CONSIDER CAREFULLY WHAT YOU HEAR

/ Topic > Re: I don't understand Mark 4:1-20 - Opinions anyone? / Date > 26 Oct 1999 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Forum > ChristWatch - Thru the Bible: Mark /

> On 15Oct99 Charlie wrote: Hello all. I've got questions about Mark 4:1-20. I just read it, and found it
> quite interesting, and suprising. At the start of the chapter, Jesus is teaching a crowd by a lake, with
> parables. I'm sure you all know that, sorry...anyway: I personally think parables are quite cool - a subtle
> way of teaching. They're good for mulling over while you're walking on the beach, watching a  sunset,
> fishing, or whatever. It's a puzzle that can be unlocked, with enough effort to make you remember.
.
 textman say: Dear Charlie, you have correctly discerned the true meaning of the parables. That is, their intent is not so much to conceal and/or reveal as it is to make you think and ponder over; for it is this effort to seek after the truth, and the mystery, that the parable seeks to arouse in the Hearer (or Reader)!
.
> And they'd seem to be a good way to teach what were likely uneducated peasants(?)
.
 The great unwashed masses have always been ignorant peasants. As yesterday, so today, and tomorrow ...
.
> - give them examples they could comprehend, from situations they'd encounter. But then,
> what's this? Jesus has a different opinion on parables? Look at Mark 4: verse 12.
.
 (10) And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. (13) And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?" . . .
[(11) And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; (12) so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear and listen but not understand; lest they should turn again and repent, and so be forgiven' [Isaiah 6:9-10]."]
.
> Blow me for a stunned mullet, Jesus seems to use them for another reason?!? He says that while they,
> the few (the 12 disciples and some other unamed ones, few enough that he's considered 'alone'),
.
  Not so fast there, Charlie! You are reading more into the account than is warranted by the text. All Mark means by 'alone' is that he and the disciples are no longer with the crowds. Clearly Jesus could not technically be alone if there were others with him. Moreover you fail to see the significance of those who you refer to as "some other unnamed ones". Read the text carefully! It is just these non-twelve disciples (ie. being *also* the believers in Mark's church) who raise the questions concerning the parables. And Jesus is surprised at them. He does NOT answer their queries directly, but rather questions them in return: "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?" ... But since this authentic response did not satisfy Mark's assembly, he and Peter inserted an additional response (ie. v.11-12) between v.10 and v.13; thus breaking up (and confusing) the earlier tradition. Let us be clear on this point. v.13 represents Jesus' original answer. v.11-12 represent Mark and Peter's answer as they found it within the scriptures (and then placed in the mouth of the Lord). This is why I have rearranged the verses above to highlight the two levels of tradition (that are so unfortunately confused in the foolishly idolized canonical format).
.
> have been given the secrets and truth, the crowd is taught in parables to keep them in the dark!
> His words: "To those on the outside everything has been given in parables, 'so that they may be
> ... never understanding ... otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.'  !huh?  What's going on?
.
 What's going on is that the prophecies of Isaiah are directly (and rightly) applied to Jesus and his ministry. But (even so) we should not confuse the Lord's own understanding with that of the authors of the Gospel of Mark (ie. Mark and Peter). In verses 10-13 we are given BOTH!
.
> I thought he was teaching in order to help the people - as in verse 20 "...the seed falls on good soil
> and produces a crop...' It doesn't help if I turn to the listed reference Isiaih 6:8-13: "...I heard the
> voice of the Lord saying...'Go and tell the people...be never understanding...and make their hearts
> calloused ... otherwise they might be healed ... until the land is utterly forsaken."
.
 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me." And he said, "Go, and say to this people: 'Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." Then I said, "How long, O Lord?" And he said: "Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without men, and the land is utterly desolate ...   -- Isaiah 6:8-11 / Revised Standard Version
.
> It just seems to get nastier still, when you read more of the context, and consider: Is Jesus
> also quoting that Old Testament verse to say that it was a prophecy that he is fulfilling?
.
