BIBLE&BYTES:
 
JOHN PAUL II ON THE BIBLE.

  This is the aim of biblical interpretation. If the first task of exegesis is to arrive at the authentic sense of the sacred text or even at its different senses, it must then communicate this meaning to the recipient of Sacred Scripture, who is every human person, if possible.

  The Bible exercises its influence down the centuries. A constant process of actualization adapts the interpretation to the contemporary mentality and language. The concrete, immediate nature of biblical language greatly facilitates this adaptation, but its origin in an ancient culture causes not a few difficulties. Therefore, biblical thought must always be translated anew into contemporary language so that it may be expressed in ways suited to its listeners. This translation, however, should be faithful to the original and cannot force the texts in order to accommodate an interpretation or an approach fashionable at a given time. The word of God must appear in all its splendour, even if it is "expressed in human words" (Dei Verbum, n.13).

  Today the Bible has spread to every continent and every nation. However, in order for it to have a profound effect, there must be inculturation according to the genius proper to each people. Perhaps nations less marked by the deviances of modern Western civilization will understand the biblical message more easily than those who are already insensitive as it were to the action of God's word because of secularization and the excesses of demythologization.

  In our day, a great effort is necessary, not only on the part of scholars and preachers, but also those who popularize biblical thought: they should use every means possible, and there are many today, so that the universal significance of the biblical message may be widely acknowledged and its saving efficacy may be seen everywhere.  ...

[from an address of his holiness at the Sala Clementina (Vatican Palace), 23April/93,
on being presented with the document on 'The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church']
 
z
 

/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christianity / Date > 8 Sept 1999 / Topic >

 Dear Cyber-Saints, now you know very well that no one can accuse me of harboring an excessive fondness for the unfortunate Catholic Communion. Yet despite my contempt and animosity for the corrupt and misplaced Catholic Church of Canada, I am not so far gone down the road of rabid anti-Catholicism that I am unable to appreciate the contribution that this church has made to our common religion down through the centuries. Indeed, we have to accept the good as well as the bad things that have come out of *every* church; for the failure to do so surely diminishes us all, and opens us to the charge of promoting an irrational (and even unchristian) bias.
.
 In light of all this, it is not at all improper to recognize and acknowledge that the current pope is a most fascinating fellow, and very unlike any of his previous predecessors. Maybe there's something to Plato's idea of the philosopher-king being the best possible ruler after all? ... In any case, the pope's general audience of Sept.1 merits the attention of all True Believers (regardless of their denomination or theological proclivities). In a Catholic News Service article by Lynne Weil, entitled 'Church repentance must be based in truth', we are given the highlights of this important papal address:
.
> Vatican City - Pope John Paul said the act of penance he has asked the Catholic Church to
> undertake before the new millennium should neither express "false humility" nor deny the
> good the Church has done. At his Sept.1 general audience, the pope said the Church
> "wishes to ask pardon for the sins and weaknesses of her children down the ages."
.
 That's funny; I thought that they were supposed to be God's children. But if not, then they must be the pope's children. ... That would explain a great deal! :)
.
> "This act of penance must be based on a serene and realistic study of historical truth," he said.
.
 A realistic study of historical truth (as it pertains to the early Greek churches and the formation of the NT canon) is precisely what the cyber-prophet is all about!
.
> "It must not be an expression of false humility or an uncritical denial of the immense good
> accomplished by the Church throughout her history."
.
 Of course much good has been accomplished by all the churches throughout the centuries and generations. But no one denomination can rightly claim all the credit for the achievements of the People of God as a whole.
.
> "Among the sins for which the Church implores God's mercy, we can think of the scandal
> of division among Christians, the use of force in order to impose the truth, and the failure
> to respect and defend human rights," he said.
.
 And all these sins are with us still; and probably always will be (for it is of our nature to be imperfect and to 'fall short').
.
> "To answer to these sins," he said, "one must study history closely and analyze it thoroughly.
.
 Well, that is certainly what I am trying to do as regards the early history of the Greek churches. What continually amazes me most is an acute awareness of just how little we actually know about those early years (as opposed to what so many 'think' that they know)!
.
> "Whoever wants to judge historical events must pay attention to how they are embedded
> in the historical context. Only then can responsibility for them be assigned."
.
 I certainly pay close attention to the historical context; for it is the only way to 'read between the lines' of the sacred texts. But my thankless and unappreciated efforts are not to the end of assigning blame, but only so as to make the scriptures come alive again for an apathetic and uncaring People of God.
.
> The pope said a "patient and honest reconstruction" of events should be "free from
> confessional or ideological prejudices."
.
 Well, that would be the ideal way to go, no doubt. Unfortunately, my efforts to provide an 'honest reconstruction of events' is severely hampered by the many and various lies and illusions set forth as absolute truth by self-righteous Catholic apologists! Talk about ideological prejudices! No one has more of that than the servants of the Catholic Church!
.
> "The Church certainly is not afraid of the truth which emerges from history," Pope JP said,
.
 Really? And the fact that 1Clement was written by the second century Egyptian-Christian prophet Jacob, and NOT by the so-called Pope Clement, gives no cause for concern? If I were you, I'd be very worried about the repercussions that may arise should that little item come to the attention of the People of God ...
.
> "and is ready to recognize mistakes, where they have been ascertained, above all when it
> comes to the respect owed to persons and to communities."
.
 Oh yeah? And what about the respect owed to the early Christian prophets of Egypt?
I don't see anyone rushing forth to provide justice and honor to them!
.
> In the course of seeking God's forgiveness, he said the Church hopes to learn from the past
> and to be more faithful to the Gospel in the future.
.
 Yeah, well, in order to learn from the past, one must first have a modicum of respect for the truth of things (eg. not confusing legend with history); even if means giving up our most dearly cherished illusions regarding the way things happened in those all-important early years of the churches.

