first century, while James is about a half-century later. Just as important as when, is the place of origin. For example, did you know that the earliest NT document written was the first of the four Thessalonian letters? And did you also know that it was actually written (co-composed by Paulos and Silvanus) in Socrates' very own beloved and democratic city of Athens? I find that little detail to be both astonishing and wonderful! The New Testament began not in Holy Jerusalem, not in Glorious Rome, not in the city of mighty Alexander, but in the foolish and idealistic city of the giants of Greek thought and philosophy. Now this little fact just has to mean something more than mere geographical circumstance, wouldn't you say?
.
> I'm assuming James and Jude were both written by the half-brothers of Lord Jesus, do you agree?
.
 Not at all. The authors of James and Jude are well-educated Greek-speaking believers who are very well acquainted with the early Christian scriptures (this includes most of the pauline literature and the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John). In other words, the texts show a knowledge of certain NT books that could not have existed prior to the Fall of Jerusalem. And that little detail means that none of the Lord's kin (brothers, half-brothers, cousins, or third uncles from the left) can claim "ownership" of these two books. Amen!
.
> What do you think the letters of James and Jude are? respectfully, Carl
.
 I think that they are essentially prophetic sermons presented in the form of a universal epistle. These homilies were once delivered to many and various churches throughout the Roman Empire, and later set down on sheets of papyrus in Greek characters by the same prophet and writer and scholar that spoke the Living Word to believers who knew very well the early Greek scriptures. In other words, James and Jude are classic examples of Christian prophetic literature. Any other definition is not only inadequate and misleading, but also does violence to the persons of the authors, as well as harming the integrity of the Word as a whole.

>> textman previously wrote: As to how defensible they are <snip>
.
> On 13Dec01 geoff sayeth: Well ... you havent convinced the experts that you are right, not one.
.
 textman agrees with friend geoff: Yes, but this does not mean that my methods and conclusions are wrong. It only means that the scribes and pharisees do not even bother to inquire whether or not I know whereof I speak. No doubt they are justified in ignoring the cyber-prophet because everybody knows that textman is a crackpot. Right, geoff? But even if they did sample one or two articles, it's unlikely that my bizarre notions would make much of an impression since their pious arrogance and theological preconceptions and assumptions would surely prevent them from recognizing the truth of these things of which we speak. This is because they are unable to think about the scriptures outside of the narrow and rigid definitions of the prevailing hermeneutical paradigm (which, in one sense, defines their identity and function within the People of God).
.
> And neither have any of the other crackpots who pop up with this stuff through out the centuries.
.
 Ummm ... Right. Real relevant observation there, geoff.
.
>> So in other words, I have to prove everything I say, while you need never bother to
>> explain or defend *any* of your claims or beliefs? . . .
.
> If you come up with a claim that causes me to have to defend my views, then I will. So far... you havent.
.
 Oh of course not. I don't expect that I'll ever be able to say anything that will cause you to give a rational account of your understanding of the New Testament's prophetic literature. This is because I can't cause you (or anyone else) to do anything. You have to want to understand the meaning of the texts, and the intentions of the authors in expressing their souls with just these particular words in just this particular way. Otherwise we're just talking at two different directions, and getting nowhere fast.
.
> Still, yours is the view that challenges orthodoxy, so you must demonstrate why
> we should believe you. So far... you havent.
.
 How can I convince you, geoff, when you so resolutely refuse to listen to anything I say? Why should the cyber-saints believe me instead of the countless priests, bible scholars, and evangelical preacher types who say otherwise? That's easy. They should believe me because my exegesis is better than theirs. That's the only legitimate reason that I can offer as a slave of the Word. Demonstrate that my ideas are better than all the many and varied established traditions, you say? Sure thing, geoff! I'm doing exactly that right now (with a little help from friends Carl and geoff). . . . Amen!
.
 "For where two or three are assembled in my name, there am I among them" (Jesus of Nazareth, Mt.18:20).
.
>> Ow! ... yer such a meanie!
.
> Leave the joke making to Drew Carey.
.
 He's not funny . . . Futurama is funny!
.
>> Thus, for example, the bible scholars *know* that James was the first NT book written because it is
>> Jewish and makes no mention of the Fall of Jerusalem.
.
> So far a failure. Paul is considered the first writer of the NT. Probably 1 or 2 Thess, closely followed along
> by Mark (the gospel of.... and written by.) If your going to make ridiculous assertions, make sure you
> get the facts right.
.
 Okay geoff. It's true that *most* scribes and pharisees *now* recognize the priority of the Thessalonian letters (or *some* of them, as the case may be), but this is largely because of the realization that Jm could not have been written *before* Paul's letters (written in the 50's). Hence most scholars today push the date of Jm to just beyond this point - thus ignoring Jacob's awareness of the gospel traditions (and, 4X, 1Peter) - so that they can maintain the illusion that James the Righteous is the author, while reluctantly accepting that Jacob may have some small knowledge of at least some of Paul's epistles.
.