 I would say rather that it is *the evangelists* who are searching the scriptures to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecies.
.
> Well, I certainly wouldn't want to be the agent of that prophecy.
.
 Then you do not have what it takes to be a prophet unto the Lord.
.
> He would seem to be claiming that, "I'm the one who is hardening hearts ... so that none
> are healed ... until the land is utterly forsaken." This is a directive from our good & loving God!?!?
> Am I misunderstanding Mark 4:12? What's going on here? -- Thanks for your help, Charlie
.
 I would say that you are not so much misunderstanding v.12 as grossly overemphasizing its significance. You should not isolate v.12 from the rest of chapter four, but rather place it within the context of chapter four; and then within the larger context of the gospel as a whole (eg. the theme of the messianic secret), and then within the still larger context of the history of the early Greek churches before, during, and after the Jewish Wars. Once you take *all* of this into account, *then* you are better able to understand the full meaning and value of v.12.
.
 And so whenever the reader is confronted with a troublesome passage, the first thing that should be done is to get after the commentaries and see what the exegetes have to say about it. Thus in the Pelican gospel commentary on 'Saint Mark', D.E.Nineham offers some helpful observations concerning Mk.4. He points out that the parable is not traditionally used to conceal the truth, but rather teaches or illustrates something: "Many of the parables are basically arguments from analogy, ... and it is also typical in having only a single point to make" (p.130). Thus Nineham makes a clear distinction between parable and allegory, and likewise distinguishes between the early (Jesus) and later (church) traditions in the text: "... the allegorizing explanation of the sower parable ascribed to Jesus in Mark 4:14-20 is in fact an allegorization by the early Church" (p.131). [See also Mt.13:36-43 and Mt.22:1ff]
.
 And this quickly leads him to ask the following question: "If then the Church was not altogether correctly informed about the *character* of parables, was it right about the purpose for which Jesus originally used them? (Mark 4:10-12)" (p.131). The answer appears to be a qualified and reluctant 'Yes': "Thus the words of Jesus, no less than his other activities, are part of the warfare he wages on God's behalf against Satan and his power over men" (p.133). Thus it is not the case that God deliberately withholds salvation from some of the hearers of the Word, but rather that the obscurities of the 'teachings in parables' conceal the truth from those who willfully refuse to believe. So the mystery of the Kingdom is given to believers and disciples, but to those who are outside the Church everything is obscure: "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything" (Mk.4:33-34 / RSV).

P.S. "For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light"
        (The Gospel of Mark & Peter 4:22 / RSV).

/ Topic > Re: How To Study The Word / Forum > TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 16 Oct 1999 /

> On 12Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Yes I take Genesis very literally ...
> for some reason, I just believe whatever the Word of God tells me...
.
 Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, uh huh, riiiight. I think the proper term for this is *extreme gullibility* to no good effect. Actually, I suspect that what you say you believe and what you actually believe are two very different things.
.
> I take the words of that great old fisherman, Simon Peter, literally.
.
 You mean his authentic words as given in the Gospel of Mark, or the words of the *two* later authors who wrote in his name? You never did tell us whether or not you accept my contention that Peter and Mark together co-authored the first and greatest gospel (with the invaluable assistance of the Holy Spirit guiding their collaborative efforts, of course) ... What say you about this long established tradition?
.
> He referrs to Genesis 1:1 in the second Epistle that he wrote.
.
 You mean the one that he wrote in the middle of the second century almost ninety years after he died? Well, if you believe that, then I guess you'll believe anything. Hey Fisherman, how do you spell 'silly beyond all reason'?
.
> In 2 Peter 3:5-6 he wrote about you Tondaar, he said:
> "For this they WILLINGLY ARE IGNORANT OF, that by the Word of God the heavens were of old,
.
 About 15 billion years old according to modern cosmology.
.
> and the earth standing out of the water and in the water.
.