/ Topic > Re: JP2 on Truth in History / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christianity / 10 Sept 1999 /
.
>> the despised one - textman wrote: <snipsome> A realistic study of historical truth (as
>> it pertains to the early Greek churches and the formation of the NT canon) is precisely
>> what the cyber-prophet is all about! <snip remainder>
.
> Timothy Sutter replies: but if you're some proponent of books that claim YHWH is a
> demon, save it.
.
 textman answers: Dear Timothy, fear not! The rejected one is NOT a Gnostic-Christian; neither ancient nor post-modern ... Far from it! The books that I urge upon the Cyber-Saints are, in fact, those that were written to combat that heresy which so threatened the integrity of the early Greek churches in second century Egypt (and elsewhere): James, Jude, 2Clement, 2Peter.
.
 As to the gnostic claim that Yahweh is a demon, please note that this idea finds its modern parallels among all those pagans and unbelievers and foolish atheists who reject the Faith on the basis of the supposed cruelty of the OT God, or point out the alleged contradictions between Yahweh and the Heavenly Father (the God of JC). On this matter I was very interested to discover that some of the early Greek Fathers of the Church defended the Faith against this charge by arguing that Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same person. Now this is an idea that one rarely hears from Christians these days, but now that I think on it, it seems to me that there is considerable support for this type of Christology from within the pages of Sacred Scripture ...
.
 In the same way, other parallels exist between the situation of the Faith in post-modern North America and the unsettled conditions among the early Greek churches prior to the reorganization initiated by the Emperor Constantine. The most significant of these parallels is, I think, what we can call 'the homo problem'. Due to the gross feminization of the Faith that is occurring all across North America, it has become the fashion among many churches to suppose that being Christian means being "soft" on homosexuals, such that it is necessary for all believers to promote and defend homosexuality within the churches, to ordain women and/or moz, to vigorously denounce all those who dare to resist this appalling degradation and corruption of the Faith, etc etc. Not surprisingly, the second century churches in Egypt faced the same problem, as these very same "Ones of Old" (Jude) wrongly crept in among them.
.
 What do you think about all this, Timothy?
.
 btw: being thus an anti-gnostic does not necessarily mean that we must reject anything and everything that came forth from those energetic and highly literate second century Christians. To do so would do great violence to the early history of the Faith. For the fact is that they contributed much to the development of Christianity; both positively (eg. asceticism, monasticism, etc) and negatively (eg. their rejection of the LXX caused the Egyptian prophets to vigorously forward the cause of the OT in the Faith).

/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study / Date > 28 Feb 2003 / Topic >