 But the older view of James' priority has hardly gone away. In the 'Handbook for Biblical Studies' by Nicholas Turner (1982) Jm is listed first in the order of composition. The date given is "40s AD" right along side the mythical and non-existent Q. Which not only shows that I've got my facts right, but also demonstrates just how silly the scribes and pharisees can be when they put their minds to it!
.
>> Want to know what pisses a cyber-prophet off? Want to know why the cyber-prophet can't
>> say enough bad things about these thoughtless and illogical "bible-loving" post-modern
>> Christian scribes and pharisees? ... Grrrrrrrr
.
> I'm not post modern.
.
 That's what most pomo Christians say. You're all in denial. The plain fact is that we are all of us post-modern believers by virtue of the fact that we are all living in the present post-modern era. It's true that much of the current Christian thinking and commentary has hardly moved much away from the flavor of Reformation thinking and attitudes, but this only means that these believers are of the primitive and reactionary type of post-modern Christian. PoMo Christians come in all flavors and denominations.  :)
.
> Want to know what hacks off those who *really* seek the truth? Idiots who come along making unfounded
> claims in the name of Christianity ... *no i didnt have sex with monica lewingsky*
.
 It seems to me that you must *enjoy* making unfounded claims, geoff, since you can hardly manage a dozen words without popping off at least one (without even breaking a sweat yet)!
.
>>> Otherwise we shall continue to consider you a crackpot making untenable claims.
.
>> Thx a bunch there geoff. And a very merry Christmas to you too!
.
> Lets see.. So far.. one claim, which is so completely and utterly out of touch with reality that its living on
> krypton with Supermans folks.
.
 So now I'm a space cadet too? :)
.
> Merry crackpot to you too!
.
 Take it easy, geoff. Our readers may get the impression that you're foaming at the mouth right about now.
You don't want them to suspect that you're in need of a nice even Christian temper, do you?
.
>> Jacob and Judas are the authors of James and Jude because they *ARE* the authors of those texts. ...
>> Is it just me? Why is this simple fact so difficult to understand?
.
> So, let me get this straight (lames was a typo for JAMES btw). We should believe that 2 NT epistles,
> which are universally accepted (except by a few crackpots) as being genuine 1st C Epistles by all the
> people who have the knowledge and skills to know (and dont make stupid assertions like "james is
> thought to be first"), are written by a couple of EGYPTIAN Christian prophets, using graecised Hebrew
> names in the 2nd C?   *gaffaw*
.
 Perhaps 'believe' is the wrong word here. Let us say rather that I would like believers to accept this notion as a working hypothesis. A set of ideas that can be used to compare and test the so-called "established facts" of the Jerusalem origin. 4X: A brute fact about the text of Jm is that the autograph was written in Greek characters according to the Greek way of writing sacred and inspired scripture. My early second century Alexandrian prophet has no problem with this fact, since he has been fluent in Greek all his life, and both knows and loves the LXX. But what about the Lord's brother? From his life in Galilee we may suppose that James could speak some Koine Greek, but it's highly unlikely that he could have had the opportunity to soak himself in the Greek scriptures. Indeed, it's most likely that he would have had no passion to do so anyway. James was an Aramaic believer to the core. When he later went to Jerusalem and more or less took the Aramaic-church for his own, he focused all his energies on prayer and the welfare of the Aramaic-speaking believers. James was pious and consistent to the end, and he only left Jerusalem when they carried him out feet first.
.
 The Greek-speaking believers however, did not last long in the Holy City, and we may safely assume that the absence of that radical and troublesome lot was no small cause of relief for the peace-loving and conservative- minded pillar of the first church of Jerusalem. So then how is it that this man, this blood-brother of Joshua of Nazareth, should happen to write the text of Jm? When did he find time to make himself so fluent in Greek literature? Was he magically inspired to know the LXX and many NT documents that would not be written for years or decades to come? And where did this sudden concern for the welfare of the Hellenistic-believers come from? From what Paul tells us, James was entirely concerned with receiving donations so as to feed the 'PoorBelievers'. Did God force a concern for people he did not know upon his gentle spirit? Did the Holy Spirit render him a dancing puppet by making him preach in Greek to his Aramaic flock about Greek things far away in time and space; things of which they knew nothing, and cared for even less? Yet how else can the literary features of the text be explained if the Pillar was the author?
.
 But perhaps James was merely a secretary, and simply wrote down what the majestic voice told him in the middle of the night. If so, poor old James must have been very confused and mystified by some of things he was writing down. We may imagine that he would be constantly asking himself 'Why am I doing this?' or perhaps even 'Please God make it stop!' Can you picture this situation, dear reader? Can you see the text eternally and absolutely removed from the world of time and space and history and human passions and mundane realities such as the price of a high quality scroll? All of this and much more is needed to support the assertion that Jesus' brother is the author of this Greek epistle. Not even a thousand Occam's Razors could make a dent in this tangled mess of contradiction and absurdity that bends and twists and breaks history, nature, and all manner of human realities in order to FORCE authorship upon the Pillar of Jerusalem.
