/ Ng: alt.christnet.bible / 22July99 /
.
Now in order for the Reader to properly evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the NET Bible's version of Jude, one must constantly bear in mind the undeniable fact that no version proceeds out of a vacuum. Thus in order to properly appreciate the NET's 'Jude', one must look at both the translation itself, and the accompanying study notes. But the sn's are themselves only the tip of the iceberg; and to get a better handle on where those sn's are coming from the inquirer will have to examine the general orientation of the Biblical Studies Foundation ... See their web site at: http://www.bible.org/index.htm ... toward the epistle of Jude as set forth in two essays by David Malick:
(1) "An Introduction to the Book of Jude" at: http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/jud/jud-intr.htm and
(2) "An Argument of the Book of Jude" at: http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/jud/jud-otl.htm
.
But before we get to all that, we must say a few words about the translation itself. Although it reads well, a comparison with the Greek text suggests that the purpose of this translation is to water down the prophet's message by way of deliberate obscurity (to the end of making the epistle as inoffensive to as many people as possible). In our last article we asked the Reader to try and identify those who Judas is talking about. If you restrict your attention to the text of the NET, you will find it impossible to clearly identify who these "dangerous reefs" are supposed to be. ... 4X: the NET version of Jude carefully makes no mention of 'the Ones of Old' nor yet of 'the Dreaming Ones'
.
In the end we are forced back upon the heading graciously provided by the NET, and say that the danger came from certain vague and unnamed 'false teachers'. And that is about all that we can say about them by way of identifying them with some measure of precision. ... And the clear implication of that is that these false teachers, although they were a bother to Judas' church, are surely no more among us; (and therefore the epistle has only a minor historical value, and certainly no relevance whatsoever to 21st century Christians).
.
But nothing could be further from the truth, since the Ones of Old are not only still among us, but they have even taken charge of many popular churches. Therefore, it would never do to alienate and offend so many "good Christians" by presenting the prophet's words in a clear and forceful manner. In the end, the NET version of Jude represents the triumph of political correctness over the prophet's intentions. Accordingly, the NET Bible is well-suited to these post-modern churches wherein the Gospel of 'Let's Make Nice-Nice' reigns supreme over the Gospel of Life & Truth.
.
So if we now look to the various footnotes for some clarification and illumination on these matters, we are surely bound to be disappointed. Indeed most of the notes serve only to reinforce this very deliberate obscurity (4X: see notes #19, 20, 23, 35, 38, 46, 55, 60, 61, 65, 78, 79, 87) or to create the false and misleading scholarly background that also reinforces these same unfortunate misconceptions (4X: #3, 13, 35, 64, 96).
.
> The New English Translation (in its footnotes to Jude) sayeth: 3sn Although Jude was half-brother of Jesus
.
Now here is an interesting diversion. No explanation or clarification is offered for this bold statement; rather, its undeniable factuality is simply assumed. In note #24 the NET admits that "Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed ...", but here it claims that "Jude was half-brother of Jesus". The NET scribes fail to see the
contradiction here, but rather wish to have their cake and eat it too. Yet the only way that the Lord's brother could be the author of our prophetic epistle is if he either lived about 1.5 centuries (extremely unlikely), or if all the books of the NT were completed before 100CE (also extremely unlikely; but nevertheless the preferred fantasy of the vast majority of scribes).
.
> he humbly associates himself with James, his full brother.
.
No, actually, the meaning of this opening verse has little to do with humility as such. "a slave of Jesus Christ" simply means that Judas is here identifying himself as a Christian prophet ... in the very same way that Jacob identifies himself as a Christian prophet in the opening verse of the book of James.
.
By this point in the development of the 2C Egyptian churches, the living traditions of the Holy Ones had already invested certain terms and phrases with a set Christian meaning. 'Brother' was one of these "Christian words". Paul's 'slave of JC' entered the prophetic traditions, and served the churches well by doing a double duty. Thus, after the manner of the great epistle-writer, 'slave of JC' was not only the supreme expression of commitment and humility, but it also identified the bearer of the tag as a Christian prophet/apostle faithful to the sacred writings and traditions of the Holy Ones. No contemporary of Paul's (least of all of one so intimately connected with the Aramaic church) would ever speak of Paul or his letters with such reverence as Judas displays in these opening verses ...
.
That is, it would be contrary to their natural inclinations. Their attitude to Paul had more of hostility than reverence. Thus they wanted Paul to submit to their authority over his churches, and he would have none of that! Paul foresaw the fast approaching 'parting of the ways', and his letter to the fledgling church in Rome, as well as his famous collections for 'the poor' in Jerusalem, were his answer to that second momentous upheaval in the history of the early Greek churches; ( the first was the expulsion from Jerusalem of the Hellenistic-Jewish believers c.38CE -> or about five years after the crucifixion).
.
Thus the phrase "brother of Jacob" (note: not *a* brother of Jacob) does not indicate blood relationship (as the scribes suppose) but merely reinforces the fact that Jude is a prophet after the manner of his well-known Alexandrian predecessor. This then is the source of all his authority to speak to the "Called Ones".