 Now here is the mistake that far too many believers make with regard to Luke-Acts -> They suppose that since Luke-Acts is the first Christian history of the early days of the Faith (and divinely inspired / authored to boot!), that it must therefore be of the THUCYDIDES-type of history, when, in fact, it is very plainly a HERODOTUS-type history; as is evident from an objective comparison of their historical writings.
.
 And the fact that Luke-Acts makes up the bulk of the NT, and so is technically even MORE the Word of God than any other New Testament document, does not (because it cannot) *change* Luke-Acts from an H-type to a T-type of historical document. And if this distinction is lost upon the Reader, then that is *most* unfortunate indeed!
.
 But the Fundies don't quite see it that way, of course. They would rather declare that Lk-Acts *MUST* be of the T-type, or else God is a liar, period! I mean, the logic here is undeniable isn't it? For they do not conceive of God as the Heavenly Father so much as the Heavenly *Author*. And this Heavenly Author is *necessarily* of an Absolute Fundyfied Disposition wherever matters of the bible are concerned.
.
 Thus the Heavenly Author can write historical narratives, proverbs, psalms, poetry, dialogues, parables, letters and epistles, gospels, theological meditations, etc etc. But the one thing this great Heavenly Author-God cannot do, they are absolutely certain, is write historical fiction! But it's not that their God can't write this type of literature, it's more like He doesn't want to because it would make Him a liar!
.
 Must be nice to have a God who's way of thinking is so very harmoniously in tune with the prevailing fundy-philosophy ... eye guess. As for myself, I'd rather stick with the Anointed One and the Father of Lights. Please excuse me, eh?

P.S. "Because many have attempted to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us (eg. like the accounts passed on to us) ..." (Lk.1:1 / Prophet Version).

/ Subject > Re: Discussing beliefs / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren / 17 Aug 1999 /
.
> Dave Fuller wrote: <much snippage> If I understand correctly, the Old Testament was written
> in mostly in Hebrew and there is some evidence that a part of Daniel was written in whatever
> language that the Babloyians spoke.
.
 erasmian answers: You're right on the first part, but wrong on Daniel. The bible of the early Christians was the popular Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures known as the Septuagint or LXX. Thus there never was a Hebrew Old Testament. When the rabbis created the Hebrew canon of sacred scriptures it was with the deliberate intent to distinguish the Tanakh from the LXX. Those who speak of the Hebrew OT thus display only their ignorance of the real history of the scriptures ...
.
> Traditionally, the New Testament was written in Greek, but some people question that.
.
 Yeah, but then some people are silly fools who couldn't distinguish their anus from a hole in the ground even if their life depended on it!

/ Subject >  Re: LXX vs Tanach / 18Aug99 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
>> erasmian answers: The bible of the early Christians was the popular Greek translation of the Hebrew
>> scriptures known as the LXX. Thus there never was a Hebrew Old Testament. When the rabbis created
>> the Hebrew canon of sacred scriptures it was with the deliberate intent to distinguish the Tanakh from
>> the LXX. Those who speak of the Hebrew OT thus display only their ignorance ...
.
> On 17Aug99 Paul C. Fox replies: It has often been alleged that the rabbis who determined the Hebrew
> canon deliberately excised prophecies of Christ, but this has never been proved.
.
erasmian answers: Dear Paul, it does sound rather farfetched alright.
.
> In fact, the only obvious criterion used in making the determination was language: those LXX books for
> which no Hebrew or Aramaic text was then known (i.e. which existed only in the Greek) were excised.
.
 This irrational and unjustified bias against Greek thought and language is forgivable in the rabbis who were fighting for the very survival of Judaism [ie. after the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman troops in 70CE] ... BUT it is most certainly not forgivable among so many of today's Christians, who by disrespecting all things Greek bite the very hand that feeds them ... What a silly and ungrateful People of God these are!
.
> (It should be noted that Hebrew texts for some of these books have been recovered in our own
> century, among the Dead Sea Scrolls)
.
Unfortunate mistakes abound in the long history of the Scriptures.
.
> So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the books that were left out by the Rabbis that is clearly more
> favorable to the Christian faith than the books which they included. In fact, there is no single text
> which so clearly prefigures Christ as the "suffering servant" passage of Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12.
.
 I noticed this also, and likewise thought it rather odd. But then I remembered that even Philo of Alexandria (who knew nothing about Christianity) was read and preserved by the Christians, and all but completely ignored by the now Templeless People of Israel.
.
> I agree, though, that the LXX was the Old Testament of the Church from the beginning until the
> 16th Century, when the Reformers adopted the Hebrew canon. The reason for this innovation
> was clearly their desire to suppress those Scriptures which supported Catholic dogma.
.
 I don't see that the 'cast-out' books are any more favorable to Catholicism than to any other church. But even more unfortunate than this was Luther's relegating the Book of James to the status of Apocrypha; as if it had no right being in the same book with the gospels and pauline epistles. Such an action is outrageous and offensive in the extreme; and I shall never forgive Luther for the long (and still living) legacy of distortion and disrespect (toward Jm) that has followed hard on the heels of what he had done!
.
> Yet by deleting the Deuterocanonical books, which were written much closer to the time of Christ
> than the Hebrew canon, they also limited their own ability to understand the religious environment
> in which Christ and the early Church lived. - Paul (not Margaret) Fox
.
 Just so. This is why the Book of Wisdom (and all the other intertestamental literature as well) is so important to us. They are our best witnesses to the age of the Son of Man. Wisdom was the last holy-book to be written prior to the efforts of Paulos and Silvanus (in mid-first cent.), and it is apparent that this collection of wisdom-literature had a strong influence on the early Christians (who rightly regarded it as sacred scripture). But these silly Protestants fancy that their judgment is superior to that of the great heroes and saints of Christian antiquity!
.
 Thus we now find ourselves in a supremely absurd situation. One where those Christians who most loudly proclaim their love for the Book, are also the same people who sneer at the intertestamental literature and likewise piss upon the Book of James. ... This is not to say that the Cats distinguish themselves by their love and respect for James. Far from it! But simply ignoring the book is (I suppose) "better" than just tossing it into the pit ...