.
 Ultimately, that's what it all comes down to, dear reader. The scribes and pharisees will force authorship upon this James, and nothing will stop them from doing so. No violence or abuse of the text is too big or too small as long as we are all agreed that Jm is an early JEWISH-christian letter that has long since been superceded by Paul and the Gospels, and (of course) the unsurpassable wisdom of the scribes and pharisees, and can therefore be safely ignored. My author, on the other hand, is the passionate prophet who flows smoothly and powerfully from the text. His person, his energy, his eager faith unite and transcend each and every word as the soul of the prophet challenges every post-modern believer that dares to wonder what it means to live the Faith that is everywhere talked about but seldom realized. That is who I say wrote the book called James. You can decide for yourself which of these two men is the more plausible candidate for author.
.
> What POSSIBLE reason could we have for believing that?
.
 How about respect for the sacred text? How about confidence in the providence of God as it expresses itself through and within the historical process, rather than as some foreign power that invades and disrupts the measured treads of natural and cosmic realities? How about a willingness to learn from the Lord? How about the need to let the author tell us who and what he is in his own words and in his own way?
.
> The very notion of it is laughable.
.
 You see that, dear reader? The pomo scribes and pharisees think it is *funny* for anyone to try to hear the author, or to let the text speak for itself by NOT forcing "understandings" upon it!
.
>> For me, the historical reality of Jacob and Judas is established in and by the fact that the texts of
>> James and Jude are direct extensions of their concrete personalities.
.
> Personalities of people who you cant prove existed.
.
 Talk about not paying attention. The texts themselves constitute concrete historical *proof* that they existed.
.
> We can, by the way, give NON biblical evidence to prove the existence of the other NT authors,
> including James and Peter.
.
 Sure you can. IF you want us to suppose that hearsay and empty talk counts as evidence.
.
>> *That* they existed is therefore already an established fact and not something that can
>> be doubted or questioned.
.
> You can assert it as much as you like. You can not prove it, or even demonstrate that it is likely, so we
> apply Okhams Razor.
.
 I don't know how you apply it, but here's how I apply it: Here we have before us the texts of James and Jude. The simplest explanation that accounts for these two letters is that they were written by two men who were believers literate in Greek. The letters give us the names of these author's as 'Jacob' and 'Judas'. Therefore Jacob and Judas were real historical individuals who actually existed, because if they did not, there would be no letters called 'James' and 'Jude'.
.
 This is how one applies the principle of Occam's Razor to the requirements of biblical exegesis.
.
>> *Who* they are, and *when* they are, are not such brute facts, but rather are things that must
>> be carefully coaxed and squeezed out of the texts (without doing undue violence to the person of the
>> author, or to the integrity of the Word).
.
> *read* "use your imagination because we cant find any facts".
.
 Good point, geoff. Imagination is, in fact, one of the tools in the cyber-prophet's hermeneutical toolbox. It is a necessary and vital tool, because without a solid sense of historical imagination the "facts" as such would be meaningless, and therefore worthless. Without a *disciplined* imagination we would be utterly incapable of making any sense at all of the sacred texts. I dare say that imagination is one of the key features that distinguishes the cyber-prophet's hermeneutics from that of the arrogant ones. Indeed, for the scribes and pharisees, a chronic case of constipation of the imagination is actually considered a virtue!
.
 Yes, we thank the Lord daily that our values, methods, and priorities are so radically, and so fundamentally,
different from those of the pomo scribes and pharisees! . . .  Amen!
.
>> There is no 'James' in the Greek New Testament! 'James' and 'Jude' rule *solely* and *entirely* by
>> common consent alone. It's like saying that 'Bob' is the equivalent of 'Robert' because we say so, and
>> who would be so foolish as to dispute this, eh? ...
.
> James is the GREEK way of saying 'Jacob'. Just like Jesus is a graecised version of joshua. Its more like
> saying 'robert' is the anglicised version of Roberto. This is hardly a proof of your view, in fact, it takes
> very little research to find out that you are completely wrong. Your whole *cyberchurch* is founded on
> a false premise.
.
 And which false premise might that be exactly?
.
> It demonstrates that you have very very little, if any, understanding of greek, less of hebrew,
> and zero of culture.
.
 Really? Well geoff, show me where in the Greek NT the word 'James' can be found, and maybe I'll agree
with you. Until you can do that, your authoritative quotes prove nothing.
.
> <snip a LOT of rubbish> ... That aside.
.
 Second thing you said all day that I agree with  :)
.
> Even if they are the same name, it does not show that James (Jacob) the half brother of Jesus is not the
> same James' (jacob) who wrote James (jacob). It rather enhances our view, and shows yours up for the
> load of tripe that it is.
.