 We know darn well that the Earth "stands" in the Void (there being no "water" as such in the black emptiness that is the essence of the infinite spaces. So I guess "Peter" was a mite off in his cosmology. No big deal for me (for my faith does not depend upon a childish reading of scripture). But then you can't accept the truths of reality because the scriptures say otherwise. Poor misguided Fisherman! There is no hope for you, but it saddens me that you must lead others into the depths of ignorance and foolishness.
.
> Whereby THE WORLD THAT THEN WAS, being overflowed with water, perished."
.
 The people who lived in the Mediterranean Basin many thousands of years ago who were forced to migrate out of the area due to the encroachment of the Great Sea certainly thought that the entire world was perishing, but (of course) they were quite wrong. It was the lingering memories of this remarkable event that constituted the soil out of which grew the many flood traditions of the Ancient Near East (including the biblical accounts).
.
> This is the "world" that was created in Genesis 1:1,
.
 A mythical world having scant correspondence with verifiable realities and the truth of things as the facts reveal them.
.
> to which all Fossils and "Remains" belong, including the Dinosours.
.
 Just a minute please. Are you saying that God made the dinosaurs (even though the bible makes no mention of them), or that God made the fossils placed in the ground without the necessity of actually having to bother with the living creatures whose remains they are? Your irrational anti-scientific mentality makes it quite impossible to predict what you're going to say next!
.
> And, it sure was more than 6,000 years ago. Genesis 1:1 simply states:
> "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
.
 Actually, our very own solar system appears to be a third generation production; which is to say that the Universe got along just fine without the earth for about nine billion years. So I guess it wasn't *exactly* in "the beginning" that God created the earth, but then the biblical authors could not possibly have know the truth about these matters. A minor detail as far as I'm concerned, since our salvation does NOT rest upon any of these things.
.
> That's all it says Tondaar, it doesn't say "when" God did this, just that "He did it in the beginning."
.
 Yeah, but only cause it just happens to be a good place to start ... 
.
> That was billions of years ago.
.
 Whoa! Did you say "billions" of years ago?! Where did that come from? From science, perhaps? Certainly NOT from the bible! So I guess you *do* use the results of the various sciences ... But ONLY when it suits you! Selective scientific enlightenment, eh Fisherman?
.
> Now in the next verse we have that little word "was", which makes it sound ...
> to people like you ... that God created an earth that was "without form and void."
.
 Actually, there was a time (in the beginnings of the solar system: about five billion years ago) when the earth WAS without form and void!
.
> But, I believe, that, if you, Tondaar, would get a little more interested in the message that the Bible
> contains, and stop trying so hard to discredit it, you would know that God didn't really do that.
.
 I'm sorry, you lost me there. God didn't really do what, exactly? Didn't have a hand in the creation of the universe and this world, you mean? I certainly wouldn't go that far! ... btw: I'm not trying to discredit the Word of God. I'm trying to discredit a silly and childish reading of that very same Word. It's typical that you are unable to make this necessary distinction. You think that if anyone dares disagree with your *alleged* literal reading, that they are attacking the Bible! This is just more proof of the gross inadequacy of your thoughtless and irrational "hermeneutics of ignorance".
.
> You would know that the word "was" really should have been rendered "became." As it is in
> Genesis 2:7, 4:3, 9:15, 9:26, Ex. 32:1, Deut. 27:9, 2 Sam. 7:24 etc. It is also rendered "came
> to pass" in Genesis 4:14, 22:1, 23:1, 27:1, Josh. 4:1; 5:1, 1Kings 13:32, Isa.14:24. etc.
.
 Okay, Fisherman, you sold me. Now please tell all of us why this is so frightfully important!
.
> The "world that then was" (2 Peter 3:6) BECAME "tohu va bohu" ... do you know
> what that means, Tondaar?
.
 No? ...
.
> It means, "utterly wasted", "completely destroyed." Because of Satan's rebellion God destroyed it,
> dinosaurs and all. And what we see in Genesis 1:2-27 is the making of "the heavens and the earth
> which are now" (2Peter 3:7).
.