/ Newsgroups > alt.christnet.philosophy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy,
/ alt.religion.christian / Date > 16 Jan 2012 / Forum > TheologyOnline > Exclusively Christian Theology / Topic >

  There have always been many different ways of being christian. Even before Christianity emerged as a distinct religion, there was variety in the traditions. The three main traditions were associated with the big cities near the eastern shore of the Med-Sea. (1) the original 'mother' church in Jerusalem, characterized as conservative-aramaic, and personified in James (the lord's brother). (2) the jewish-greek church in Antioch, the home of the apostles mark and peter, being only slightly less conservative than the home-church, but also the setting for the genesis of the first gospel. (3) the jewish-greek church in Alexandria, which was already the home of the finest religious thinkers in the Empire, and personified in the apostle John.
.
From out of these three churches came Paulos of Damascus, a convert with a mind and will of his own. He was not satisfied with the theologies he found in these three churches, and began to think about new ways of spreading the good-news. He soon severed the great chains that were holding the gentiles at bay, and introduced his gospel to both the jews and gentiles living in Greece. Thus began the fourth tradition of christian-being; and this was the one that first began to put the gospel down in writing (at Athens c.49CE). Paulos did not know it at the time, but this innovation of putting the gospel into a literary form (eg. "occasional" letters to particular urban churches) was the very thing that would propel the Faith deep into the hearts and minds of the citizens of the Roman Empire.
.
Once Christianity emerged as its own religion (rather than being merely another jewish cult) just before the end of the first century, it was already far more greek than jewish, and this trend would only continue. Along with growth in numbers would come ever more varieties of faith, until there were more ways of being christian than one could count on one's fingers and toes. This, of course, created problems of its own, and eventually caused a reaction to the end of creating a single orthodox tradition that would include every believer. Naturally the victors of all this ongoing theological-warfare were the ones who determined what was "orthodox" and what wasn't. However, variety remained (eg. as with the desert-fathers, and the monastic developments), but it was decided that henceforth the main traditions of Christianity would be the priestly ones.
.
And so things remained for the next thousand years or so, until Islam gifted Europe with the fruits of a more advanced civilization; including books and learning on a far wider scale. This led to the Renaissance, which in turn helped to bring about the Reformation, and then there were two main ways of being Christian: Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant. Again there was a growth of variety within these two broad traditions, and there were even a few smaller 'third-ways' that did not easily fit into the two main categories (eg. the Radical-Reformers, and later on, the Quakers and other fringe groups).
.
And through all these cycles of growth and decay conservative traditions endure, slowly adapting to an ever-changing world that changes faster than ever before. And today after all these centuries and changes, and varieties of theologies and traditions, there are still basically only two main ways of being a christian. And these stem from two ancient traditions that are older even than Christianity itself:
.
(1) The way of the pharisees, culminating in priestcraft.
.
(2) The way of the scribes, culminating in bibliolatry; that is, the idolization of the bible through doctrines: inerrancy, supremacy (with reference to authority), infallibility, and “sola scriptura”. Now some of these scribal-type christians like to say, for example: "Believing in an inerrant, infallible, and authoritative Bible is not bibliolatry." But actually that's *exactly* what it is, and those who think otherwise are in denial (ie. ignoring reality). In fact, all of these doctrines are untrue, and are based upon a profound misunderstanding of both the Logos and the nature of wisdom/prophetic literature (eg. 'inspired' does NOT mean 'infallible' and 'inerrant'). What people call 'infallibility' the Lord calls 'vanity'!
.
Moreover, this misunderstanding by scribal-believers stems directly from the historical-genesis of these doctrines as a *response* to the LOSS OF AUTHORITY entailed by severing all ties to the romish mother-religion. You can't make a new form of christianity without some understanding of religious and/or spiritual authority, along with the sources and validity of such authority. In the old church there are two sources of truth and authority: scripture and tradition. Luther found it necessary to chop off (almost) the entire tradition half of this equation in order to insure freedom from romish authority.
.
Looking around, he could see nothing that could fill the history-bereft void, and this left him only with the scriptures. Hence the necessity of *magnifying* the authority of scripture by means of these new doctrines designed for this very purpose. But just because the Reformers could see no solution to the vexing problem of authority does not mean that there is no such solution; nor does it mean that the doctrines regarding the idolization of scripture are valid. In fact, there is a solution; one that does away with the need for these absurd doctrines, and it even has the merit of being biblical (unlike these reformation doctrines which are not at all biblical).
.
And what does the prophet have to say to all those believers who choose to follow either one of these two ancient/modern traditions? ... "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols" (1Jn 5:21). Yes, the one biblical teaching that is both the most needed *and* the most ignored. And where is the third-way now that we really need it?