.
> By first calling himself a slave of Jesus Christ, it is evident that he wants no one to place
> stock in his physical connections.
.
But Jude makes no claim whatsoever to be physically connected to Jesus. This statement only demonstrates that these silly scribeshave no real understanding of the nature and purpose of genuine Christian prophetic literature ...
.
> At the same time, he must identify himself further: since Jude was a common name in the first
> century (two of Jesus' disciples were so named, including his betrayer), more information was
> needed, that is to say, brother of James.
.
Since *both* 'Judas' and 'Jacob' (and even 'Joshua') were very common names in the first and second centuries CE, why should all these scribes automatically assume that this Judas was the "half-brother" of this Jesus mentioned in scripture? Perhaps these scholarly muffinheads imagine that no Christian writer would dare to use a name reserved
only and exclusively for great heroes and saints explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the apostolic sacred writings ... ?!?
.
Please Proceed to The Politics of Translation/2 up next ...
.
P.S. "What is remarkable is that the text itself remains fixed and unchanged.
No new translations have emerged to clarify textual issues" (P.J.Gomes, 'The Good Book', p.99).
The Politics of Translation / 2
/ Ng: alt.christnet.bible / 23July99 /
.
>> "Dear friends, although I have been eager to write to you7 about our common salvation, I now feel
>> compelled8 instead to write to encourage9 you to contend earnestly10 for the faith11 that was
>> once for all12 entrusted to the saints.13" (Jude 1:3 / NET).
.
> The New English Translation (in its footnotes to Jude) sayeth: 13sn I now feel compelled instead...saints.
> Apparently news of some crisis has reached Jude, prompting him to write a different letter than what he
> had originally planned.
.
Now it may well be the case that Judas intended to write a different sort of letter originally, but attributing his change of heart to the reception of 'news of some crisis' strikes me as highly implausible, to say the least. This infiltration that concerns the prophet is not the sort of thing that can happen suddenly, or overnight (as it were). Neither is it something that could have happened to the churches at any time prior to, or during, the great 'Parting of the Ways' (between Christianity and Judaism) that occurred toward the end of the first century. Of false teachers there were many and always, to be sure, but these particular people are most definitely NOT the Ones of Old whom
the prophet is here warning about.
.
> A plausible scenario is that after Peter's death, Jude intended to write to the same Gentile
> readers that Peter had written to (essentially, Paul's churches).
.
Of course, there is nothing the least bit plausible about *this* scenario! Peter's death was ancient history to Judas, and has nothing to do with anything, in any case. In the same way, the idea that Judas intended his letter for Paul's churches is sheer fabrication based on the ludicrous fantasy that the prophet is none other than Jesus' brother. Sorry! I mean his "half-brother" ... Sheesh!
.
> Jude starts by affirming that the gospel the Gentiles had received from Paul was the same as the one
> the Jewish Christians had received from the other apostles (our common salvation).
.
This is nonsense. Paul and the Jewish-Christians are ancient history to Judas in mid-2C, and there is nothing in the epistle itself even remotely suggesting an awareness of such fine distinctions. That the note-writer (Malik?) should pull all of this crap out of the simple phrase "our common salvation" is more a tribute to his powers of fabrication, than to his sense of early church history.
.
> But in the midst of writing this letter, Jude felt that the present crisis deserved another, shorter piece.
.
There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that Judas was actually working on some other letter which he gave up on halfway through (as opposed to, say, just considering it). What Judas tells us is that the subject matter of his envisioned epistle was our common salvation. We have no idea what he may have had in mind. And to even attempt
to describe this unwritten letter is presumptuous in the extreme.
.
> The crisis as the letter reveals, is that the false teachers whom Peter prophesied
> have now infiltrated the church.
.
This is a bald-faced lie; well worthy of the false teachers who wrote these misleading notes to deceive and confuse the People of God! Indeed, it is obvious from the Greek text (at least!) that the Ones of Old are something very quite different from mere 'false teachers' peddling heresies ... This is made apparent simply by virtue of the prophet's colorful diction; which the NET translators carefully obliterate (so as to make this important feature of Jude invisible
to the People of God (so that they may know it not!)).
.
> The letter of Jude is thus an ad hoc letter, intended to confirm the truth of Peter's letter
> and encourage the saints to ground their faith in the written documents of the nascent
> church, rather than listen to the twisted gospel of the false teachers.
.
This too is another lie. The text of the epistle intends no such thing. Judas has just told us what his intention is: to encourage you to contend *earnestly* for the Faith ... ie. to resist the evil that creeps in among us ... "that was once for all entrusted to the Holy Ones" ... A phrase that in itself suggests that several generations lie between the prophet and Paul (and the other first-generation apostles). In other words, our Judas is most certainly NOT the
brother, or even half-brother, of the Lord.
.
> In large measure the letter of Jude illustrates the necessity of clinging to the authority
> of scripture as opposed to those who claim to be prophets.