 I don't see how it enhances anything, let alone anyone's views concerning the identity of the author. My view is that the person of the author can only be established on the basis of the evidence provided by the *entire* text of Jm. Your view is that the author is a non-entity unless and until it can be "proved" from external sources. Now I ask the reader to decide which of these two ways of treating the sacred text is more consistent with established rational procedures that derive facts and information from the raw data of the texts? Which of these two methods does more violence to the integrity of the Word? Which of these two approaches makes a mockery of the spirit and intent of Occam's Razor?

> On 14Dec Carl Smuda wrote: Morning Geoff and Textman. I take knowledge from your dialogue
> together. Textman. Do I follow correctly that you believe that the letters of James and Jude were
> written by 2nd century Egyptians? respectfully, Carl
.
 Actually, Jacob was a leader of the church in Alexandria. This church began with the expulsion of the Hellenistic Jewish-Christians from Jerusalem prior to the middle of the first century. The church of Egypt is therefore second in age and authority only to the mother church of Jerusalem. It is difficult to pin down precise dates, but I suspect that Jacob was actively ministering to the churches in and around Egypt (and elsewhere) roughly in the time period of 90-110CE. Judas was a disciple and student of Jacob's, about a generation younger, so his epistle dates to about 120CE. 2Peter, which is an expanded revision of Jude, is a decade or two later still. All three epistles can be considered as closely related texts from the same Christian tradition. A Christian tradition that was based on a strong love of, and dependence upon, the early Christian prophets (including Paulos and Silvanus). This is why Jm demonstrates so many parallels with the text of 1Peter (which was written in Asia Minor by Silvanus around about 80-90CE).
.
 If you would like to know more about these things, I highly recommend you read my essay entitled: 'The Face In the Mirror: A Re-Interpretation of James 1:19-27'. It is undoubtedly the best introduction to the book of James that the cyber-saints will find anywhere on the WWWeb. It can be accessed at the following url: https://cybrwurm.tripod.com/fm/fmenu.htm

P.S. "A happy life must be to a great extent a quiet life, for it is only in an atmosphere
of quiet that true joy can live" (B. Russell, The Conquest of Happiness).

The Cyber-Prophet Makes a Prophecy or Two!

/ Re: On Defending the Early Christian Prophets / Theology OnLine - Philosophy & Theology / 17 Dec 2001 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Yes, but this does not mean that my methods and conclusions are wrong
.
> On 15Dec01 geoff replies: It certainly might not 'prove' you are wrong ...
> after all, there are intelligent learned people who believe in evolution.
.
 textman sayeth: I should hope so.
.
> However, when the consensus is ooooh, lets see... so close to 100% as to make no difference, then
> we must have 'extreme doubt' at very least. In all probability, this evidence alone might condemn you.
> However, we dont have to stop here, although any intelligent person would.
.
 Approaching new proposals and new evidence (that questions the consensus) with extreme prejudice and
extreme doubt simply because they are different is hardly justified on purely rational grounds. I think that any intelligent person would be able to agree with me on *that*.
.
> We have other evidence.
.
 So you keep saying. But I have found, over the years, that saying we have evidence is not quite the same thing as bringing it before the cyber-saints so as to subject it to close public examination and intense critical scrutiny. I am doing my part. Is there anyone around here who refrains from doing likewise?
.
>> tx: ... it's unlikely that my bizarre notions would make much of an impression since their pious arrogance
>> and theological preconceptions and assumptions would surely prevent them from recognizing the
>> truth of these things of which we speak.
.
> geoff: You dont speak any truth. Besides, your bizarre notions stem from your pious arrogance,
> theological arrogance and assumptions, preventing you from knowing the truth.
.
 Wut? Wanna say that again, tough guy?
.
>> tx: This is because they are unable to think about the scriptures outside of the narrow and rigid definitions
>> of the prevailing hermeneutical paradigm (which, in one sense, defines their identity and function within
>> the People of God).
.
> geoff: Right-o, lets abandon logic, good sense, and the established rules of hermeneutics
> so we can follow (non)truthman.
.
 I didn't say that, geoff. Believers are more than welcome to bring all their logic, every scrap of good sense, and a rational hermeneutics with them as they travel through Prophet-Land. Indeed, I rather depend on it; although it seems that quite a few cyber-saints are altogether devoid even of common sense . . .
.
>> tx: <snip> Real relevant observation there, geoff.
.
> geoff: If the other crackpots who have tried this same steaming pile of wombat doo have failed to convince
> anyone they were right,
.
 Now you are surely talking through your theological hat. Friend geoff knows very well that textman's unique and systematic biblical interpretations have never been seen or tried before. It is for this very reason that they seem so bizarre and illogical *AT FIRST GLANCE*. But if the reader will give my ideas a chance to sink into their general approach to the Bible, *THEN* the true value and utility of my hermeneutics gradually reveals itself in a richer and deeper appreciation of the meaning and power of the Word of God.
.
... Please *DO* check it out! 
.
> what makes you think you can?
.