P.S. Instead of saying that the bible IS the Word-of-God, it would be far more accurate to say that the bible is the Voice (or literary expression) of the Word-of-God. The bible is, after all, NOT the only form of the Word, else how could we say that JC is *also* the Word? Do not confuse the expression with its source ...

/ Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian, alt.christnet.philosophy,
/ alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 23 Jan 2012 / Topic > Re: A Micro-History ... /
.
> On 16Jan cybrwurm wrote: <snip> (1) the original 'mother' church in Jerusalem, characterized as conservative-
> aramaic, and personified in James (the lord's brother). (2) the jewish-greek church in Antioch, the home of the
> apostles mark and peter, being only slightly less conservative than the home-church, but also the setting for the
> genesis of the first gospel. (3) the jewish-greek church in Alexandria, which was already the home of the finest
> religious thinkers in the Empire, and personified in the apostle John.
.
] H.E. Eickleberry replies: Nonsense. First, the somewhat legalistic variant of Christianity out of Jerusalem
] perished with the destruction of the Temple, just as God wanted.
.
cybrwurm say: The mother-church was destroyed in 70CE along with  the rest of the city, but there may have been some believers who  escaped to other churches. In any case, I am referring to the decades  before that event; which may or may not be what "God wanted", since the city was soon re-built anyway. Yes, cities are a lot harder to kill  than mere individuals; they can even "rise from the ashes"!
.
] HEE: Second, Paul put a stop to the "conservative" nonsense coming out of the church in Antioch when he
] confronted Peter for circumcising Gentiles at the behest of certain Pharisees who were corrupting the Gospel.
.
Well, friend Ike, those "Pharisees" you are referring to were the leaders of the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch, and what they were doing was trying to assert their authority over this upstart Paulos, who fancies that he can do away with the Torah and the old-ways and ancient traditions. It was only Paulos and Silvanus who clearly saw the need to make a break with all that for the benefit of the new gentile-believers who knew nothing of the hebrew scriptures and jewish ways. Nor did he 'put a stop to the nonsense', as you so quaintly put it. The best he accomplished was to assert his independence and authority over "his" churches in Greece and Asia Minor, and to reject any attempt to modify the way he ran things. His language is pretty strong to be sure, which reflects his anger at the whole situation, but this should not lead us into making false assumptions about what was actually going on.
.
] HEE: Third, the Apostle John went north into Asia Minor.
.
Really? And here I was thinking that Asia Minor was pretty much covered by Paulos on one side and Silvanus on the other. So John went to Asia Minor and settled down to studying Philo's writings under Paul's "benevolent" umbrella, did he? And he remained invisible to Paulos for a decade? ... That's a little hard to swallow there, Ike. Maybe you want to rethink this whole 'John went to Asia Minor' idea of yours? It certainly smells like a big heaping pile to me ...
.
] HEE: What emerged from Alexandria was the rather spooky Coptic Christianity which reflected the perverse
] mysticism of Eastern Orthodoxy in general.
.
Again you're projecting future developments back into the past where they don't belong. Nor would I characterize Orthodoxy as "perverse mysticism". Indeed the different forms of Eastern Orthodoxy have all contributed their fair share to the ever-growing mountain of christian literature (as has Catholicism, for that matter); and some of these documents are remarkable *and* well-worthy of the attention of any curious believers who may be so inclined. Yes, important religious documents may hold no interest for you, but they are very hard for a church-historian to ignore ...
.
> wurm: From out of these three churches came Paulos of Damascus, a convert with a mind and will of his own.
.
] HEE: Nonsense. Paul never had any contact with the churches of God except to persecute them,
] until God got on his case.
.
You have an absurd manner of speaking, sir, that seems deliberately designed to anger and/or amuse scholars. How can you say that Paulos had and did not have contact with believers in one and the same breath? Are you not aware of the contradiction in your statement? In any event, god did not 'get on his case' . In fact, the god did not have to "do" anything. Paulos saw something happen to another believer, and this event so astonished him that he at once converted ... and THEN he traveled from one church to the next as a believer. First stop after getting booted out of Jerusalem was Alexandria. Then (after a couple of years of discipleship) he went back to Jerusalem, and then on to Antioch, and only then did he (with Timothy and Silvanus) travel to Asia Minor and Greece to begin the great experiment that would reshape the Empire ...
.
> wurm: He was not satisfied with the theologies he found in these three churches, and began to think about
> new ways of spreading the good-news. He soon severed the great chains that were holding the gentiles at
> bay, and introduced his gospel to both the jews and gentiles living in Greece.
.
] HEE: Nonsense. First, it was the introduction of certain Pharisees into Christianity that corrupted the Gospels.
.
Your objection is so vague and misty that is historically meaningless.
.
] Second, the Disciples were preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles going all the way back to Peter's vision from
] God telling him to do so.
.
True, some small effort was made to preach to the gentiles by the 'three pillars', but their jewish-flavored gospel did not really attract many converts who were unfamiliar with Judaism. Something had to change first in order for that to happen. And that something was Paulos and Silvanus and their collaborative creation of the christian epistle as a vehicle for the gospel. THEN came the greek-gospel of mark and peter AFTER Paulos went MIA (c.60CE).
.
] Third, there were already churches in all of the areas which Paul visited on his journeys. He didn't "introduce"