 Actually, there may be something to this idea after all. About 65 million years ago it is supposed that a huge asteroid impacted the earth at the Hudson's Bay region (that's here in Canada, folks :) and it was the results of this apocalyptic event that destroyed the dinosaurs and allowed the mammals to come to the fore. Therefore we can certainly say that the earth was 'laid waste' or 'utterly wasted' or 'completely destroyed'. Therefore there is certainly some substance to the biblical accounts. I am not denying that. I am merely denying that myths can/should be read as scientific accounts.
.
> In Isaiah 45:18 we are told: "For thus saith the Lord That created the heavens; God Himself That
> formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, HE CREATED IT NOT IN VAIN (Tohu), HE FORMED
> IT TO BE INHABITED; I am the Lord." God did not create an earth that "was" "without form and void."
> (a wasteland covered by water) it "Became" that way, because of Satan's rebellion.
.
 I think that the full story about the great Rebellion is long lost to us. The Bible only gives us a few brief and tantalizing hints about what may have actually happened. In the face of our colossal ignorance and unknowing, it is best to say nothing at all about these very distant (though important) events.
.
> The great prophet Jeremiah looking back by prophetic vision to what happened before
> wrote: "For My people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children,
.
 Hey! He's talking about you, Fisherman!  :)
.
> and they HAVE NONE UNDERSTANDING; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no
> knowledge. I beheld the earth and, lo, it was without form, and void (tohu va-bohu); and the
> heavens, and they had no light (sounds like Genesis 1:2) I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they
> trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man (doesn't sound like
> Noah's flood ... there was at least 4 men and 4 women left from that one) and all the birds of
> the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities
> thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by His fierce anger."
.
  Perhaps this is a vision of the distant (or near?) future?
.
> You see Tondaar, God is saying "If you think that I won't destroy this world,
> just look at what I did once before ...
.
 I'm looking. The hammer of God didst strike the earth with a mighty roar and resounding crash, and the earth didst shake and groan and tilt its axis just so. And a great cloud didst cover the earth, and blot out the sun, and turn the moon to blood. And the cold winds blew, and the dirty snow didst howl and cover the earth, and many creatures didst die at once, and many more didst slowly fade away. Yes, the fury of the Lord didst wipe out countless species in one awful blazing moment of destruction ... Who's to say what will happen next?
.
> I did it once and I'm going to do it again. Hebrews 12:25-29,
.
> "See that ye refuse not Him That speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused Him That spake on earth,
> much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him That speaketh from heaven; Whose voice SHOOK
> THE EARTH; but now He hath promised saying, "YET ONCE MORE I SHAKE NOT THE EARTH ONLY, BUT ALSO
> HEAVEN. And this word, YET ONCE MORE" signifieth the REMOVING OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE SHAKEN,
> as of things that are made, that THOSE THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE SHAKEN MAY REMAIN. Wherefore we
> receiving a kingdom which CANNOT BE MOVED, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably
> with reverence and godly fear. For OUR GOD IS A CONSUMING FIRE."
.
 Amen!
.
> Will you be shaken Tondaar ...
.
 Time will tell ...
.
> or are you grounded in the sure foundation of God's Word?
.
 You bet I'm grounded in the Word! . . . That's *His Word*, of course ... NOT yours!
.
> It's difficult to be grounded for sure in "works of fiction!"
.
 No it ain't! It just requires a bit of imagination and a sense for the abundant variety of God's marvelous revelation. Of course, for someone like you, someone utterly lacking in imagination, the only place that is fit to be grounded upon is one of darkness and ignorance where everything is plain and simple, black and white, and set forth in straight parallel lines so as not to confuse childish minds expecting childish things . . .

/ Topic >  Re: Does Jesus draw all men? / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 11 Sept 2000 /
.
> doorman wrote: In John 12:32,33 Jesus says: "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
> men to myself. He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die." Is every single person in
> the world drawn to Christ? Are those who have never heard of Christ drawn to him?
.
 textman answers: Dear doorman, no, of course not. The gospel itself answers your question, and tells us why verse 12:32 cannot simply be taken literally as an absolute statement:
.