 I have great faith in the general sensibilities of most believers (even the cyber-saints), and I trust that if anyone approaches bible study with an open mind and an open heart and a strong willingness to learn, then nothing can prevent them from finding out the truth about all these things. And if they cannot find their way to the cyber-prophet then perhaps they will find another way to the same truths, or perhaps blaze a trail there on their own. It does not matter how it happens, but one way or another (and sooner or later) the "understandings" of the prevailing consensus *will* go down. They will go down because they will fall down under the weight of its own crumbling and lie-laden foundations which are not only supremely illogical and unhistorical, but *also* grossly unfit to support *any* sensible interpretation of the holy scriptures! ... And once all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is over and done with, they'll look once more over the databanks, and *then* they'll say: "Oh hey, that textman guy was right all along. How about that?"
.
> I am guessing you are going to answer 'i cant'.
.
 I guess you guessed wrong, huh?
.
> Your right. You cant. What you are teaching is a lie.
.
 Hey, geoff, we all know that you think and wish it were so, but we are all *still* waiting for you to *SHOW* us! If my teachings are all lies, as you claim, then one would think that it ought to be easy enough to demonstrate, in no uncertain terms, that I am wrong about *something*! So far you haven't done anything like that. The scribes and pharisees are counting on you to save their face (and whatever), and you are *NOT* doing the job. :D
.
> You can't convince me to believe it.
.
 I can't convince you, geoff, because you have already determined that I'm wrong about *everything*. So obviously there's no possibility of changing *your* mind. But perhaps some one or two readers (perhaps far in the future) will not be so ... ummm ... *unbendable* as you, and may indeed be curious to inquire further *before* making any too-hasty final judgments.
.
>> tx: <snipsome> This is because I can't cause you (or anyone else) to do anything. You have to want to
>> understand the meaning of the texts, and the intentions of the authors in expressing their souls
>> with just these particular words in just this particular way. Otherwise we're just talking at two different
>> directions, and getting nowhere fast.
.
> geoff: I do want to understand the meaning of the texts.
.
 Really?
.
> I do want to understand the intentions of the authors.
.
 You have not expressed any such interest before.
.
> I have spent several years studying it.
.
 It doesn't show.
.
> I have a friend who has memorised the epistle of James, is translating it from Greek and is writing
> a commentary on it. He's been to your website. He laughed so hard He cried.
.
 Izzatso? Well then perhaps I should be grateful that all my labor and toil on behalf of the People of God
is not *entirely* wasted?
.
>> tx: They should believe me because my exegesis is better than theirs
.
> geoff: So, your ability to, lets say, translate Greek to English, is better than the people on the
> committees that translate the Scriptures? Not.
.
 Okay geoff. I freely admit that I'm no expert in Koine Greek (or any other language, for that matter), but I do have some grasp of the basics. Enough to know that the bible-makers are NOT providing post-modern believers with anything like adequate and faithful renditions of the oldest Greek texts. For that reason, and others, I stand by my own translations. Besides, knowledge of ancient languages is only one element in the larger machinery of the biblical sciences. I have elected NOT to focus all my energies on one section or sub-discipline in order that I not stray too far from the bigger picture (ie. the New Testament century, 50-150CE, as a whole).
.
> So, your understanding of the Sitz im Laben is better than the scholars who translate the
> scriptures, write commentaries, do archeological research, cultural / social research etc? Not.
.
 I beg to differ, herr gustav. Unlike the more scientific aspects of these activities you mention, the matter of determining dates and context is one that requires considerably more detective work AND historical imagination. Piecing together words and artifacts is EASY compared to getting inside the heart and mind of a man who died nineteen centuries ago. Oh yes! There is a world of difference between looking at and describing some piece of evidence or concept and using that concept or evidence to carry the investigation forward. Yes, it's altogether another matter to *think* about it, and draw out the logical inferences and natural conclusions that bring you one step closer to a more complete knowledge of the Word.
.
 Not only that, but the skills needed to be a good detective and historian are not even taught at the little scribes and pharisees schools. They are not taught because no one can teach you how to think like a detective and/or a historian. That's a sad fact that is seldom mentioned, and thus rarely noticed. Yet you either know how to do it, or you don't, period. More than anything, this is what separates the first-rate scholars and exegetes from the legions of pretenders who haven't a clue what to do with a genuine clue.
.
> Your exegesis is not better, its not better than people I know who dont know what exegesis means.
.
 Since your judgment is obviously impaired, I'll stand by the quality of my exegesis, and trust that our readers will have sense enough to recognize the truth when they see it.
.
>> tx: Demonstrate that my ideas are better than all the many and varied established traditions, you say?
>> Sure thing, geoff! I'm doing exactly that right now (with a little help from friends Carl and geoff). Amen!
>> "For where two or three are assembled in my name, there am I among them" (Jesus, Mt.18:20).
.
> geoff: hahahahahahaha
.
 geoff is one happy camper, folks! 
.
> So far you have demonstrated you dont know anything. The quote from Matthew, for example,
> is to do with judgement on peoples behaviour. Carl and I then, have Jesus' authority to
> pronounce you a Heretic.
.