] anything; he expounded on it.
.
There may have been a few small churches in Asia Minor (those easy to reach from Antioch perhaps), but there were no churches in Greece before the intrepid prophets landed there around 49CE. You have to understand that there was no such thing as "Christianity" at this early stage. The Faith was only twenty years old, fer pete's sake! As a religion it was still a baby, ignorant of MANY things, including which way was up. Even Paul's own theology changed and developed in the decade that spanned his literary career. So things did change, but they changed very slowly; especially when compared to the lightning fast pace of the 21st century world.
.
] HEE: And I can see where you're distortions are headed -- the condemnation of the third (and poor)
] permutation of the church, Orthodoxy.
.
You mean Eastern Orthodoxy specifically, or Orthodoxy in general?
.
> wurm: <snip> Paulos did not know it at the time, but this innovation of putting the gospel into a literary form
> (eg. the "occasional" letters to particular urban churches) was the very thing that would propel the Faith
> deep into the hearts and minds of the citizens of the Roman Empire.
.
] HEE: Paul never put the "Gospel into literary form." He never even heard Jesus preach.
.
Paulos learned the gospel (ie. the good-news), the theology, and the teachings (oral traditions) of the three pillars during his years of discipleship and travel between the three cities. It's true he never heard Jesus preach, but he and Silvanus were certainly the first believers to start writing letters to the churches they founded through their missionary efforts. And into these letters they poured the good-news as they understood it. Frankly, I can't imagine why you would want to deny this.
.
] HEE: Matthew (via his logias) and Mark were the first to put the Gospel into "literary form";
.
So there are two types of gospel: (1) the "good-news" about salvation through JC; which are christian teachings in general, and can come by both oral and literary means. And (2) "the Gospel" as the story of Jesus presented through a written narrative. Mk was written around 65CE, and Mt some ten or fifteen years later when the need to reform Judaism through faith in the Messiah was still strong. But, of course, the 'parting of the ways' was just a few years in the future, and that painful development would end all efforts to convert the jews, and also stir up some anger against them for throwing believers out of the synagogues.
.
] and Paul wound up fighting Mark over it at first.
.
They had a misunderstanding over the gospel (teachings and  theology), not a dispute over the Gospel (Mk) which didn't exist in Paul's active years.
.
] HEE: He did, however, contribute to the Gospels that began to be written by supplying information about what
] was going on at the other end of the field which the Disciples could not have known about.
.
You make it sound as if Paulos was a happy and eager spy for the pillars, sending back detailed reports and news about the goings on in and around Greece. Are these the same pillars Paulos was mad at? Why yes they are. So why would Paulos do anything for them? No, he wasn't supplying information, but after his disappearance his letters began to be collected and passed around from house-church to house-church, and city to city, until they eventually found their way to Antioch, at which point the need for a *literary* answer to Paulos became very pressing indeed. And this was the final factor that set Mark and Peter on a course that would lead to the writing of the first Gospel. After the holy-city and its temple were destroyed, Judaism was in shock and facing possible extinction. Some believers were then still hopeful that many jews could be won over for the Messiah, so Matthew set about revising and expanding Mk with more emphasis on the Tanakh.
.
> wurm: Once Christianity emerged as its own religion (rather than being merely another jewish cult) just
> before the end of the first century,
.
] HEE: Nonsense. Christianity was already "its own religion" well before John wrote Revelation,
.
Which was when?
.
] as he documents the observance of both Easter (but not called Easter) and Christmas.
.
Are you getting all these ideas from the text of Revelation? ... I'm  guessing that you also imagine that the author of Rev is the same  man who wrote John's Gospel? And why is that, Ike? Because there  can be only one John per generation maybe?
.
> wurm: <snip> This, of course, created problems of its own, and eventually caused a reaction to the end of
> creating a single orthodox tradition that would include every believer.
.
] HEE: Told you the lies about "Orthodoxy" were coming, folks.
.
> wurm: Naturally the victors of all this ongoing theological-warfare were the ones who determined what was
> "orthodox" and what wasn't.
.
] HEE: No, The Word and the Spirit determine what is truly "orthodox" or not.
.
Actually, the Logos and the prophetic-Spirit are not interested in  'orthodoxy' as such, Ike. They are, however, very interested in the  truth of things. So maybe you would do well to seek after the truth, rather than judging for yourself what is and is not "orthodox" ...
.
> wurm: However, variety remained (eg. as with the desert-fathers, and the monastic developments), but it
> was decided that henceforth the main traditions of Christianity would be the priestly ones.
.
] HEE: "Variety" remains to this day, as Jesus laid out the seven permutations of the church that would arise
] throughout the church age, with their mixed degrees of success and failure.
.
More failure these days than success, I'd say.
.
> wurm: And so things remained for the next thousand years or so, until Islam gifted Europe with the fruits
> of a more advanced civilization;
.
] HEE: Islam is a blasphemous double lie: 1) reverse the roles between the accepted and rejected sons of God
] in the Old Testament, and 2) minimize Jesus Christ as Lord of lords, King of kings, and, yes, God of gods, as
] per the New Testament.
.
The NT says that Jesus is "God of gods"? ...  How the heck did I miss that verse? :(
.
] <snip the rest of the distorted history designed to lead the faithful into the blasphemies of "Babylon."> -- Ike
.
Oy vey!