 "Jesus replied, 'Do not complain about me to one another. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him' ..." (Jn 6:43-44).
.
 Thus we see that it is the Heavenly Father who actually draws people to Christ; and He is certainly free to draw (or not draw) whosoever He pleases!
.
> How does verse 33 affect the interpretation of what is said in verse 32?
.
 Verse 33 is one of those many little footnotes that can be found scattered throughout the gospel. They are placed in the text to explain statements that might otherwise be obscure to the Reader. In this case, v.33 is meant to clarify the phrase 'lifted up from the earth' as a reference to the crucifixion.
.
 Now it is fortuitous that you should be asking about the Gospel of John at this time because I am just now currently re-reading that very gospel, and the one thing that most impresses me is that this gospel is just plain *weird*! For example, look carefully at this passage (4:1-3 / NETbible):
.
 "Now when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that he was winning and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself was not baptizing, but his disciples were), he left Judea and set out once more for Galilee."
.
What is that? Is this supposed to make sense?
Jesus leaves Judea because the Pharisees heard he was baptizing? Gimme a break! 
.
 Obviously, reading this gospel "literally" (after the manner of the simple-minded Fundies) is an exercise in futility. This gospel was clearly written 'in the infinite style' with many grandiose statements that simply make no sense at all according to a childish literal-reading of the text. What is also clear is that the canonical format of the text that we now have is very different from the original MS. The Gospel of John is a veritable smorgasbord for the textual critic. Many words and phrases (and even chapters) were later added to the text by the churches. Whole blocks of text were displaced from their original position (for various reasons). And so on. Needless to say, all of this makes the text much more confusing, and only adds to general weirdness that suffuses the entire gospel.
.
 For example, consider this verse: "After this, Jesus and his disciples came into Judean territory, and there he spent time with them and was baptizing" (3:22). Now here the phrase 'and was baptizing' is very obviously a priestly corruption of the original text, added solely to enhance the power and prestige of the priests (who consider themselves to be 'little Christ's'). And how do we know that all this true? Because the author himself tells us that "in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples" (Jn 4:2 / NIV). In fact, there are many such priestly additions to the text of John. If I were to list them all, this article would be twice as long as it already is!
.
. . . Hmmmm, maybe I better just stop right here before I get myself into some real trouble.

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 23 Nov 2000 / Topic > Re: Who can answer these? /
.
> On 25Oct Laird wrote: "Apparent Bible contradictions". It may be that these apparent contradictions
> and oddities are reconcilable, and even if they're not I doubt they'd shatter the average Christian's
> faith in the overall reliability of the Bible. Still, I'd like to know anyone's views on the following:
.
> a) Mark 15:7 and Luke 23:19 claim Barabbas was guilty of murder and insurrection, but John
> 18:40 only mentions him being a robber. If Barabbas had committed something as serious as
> murder, why does John not appear to have been aware of this?
.
 erasmian answers: Dear Laird, it is a mistake to think that John was unaware of this detail simply because he neglects to mention it. This is because the author of John used the gospel of Mark and Peter (along with Mt) as his primary source material, and so was very likely aware of Mk 15:7. If John "only mentions him being a robber" this is because it was not the author's intention (in writing the Gospel of John) to mimic the previous gospels, but rather to present a new theological understanding or vision of the gospel literature (ie. Mk and Mt).
.
 In light of this fact, it would be unreasonable to expect John to be consistent with the other gospels in all particulars. In this case, your 'contradiction' is a non-contradiction in every conceivable way; and proves nothing regardless.
.
> b) Mark 8:12 says "There shall no sign be given unto this generation", whereas John mentions
> several in 2:11, 4:54 and 6:2. Were they referring to different types of sign?
.
 It's not a question of 'different types of signs', but rather a different conception of the meaning and significance of signs in general. For Mark and Peter signs are, for the most part, showy and superfluous miraculous events that serve only to impress the gawkers and unbelievers. For John signs are deeply symbolic events that reveal truth to the eyes of faith. Accordingly, they are not meant for the faithless, and so there is no essential denial of Mk's assertion that "There shall be no sign given unto this generation". In this case, the contradiction is more apparent than real (ie. it exists only on the most superficial level of the texts).