 Yeah sure, but that would be pointless, geoff, since you *already* did that;
and under your very *own* authority too, I might add!
.
>> tx: Hence most scholars today push the date of Jm to just beyond this point - thus ignoring Jacob's
>> awareness of the gospel traditions (and 4X 1Peter)
.
> geoff: So, while the scholars are fairly confident that James was written in the 50's,
.
 I'd say that most scholars today would place Jm in the early sixties. OR if some go slightly later (say by a decade or two), they could say that while the author was not necessarily James the Righteous himself, it comes from a source very close to him. In this case, however, the author/disciple is writing under the master's name and authority, and does not tell us his true name OR identity. ... But given the way that the book begins - Jacob, a slave of God & JC - I rather find this possibility to be most unlikely. The name just "smells" too genuine and final. The author's name is 'Jacob' (not James), so let's get along with it! 
.
> you claim it can't be because 'jacob' (James) was aware of the gospels. Funny that. According to the
> scholars, James is Jesus' brother. He has intimate and direct knowledge of the gospels from Jesus.
.
 How do you know he has "intimate and direct knowledge of the gospels from Jesus"? When his family came to see him, and begged admittance to the house, didn't Jesus reject their claims in order to identify those who listened to Him as his brothers and sisters and kin? Oh yes he did, sir. And the Lord's attitude makes perfect sense in light of the reaction back home after he announced himself and his mission (ie. they tried to throw him off a cliff maybe). "intimate and direct knowledge" indeed! That's one mighty *BIG* assumption you got there bub!
.
> He was the leader of the Jerusalem Church;
.
 Yes, but not at first. I mean not for the first few years. At first it was Simon Peter and some of the senior disciples from the early days. They more or less shared leadership, I suppose, between the two main bodies of believers (ie. the Aramaic-speaking Jewish believers, and the Hellenistic Greek-speaking Jewish believers). And then James showed up one day and all of that changed. And then, while the two synagogues were still young and fresh: Oh oh, trouble in the Holy City . . .
.
> he has direct access to the disciples, notably Peter and John.
.
 Ah, but this is not so, friend geoff. John and Peter both left Jerusalem with the Dispersion of the Greek-believers. John went south-west with one batch, while Peter went north (to Antioch) with another. Other groups may have gone in other directions, but most of these did not get very far. In any case, the Mother Church in the Holy City was never the same after that, and her days were numbered too. Anyway, the point is that James did NOT have *direct* access to the leaders of the daughter churches far far away; and I rather strongly suspect that Peter and John were both perfectly happy with *that* fact!
.
> Of course he is 'gospel aware' - He was there while the events were taking place.
.
 Would that also include the event where his family and neighbors accuse Jesus of being a crackpot? According to the evidence of the gospels, we have scant reason to suspect the Lord's brothers of any great understanding of, or great sympathy for, the Greek-believers. If anything, the evidence points the other way.
.
> This evidence doesn't support you, it condemns you.
.
 Nonsense. While he doubtless had some contact with the oral traditions circulating through Jerusalem, this is a far cry from having intimate knowledge of the gospel-texts and their literary traditions. Remember that Jesus' brother was killed before Peter and Mark even began their great project that would change the world forever. It is the creation of the Gospel of Mark & Peter that splits early church history into logical chunks. The early Apostolic Age covers church history from about 35CE to c.70CE and includes *only* the authentic epistles of Paul and the Gospel called Mark. Almost every other scrap of Christian literature ever written is written *after* these hard-core apostolic documents, and all of them are stamped by the light and influence of these truly radical and revolutionary documents. The Epistles & Gospel in a sense BEGAN church history, and it is around those scrolls that the New Testament *eventually* collected itself. So there is no mistaking a pre-Mk document with literature written after the Fall of Jerusalem. No indeed. It would take a special kind of confusion to make *that* sort of mistake.
.
>> tx: That's what most pomo Christians say. You're all in denial. The plain fact is that we are all of us
>> post-modern believers by virtue of the fact that we are all living in the present post-modern era.
.
> geoff: I wasnt born in, or raised in the post modern era. Therefore I am not post modern.
.
 If you're alive and breathing in the year 2001 (or later) then you're *in* the post-modern age whether you like it or not. Where or when or how you were born and raised is irrelevant. You can no more escape the effects of post-modernism than you can hide from the sunshine. It's in the very air we breathe.
.
> One shouldn't speak where one has no understanding.
.
 I couldn't agree more!
.
>> tx: A brute fact about the text of Jm is that the original autograph was written in Greek
>> characters according to the Greek way of writing sacred and inspired scripture.
.
> geoff: it was certainly very hellenistic. The Greek is exemplary.
.
 Good of you to notice these facts, geoff. Now if only you could *also* notice the meaning and implications of these things . . .
.
> HOWEVER, the fact you ignore is that although it is written in Greek, and is very hellenistic
> in nature, the thought behind it is completely and utterly Jewish.
.