/ Forum > theologyonline > Religion > Exclusively Christian Theology /
/ Topic > Re: A Micro-History of Christian Traditions / Date > 23 Jan 2012 /
.
] Nick M replies: But only one way to be in the Body of Christ today <snip>
.
Yes, it's certainly true that the vast majority of christians today are pauline-trinitarians,
BUT not all believers are. So how can you say that there is ONLY one way? Perhaps
what you meant to say was that pauline-trinitarianism is the only right way? ... If so, I
would like to point out that pauline-trinitarianism is not so much the right-way as the
absurd and obsolete way. Maybe its time for all believers to rethink the quality of the
Faith that most christians are thoughtlessly proclaiming? Present company excluded,
of course :)  But I hear what you're saying there, Nick. Pauline-Trinitarianism has been
around for so many centuries, survived through so many cultural developments and
religious crises, that the entire theological super-structure has become so deeply
ingrained in the collective christian psyche that the majority of believers today are
simply incapable of even imagining that there ever was (or ever could be) any feasible
alternative. And of course its true that this almost "universal" lack of imagination is
very detrimental to the health and well-being of the Faith in general. And also a very
serious obstacle to those few true-believers who are trying to rectify this calamity.
And the really sad part is that most christians do not even know that they have
exchanged the truth about the god for a lie, such that they could not even recognize
the truth for what it is if and when it falls into their laps ... ~ tx