.
> c) Immediately after the women discovered that Jesus' tomb was empty and fled from it, did they say
> nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8) or report it to His disciples (Matt 28:8; Luke 24:9)?  <snipsome>
.
 This disparity is more serious; at least on the historical level. Now whenever there is a choice-between to be made among the various gospel accounts pertaining to actual historical events, the Reader is *always* well advised to remember that the gospel of Mark and Peter is the first and only gospel to be written in the early apostolic period of church history (ie. before 70CE). Because of this, Mk *necessarily* contains the greater apostolic authority, as well as the more viable historical value. In this case, the contradiction is entirely a literary one: ie. the author of Mt 'revised' the markan account in favor of the disciples, and the author of Lk later on preferred the matthean account over Mk.
.
> e) James 1:13 says God tempts no one,
.
 "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God', for God cannot be tempted by evil, and he himself tests no one. But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires. Then when desire conceives, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is full grown, it brings forth death" (James 1:13-15 / NETbible).
.
> but elsewhere He is depicted as doing just that (e.g. in Gen 22:1 and 1Cor 10:13).  <snip>  -- Jon
.
 "And let us not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes. And do not complain, as some of them did, and were killed by the destroyer. These things happened to them as examples and were written for our instruction, on whom the ends of the ages have come. So let the one who thinks he is standing be careful that he does not fall. No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others. And God is faithful, who will not let you be tried too much, but with the trial will also provide a way through it so that you may be able to endure" (1Cor. 10:9-13 / NETbible).
.
I see little here to justify your claim that in 1Cor.10:13 God is depicted as tempting people. If anything, it is "life-in-general" that 'tests' and 'tempts' us as believers (for such is the way of the world). I think that this understanding of these verses is valid; especially in light of Paul's related references elsewhere:
.
 "Then resume your relationship, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1Cor. 7:5 / NETbible).
.
 "So when I could bear it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the Tempter somehow tempted you and our toil had proven useless" (1Thes. 3:5 / NETbible).
.
 From all this we can see that there is no real contradiction between the thinking of the prophets Paulos and Jacob on this particular matter. As to the OT texts, we should not be surprised to find various usages of the idea that God on occasion tests or tempts people. The most melodramatic example of this sort of thing is when the LORD orders Abraham to sacrifice his son in order to see if his love for God exceeds his love for his son. When it became plain that the old man *would* obey God (despite his doubt, grief, and unknowing), the LORD stayed his (ie. Abraham's) knife. In understanding that *everything* belongs to God, Abraham demonstrated the full depth of his faith; and so was found pleasing in the eyes of God. For this reason Abraham is rightly set forth as the "rock of faith" and an example for all the People of God to imitate and marvel at.
.
 Nor should we be unduly upset by this seeming disparity between the testaments regarding divine involvement in the unpleasant realities of temptations, trials, tests, and persecutions; for the written revelation of God's will is progressive in nature, whereby the later writings clarify and revise the thinking of the earlier texts. And just as history unfolds under the influence of the hidden designs of divine providence, so too do the later prophets build upon the work of their predecessors. Thus one should not approach the texts in terms of seeking and finding contradictions, but rather in terms of a living and growing progression forward that gradually and gradually unveils more and more of the Lord's inexhaustible supply of truth and light.
.
 Needless to say, this process of continuous unfolding revelation is in no sense finished and complete (as the bible-idolizers foolishly fancy), but has quietly continued throughout the last 19 centuries, and continues even now to multiply the truth of the universal Logos according the providential guidance of the Father of Lights, and the personal assistance of the Encourager ... And all of this for the sole benefit of *all* the very wayward People of God.
.
 I hope that all this has answered at least most of your queries to your satisfaction, Jon. And so nothing remains but to wish you well in your struggle with the sacred texts. May grace and peace be always with you as you 'search out the scriptures' to the best of your ability.