 I take exception to this remark! Chiefly because it is so blatantly false, but also because there is a very deep contradiction at the heart of this assertion. It's like saying that although James looks and tastes like an orange-epistle, it is *really* an apple-epistle. The reader should be aware that this assertion of geoff's that Jacob's thinking is "completely and utterly Jewish" is NOT justified or even supported by the text of Jm.
.
> Chapter one is a match for Isaiah 40, the sermon on the mount features heavily, etc.
> Very very Jewish thought went into this letter. NOT Greek, NOT Egyptian. Jewish.
.
 What the evidence of the text *does* show is that our author is very well-acquainted with the LXX and a variety of early Christian literature, and that what geoff calls his *Jewish thinking* is actually the author's *Christian thinking* (which is enhanced and strengthened by the Hebrew traditions that entered the Faith by way of Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures). *ALL* of Jacob's so-called "semitisms" can be accounted for on the basis of his love and knowledge of the scriptures! Claims that Jacob MUST be "Jewish" therefore go far beyond what the text will support.
.
>> tx: When did he find time to make himself so fluent in Greek literature?
.
> geoff: Your ignorance is flopping about the place like a fish out of water. Greek was the PREDOMINATE
> language spoken in the 1st C. James, Jesus, Paul, etc would have spoken it as their main language.
> Aramaic would have been spoken in 'jewish only' circles, and Hebrew in the Synagogue.
.
 Again you are not paying attention. There is a world of difference between speaking the "common tongue" and being well-educated in the Greek literature of the day. Just because James could speak Koine doesn't mean that he was literate in the written Greek languages, or had knowledge of the Greek classics. Simon-Peter could speak some Greek, but he was still unable to read and write that same Greek (that's why he and Mark together created the Gospel). There is no contradiction in this. Many illiterate people can speak just fine. Reading and writing are a different kind of skill. And the skill to write well is not something that comes automatically. You said yourself that the Greek is exemplary, but you have NOT explained how the Lord's Aramaic-centered brother, of all people, could have gained these exemplary hellenisms, or even why he should want them in the first place!
.
> The rest of your post is a load of rubbish.
.
 In other words, geoff is lacking for the appropriate insults to deflect the readers attention away from the truth, so as to occupy it with trivial concerns that serve only to distract the reader from realizing that poor geoff really has no viable criticisms of textman's exegesis, and indeed is sinking fast under the weight of his own absurdity. Hence the constant recourse to insults that prove and demonstrate ... nothing at all!
.
> Its not worth the cyber paper its written on. You <snipped> all the bits that show how wrong you are,
.
 HA! ... That's a hot one!
.
> and argue vaguely about a bunch of minor things which really show you to be completely off target,
> and ignorant of decent exegesis, Jewish and Hellenistic culture etc. this is, quite frankly, lame.
.
 The truth or falsity or greatness or inadequacy of any systematic interpretation of scripture will ultimately be judged according to how it deals with the little details, the small clues, and the minor things. For it is upon the details that the evidence is transformed into reliable knowledge. It is the details and little things that make or break ANY hermeneutical scheme!!! Those who cannot handle the little things can hardly be fit to judge the big things! What's truly lame, therefore, is a self-appointed defender of orthodoxy who can't bother to get himself dirty by crawling among the "minor things" that mark out the path toward the achievement of knowledge and understanding.

/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics 8 / Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 24 Dec 2001 /
.
> On 23Dec01 geoff wrote: another random illogical unbiblical post from textman...
> with such idiotic claims as:
.
>> <snip three random quotes from PMH8>
.
> blah blah blah, unfounded claims... completely ridiculous balony
.
 textman sayeth: "completely ridiculous baloney", eh? Gee, that's exactly what I think about the unfounded claims of the scribes and pharisees whenever they attempt to explain the why's and wherefore's of the text of Jm. ... Anyway, it's nice to see that the universe remains consistent after all: geoff continues to offer his unique brand of witty critical insights that are entirely lacking for even one miniscule shred of analytical content!
.
. . . 

>> textman previously wrote: Indeed, it is this gross belief that the Word of God can *only* be found in
>> the Bible that causes so many ridiculous problems for the bible-worshippers and bible-idolizers and
>> other fools who do not even know that which they read (and therefore think they know well).
.
> On 23Dec01 bill betzler asked: Are we to believe that these are the words of God given to one of
> His prophets?
.
 textman answers: If the words be true, believe them; if not, don't ... Besides, what kind of prophet would I
be if I couldn't offend somebody now and then?  :D
.
> That you have chosen your title of "prophet" as a joke is now quite apparent.
.
 If you think I am joking about the early Christian prophets, then perhaps you don't know the cyber-prophet as well as you think you do. Moreover, it would not be wise to imagine (even for a moment) that the fact of my obvious lack of inerrancy and infallibility somehow proves I'm not a prophet (or worse, proves I'm a false-prophet). Having such unrealistic expectations about the prophets is just as foolish as the idolization of scripture! Even the great Paulos himself was not above making a mistake or two in his ministry, in his relations with other believers, and even in his writings.