/ Forum > theologyonline > Religion > Exclusively Christian Theology /
/ Topic > Re: A Micro-History of Christian Traditions / Date > 26 Jan 2012 /
.
] Nick M replies: What other way is there?
.
textman answers: The way of the Logos; which is the Way of Love & Reason (according to the Gospel of John). I shall have more to say on this matter in the weeks ahead. If you wish to know more about this "third way", just stay tuned to the textman channel ...
.
] NM: Paul said his way is the only way, and he is the apostle to the gentiles.
.
He was the FIRST apostle to the gentiles, to be sure; but he was certainly not the last. Silvanus was just as much an apostle to the gentiles as Paulos was, and his writings are also in the NT (in the four Thessalonian letters which he and Paulos wrote together, and in First Peter, which he - not Peter - authored). So there's another way right there, and there would be more ways to come in the decades after Paul's disappearance. But since Paulos was the type of man he was, of course he would SAY that his way was the only way; but this did not make it so. Variety in theology has always been the norm, and there never was only one way of being christian. Indeed, why should there be? The Faith is a living, growing, ever-changing thing ...
.
] NM: Just come out and admit you don't like the message the Lord Jesus Christ gave to Paul.
.
Do not confuse Paul's teachings with those of the Lord. These are two very different things. Indeed, every christian prophet has his own take on things, his own particular theology, his own unique way of living and presenting the Faith. This is perfectly normal and perfectly fine, as long as we remember that the prophets are just men like other men: sometimes they are right, and sometimes not so much. When Paulos is right, I like his message a lot. When he is wrong, I don't much care for his theology. Moreover, I treat the other christian prophets in exactly the same way. The hard part is separating the truth from the errors. And this is a job made all the more difficult by believers who thoughtlessly fancy that the scriptures are entirely free from ALL error. Such immature thinking does no one any good; especially those who wish to present non-believers with a sane and wise version of the Faith.

] Inzl Kett say: Is this more non trin or gnostic bilge?
.
tx: I was a trinitarian for a long time, Inzl; but thank the god I got over it
once I saw it for the romish rubbish it really is.
.
] IK: Saul became Paul when he was met by Jesus on he road to Damascus.
] Acts 9:1-22 <snip quote>
] This commissioning of Paul by Jesus is rather miraculous wouldn't you think?
.
Oh yes; very miraculous indeed. Very like unto a fairy tale. In fact, *exactly* like a fairy tale. To confuse fairy tales with real actual history is the type of thing we expect from those who are babies in the Faith. Mature believers take history far more seriously than that, because they know that history is very important to the Faith. They also know that the truth of things has more authority and more weight than puffed-up fantasies that make a strong impression on immature minds ...
.
] IK: It marks the start of the dispensation we are in now.
.
The Common Era began with the incarnation of the Logos in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
.
] IK: God specifically chose him.
.
The god specifically chooses ALL the prophets whom he sends among the people of god.
.
] IK: Shouldn't you take his teachings seriously?
.
When Paulos is right, I take him very seriously indeed. When he is wrong, then not so much.
.
Are you a babe in Christ, Inzl? ... Then it is milk that you need to feed on, not strong meat. My teachings are meant for mature believers who know the value of criticism, reason, and wisdom. So it might be best for your own peace of mind to avoid my feeble scribblings as much as possible, as I really would not care to cause you any unnecessary anxiety.  :(

] Bradley D say: The Bible is good enough for me.
.
tx: The only problem with that is that many of the NT documents are NOT "good enough" owing to excessive textual tampering by the redactors and editors and scribes who felt compelled to "improve" the texts prior to the establishment of the canon in the fourth century. A lot of uninspired damage was done by way of distorting the original message of the inspired authors, and no one seems to care enough about the NT docs to actually do anything to rectify this sad situation.
.
] BD: Anything outside the Bible is philosophy.
.
Would you include all the other world religions in this category? If so, then you should know that most philosophers would not agree with this. So even though some philosophy is very relevant to religion, they are not at all the same thing.
.
] BD: Any philosophy which does not strengthen and confirm the Bible is in error.
.
Now that's a rather harsh judgment considering that most philosophy makes no reference to scripture, and indeed has no interest in them. To say that all such philosophy is in error is obviously a ridiculous statement that is unworthy of the mature believer. In fact, philosophy has a lot to offer believers; but this of course requires an open mind (which you do not seem to have).

] On 26Jan keypurr say: Textman you have my attention. I like what I hear from you.
] You seem to think like me but a lot more able to teach what you know.
] Your OP was good and informative. I look forward for more. Peace
.
tx: Thx, keypurr. I like to think that I speak for a lot of believers who are concerned about the current sad state of the Faith (owing to centuries of accumulated magical-thinking and general silliness). I do see rare glimpses of a third way in the NT (so there is some cause for hope), but these fragments need to be fleshed out a bit before they can become something solid and reliable. So that's what I'll be trying to do for the most part in the weeks ahead. But even if I fail in this endeavor, it should prove interesting and challenging regardless of where our christian brothers and sisters stand on the possible reformation of the Faith. In any case, Jesus is far too important to the human race to allow him to fall into obscurity and neglect simply because most believers are unwilling to consider new ways of thinking about the Faith we share.

textman
*