P.S. For those of you who may be interested in an outstanding visual essay concerning our Lord ...
Please check out the many fine exhibits now on display at the following url:
http://susan.chin.gc.ca/Exhibitions/Annodomini/entrance-en.html

/ Topic > Re: the Holy Bible / Date > 6 Dec 2000 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> Raptor514 wrote: Here are some of the hundreds of biblical contradictions. If God wrote it
.
 textman replies: Dear Raptor514, God didn't "wrote it", He "inspired it". Different concept entirely.
.
> then there shouldn't be any at all. For those believers who recognize the historical,
> man-made nature of the Bible, these pose no problem.
.
 That's not necessarily true either, Raptor.
.
> But for those who insist, against all reason, in believing in an inerrant Bible, these are a problem.
.
 But *only* if they bother themselves enough to notice.
.
> Note: any "arguments" which rely on hand-waving hysterics, red herrings, extremely
> torturous "interpretations,"
.
 Oh oh, I guess that leaves me out ...  :)
.
> or any other form of intellectual hemorhaging will, yet again, fail to convince anyone.
> So don't bother.
> 1 John 4:18 --- "God is love."
> 1 Corinthians 13:4 ---"Love is not jealous."
> Exodus 20:5 -- "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."
> And one plus one equals three. <snip remainder>
.
 There is no contradiction here, O Foolish One! Paul is talking about *human* jealousy, not *divine* jealousy (which is a different thing entirely). Exodus, on the other hand, speaks of *divine* jealousy, NOT human jealousy. We Believers are not so foolish as to imagine that there is not a great wide gulf between human nature and divine nature. Therefore while your logic may be sound on the purely grammatical level, your conclusion of contradiction is false owing to your colossal theological blindness!
.
 No points for you this time, Raptor. Sorry!

/ Topic >  Re: the Holy Bible / Date > 7 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.bible, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.religion,
/ alt.politics.religion, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.religion.christian, alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.religion.christianity /
.
>>> Raptor514 previously wrote: <snip> For those believers who recognize the historical,
>>> man-made nature of the Bible, these pose no problem.
.
] textman previously said: That's not necessarily true either, Raptor. <snip>
.
> Raptor514 replies: Explain what you mean please.
.
 textman answers: Dear Raptor514, what I mean is that some biblical contradictions are problematic even for "those believers who recognize the historical, man-made nature of the Bible". For example, the opening line of First-Peter poses a contradiction in that while the words claim that the apostle Simon-Peter is the author of the letter, the evidence of the text leads to an entirely contrary conclusion (ie. Peter is *not* the author). Perhaps this contradiction never made it to your list, Raptor, but I would never say that it "poses no problem" ...
.
] There is no contradiction here, O Foolish One! Paul is talking about *human* jealousy, not *divine*
] jealousy (which is a different thing entirely). Exodus, on the other hand, speaks of *divine* jealousy,
] NOT human jealousy. We Believers are not so foolish as to imagine that there is not a great wide gulf
] between human nature and divine nature. Therefore while your logic may be sound on the purely
] grammatical level, your conclusion of contradiction is false owing to your colossal theological blindness!
] No points for you this time, Raptor. Sorry! <snip>
.
> R: First of all, leave the condescending insults out of it.
.
 I said "Sorry!" Raptor; but let me emphasize thusly --> 
.
> If you can't do without them, try alt.rec.flame-wars
.
 Temper, temper ...  :)
.
> Secondly, love is love, jealousy is jealousy (and while we're at it, A is A).
.
 You are unable to accept that words can be used perfectly legitimately in a metaphorical sense with non-literal intention? Are you perhaps unaware that *all* languages are fundamentally *metaphorical* in nature? ... Yes? ... Then may I suggest you spend some time with herr Wittgenstein?
.
> If you have to redefine basic words with commonly accepted definitions in order to make a
> text fit what YOU WANT IT to mean, then perhaps this should tell you something. Namely,
> that your approach to Scripture is less than fully rational.
.