.
> WE worship God and trust that the Bible is God's word to us. We do not worship the Bible.
.
 Whenever anyone invests divine qualities and attributes (that are proper to God alone) into any finite object, then they are committing the sin of idolatry. How much of the teachings of the old Hebrew prophets focus on the theme of idolatry, eh? Indeed, it is the primary preoccupation of the Hebrew scriptures as a whole. The Hebrew prophets understood human nature better than most believers today do. The latter think that the problem of idolization is confined entirely to ancient history. This is NOT the case. Only the means and methods have changed; the impulse to idolatry remains as strong as ever. Of course Christians do not openly worship the Bible with dancing and revelry as though it were some golden calf. They do it in other "more civilized" ways. Such as promoting the myth of inerrancy and infallibility ...
.
> All theological truths of God are found in the Bible, we need no other source.
.
 All necessary theological truths are doubtless expressed through the scriptures, but there is a strange tendency among believers to extend "all theological truths of God" so as to include all manner of incidental realities (such as historical facts and the various qualities of the biblical literature). This confusion of truths generates a situation whereby the simplest course (always the most popular) is to just imagine that *all* truth is perfectly contained within the Bible. Yet no one can say that "the truth" can be found here alone and nowhere else. Truth is universal; just as the Logos of God is universal, just as the Heavenly Father is universal, just as the Spirit of Truth is universal. Would you bind up the Spirit of Truth and confine it in a box forevermore? ... Yet that is exactly what believers do when in their unspeakable arrogance they deny and reject the prophets out of their conviction that the prophets are null and void because we "enlightened" believers can read and understand the scriptures just as well as they can, and therefore they are no longer required! ... Oh you need another source alright. You have no idea just how much you really need another source.
.
> All of our concepts of God are formed by the Scriptures
.
 That's fine; I have no objection to this.
.
> and the manipulation of our thoughts by God via faith.
.
 Wut?! You think God manipulates your thoughts? ... WOW! I must admit that I have a rather different view
of Providence. Mine doesn't actually include the deity rearranging my mind or my thoughts, as that would
surely compromise our God-given gift of free-will (and therefore make a mockery of salvation).
.
> Your hermeneutics come up very short in allowing us to know God and Jesus.
.
 It is not the purpose of my hermeneutics to focus attention on God and Jesus directly. That is best done
by the scriptures themselves. My purpose is to assist believers to a better understanding of the Word through gaining a more complete knowledge of the early Christian prophets who are at the core of the NT Faith.
.
> Hence , don't call God's servants fools and then pretend to know the significance of our
> relationship with God and Jesus.
.
 I'm sure I don't know what you mean. I was talking about believers and the nature of their relationship to the scriptures. My methods presuppose that the bible-student is at least able to make the necessary distinctions between one's attitudes and ideas about God, and those one holds about Scripture. Alas, there is an unfortunate weakness in the minds of many believers that causes bible-readers to detach the scriptures from men (and their sin and error), to divorce the creation of the Holy Bible from the historical process, and to attach the Book directly to the Mouth of God as if the scriptures themselves were deliberately intended to function in the role of prophet! How ridiculous is that?
.
> Use your hermeneutics to study the words mercy and compassion,
.
 I understand the words 'mercy' and 'compassion', bill. Do you understand that your hermeneutics may not be all that it's cracked up to be? Do you see the slightest possibility that the popular understandings about the NT books are perhaps not as perfect and complete as so many suppose? ... If not, then there's something seriously wrong among the cyber-saints!
.
> then you will see that hermeneutics is a secondary discipline and not primary. -- bill
.
 I see that hermeneutics is not primary to the substance of discipleship, bill. But it IS primary if we wish to read the Word of God in a mature and rational manner; rather than through the eyes of children. Milk is suitable to children, meat and potatoes for adults. My hermeneutics is certainly not milk! It is intended only for those who require strong meat and drink. For those who can recognize the truth when they see it. And for those who are willing to accept the facts as they are.
.
 For example, consider further this matter of biblical inerrancy and infallibility. What this comes down to in practice is not so much the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture as it is the inerrancy and infallibility of whatever particular understanding of them that one happens to favor. In other words, it is the *interpretation* that is considered inerrant and infallible! This absurd situation arises from that very lust for simplicity that confuses the text with its interpretation, such that the latter appears to be directly attached to the former!
.
 As evidence of all this I submit this very thread as 'Exhibit A'. If the reader looks through the various posts carefully, he will be hard put to find anyone explaining or defending the "common understandings" that most believers have (via the scribes and pharisees) about these NT books. Is this not because the popular interpretations are considered to be so inerrant and infallible that it would be sacrilege and blasphemy to even question or doubt them? When I attack the stupidities and illusions of the scribal interpretations, is this not taken by many as a direct attack upon *their* sacred scriptures? As an attack upon the Faith even? ... So then it is much easier to simply lash out against the cyber-prophet, than to take the far more difficult path of actually thinking through all these matters very carefully and prayerfully!