 Sayeth the cybrwurm: Good Grief!
.
 "redefine basic words"? ... What words did I redefine, Raptor?
.
 "make a text fit what YOU WANT IT to mean"? ... What I *want* the text to mean, my dear Raptor, is only and precisely what the text (*and* its context) says, nothing more and nothing less! You can't analyze complex ideas and feelings by simply reducing statements to their component terms. The Word of God is *more* than the sum of its parts!
.
 "then perhaps this should tell you something"? ... It tells me that you don't know even the first most-basic principles of biblical hermeneutics, is what it tells me ...
.
 "your approach to Scripture is less than fully rational" ... I resemble that remark! ... Who's not leaving the condescending insults out of it now, Raptor? Maybe *you* should be the one to exit these Christian newsgroups, eh?  :)
.
> Thirdly, what is it that you mean by "colossal theological blindness"?
.
 Oh brother!
.
> Do you refer to my apparent inability or unwillingness to distort language to mean
> the "theologically correct" thing?
.
 Uh ... no.
.
> I think so.
.
 I think not.
.
> I read the Bible,
.
 Ha! ... AS IF!
.
> I take it at it's word,
.
 You mean you read the Word of God after the manner of Fundies?!?!?! ... Oh that's *just* lovely!
.
> I see flaws everywhere.
.
 LOL ... I'll bet you do!
.
> End of story.
.
 End of *your* story, Raptor. Meanwhile all us *real* bible-students will continue exploring the infinite untapped universe that exists within the multi-dimensional multi-faceted Word of God.
.
 Sorry you have to miss out on all the fun, Raptor. Come on back here in ten or twenty years, and maybe then you'll be better able to appreciate the sacred scriptures for what they are; despite their many flaws and imperfections.
.
> No tortured process of "interpreting" a text to "mean" what I want it to.
.
 I'm afraid that interpretation is quite unavoidable, herr Raptor. There's just no getting around it, in fact. Maybe someday you'll learn this primary fact of life: perception is intentional.
.
> If this is "blindness," then what, by your way of thinking, would be called "seeing"?
.
 Don't start on me now!  :(
.
> Fourth, if "human jealousy" and "divine jealousy" are "different things entirely"
.
 Yes?
.
> then please produce a coherent definition of both terms.
.
 Sure thing dude. Here you go: "human jealousy" is all those feelings and dispositions and actions involving resentment, envy, fear, and suspicion. "divine jealousy" is sort of like that, but not really, which is to say, not exactly like that, if you know what I mean.
.
> Mind you, some actual backing for the definition would be nice, but is not expected.
.
 My "backing" is the Random House Dictionary. Is that nice enough 4U?
.
> What your above argument is saying is basically "God is love, but it's a special kind of love,
> which is so special that it can be jealous, and still BE love."
.
 Why Raptor, you truly surprised me just now. Well said indeed!
.
> Perhaps this is why God's love is so much greater than human love?
.
 Human love is by definition puny and miserable and self-centered, even at the best of times. Even the lowest orders of angels are better lovers than human beings are. So saying that God's love is greater than human love is really not saying all that much. Indeed, it doesn't even scratch the surface. If you want a tangible expression of the nature and character of God's love for us, you can hardly do better than to look unto the Lord Jesus Christ (whose love conquers even death).
.
> Sounds worse to me.
.
 Not to me.
.
> If there is a God, then people who contort Him/Her or It in
> order to fit a Bronze Age book of myths are INSULTING that God.
.
 This insult could possibly be applied to the earliest Hebrew writings, but certainly not to the Greek scriptures. Are you reduced to gratuitous insults now, Raptor? Who'd a thunk it?
.
> Quit making an altar out of the Bible.
.
 I have never done so yet, Raptor. Don't confuse me for a Fundy!
Indeed, you're much closer to that way of thinking than I am.
.
> Have a nice day.
.
 I'm trying; but I'd have a much *nicer* day if you'd please just repeat after me:
"Jesus is Lord! Jesus IS Lord! JESUS is LORD! Amen!"