.
This is pure bovine droppings! The text doesn't say anything like this. As a careful reading of the *entire* epistle will show, Judas uses his knowledge of Scripture (OT/NT & *other* sacred writings) to emphasize the reality and finality of God's judgment upon this perennial culture of deception, depravity, and spiritual death. So while the authority of the scriptures (no canon in Judas' day, folks!) is certainly implicit in the epistle, in no way does Judas intend to oppose this to the prophets. Indeed, since Judas is himself a Christian prophet, such a suggestion is all the more unlikely. In the same way, the Ones of Old are most certainly not prophets spouting heresies; and only very silly scribes and false teachers would even forward such an absurd idea!
.
Please Proceed to The Politics of Translation/3 up next ...
.
P.S. "It's as if we all live in an ancient city, and suddenly everyone has forgotten about the past"
(Christopher Fowler, discussing 'Roofworld').
The Politics of Translation / 3
/ Ng: alt.christnet.bible / 24July99 /
.
> The New English Translation (in its footnotes to Jude) sayeth: 15tn "Among you" is not in
> the Greek text, but is obviously implied. sn The infiltration referred to by the phrase slipped
> in among you was predicted by Peter (2 Pet 2:1), Paul (e.g., Acts 20:29-30), and OT prophets.
.
2 Peter is a 2C document not written by Peter; and Luke-Acts is a second century document not written by Paul. And the OT prophets had no hint or conception of the coming Greek churches ... Or the problems the new People of God would face by living within the corrupt and pagan Roman Empire.
.
So much for "sound scholarship".
.
> 35tn Grk "strange flesh." This phrase has been variously interpreted.
.
That's putting it mildly! And the fact that the NET Bible declines to use the prophet's words clearly demonstrates the scribes colossal contempt for Judas and the truth he speaks!
.
> It could refer to flesh of another species (such as angels lusting after human flesh). This would
> aptly describe the sin of the angels, but not easily explain the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. It
> could refer to the homosexual practices of the Sodomites,
.
OR it could refer to both. Hey, check this out: they actually used the 'H' word! This clearly indicates that the NET translators and note-writers *do* know what this epistle is all about after all; although one certainly couldn't guess it by what we have seen up to this point. But now that they have finally revealed their awareness of the truth of these things, please note that they do so only to dismiss the possibility after the manner of the post-modern Ones of Old (ie. through confusion and dissembling).
.
Therefore, Dear Reader, in the eternal battle between the prophets and the Dreaming Ones, you ought to now have a good idea as to which side the NET Bible supports (ie. they most certainly do NOT support the prophet)!!! In other words, the NET Bible is, at one and the same time, po-mo and pro-homo both ...
.
> but a difficulty arises from the use of e{tero" ({etero"; "strange," "other"). When this is to
> be distinguished from a[llo" (allos, "another") it suggests "another of a different kind." If so,
> would that properly describe homosexual behavior?
.
Yes, it would ... U ignorant bastich U!
.
> In response, the language could easily be compact: "pursued flesh other than what was
> normally pursued." However, would this find an analogy in the lust of angels
.
Yes, it would ... That is, it would IF we are chiefly concerned with the author's views on these matters ...
And we ARE all very concerned about that? ... ummmm ... Right?
.
> (such would imply that angels normally had sexual relations of some sort, but cf. Matt 22:30)?
.
LOL ... Wut a nimrod!
.
> Another alternative is that the focus of the parallel is on the activity of the surrounding cities
> and the activity of the angels. This is especially plausible since the participles ejkporneuvsasai
> (ekporneusasai, "having indulged in sexual immorality") and ajpelqou'sai (apelqousai, "having
> pursued") have concord with "cities" (povlei", poleis), a feminine plural noun, rather than with
> Sodom and Gomorrah (both masculine nouns). If so, then their sin would not necessarily have
> to be homosexuality.
.
Yeah, gee, you gotta be some kinda stupid to be convinced by this so-called "argument" ...
.
> However, most likely the feminine participles are used because of constructio ad sensum (construction
> according to sense). That is, since both Sodom and Gomorrah are cities, the feminine is used to
> imply that all the cities are involved.
.
Good guess, Sherlock.
.
> The connection with angels thus seems to be somewhat loose:
.
I tend to agree. Loose, but also significant ...
.
> both angels and Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in heinous sexual immorality.
.
Including especially homosexuality ... Lest we forget the main issue that the prophet places before our unknowing eyes.
.
> Thus, whether the false teachers indulge in homosexual activity is not the point;
> mere sexual immorality is enough to condemn them.
.
And there you have it, folks. The scribal reasonings have led us to the conclusion that "homosexual activity is not the point", and that therefore the "false teachers" are NOT to be identified as homosexuals in any way ... When, in fact, the Ones of Old ARE indeed homosexuals (being also the Dreaming Ones). That is very much the prophet's point! But perhaps the makers of the NET Bible, being so in harmony with today's post-modern perverters, prefer to believe that homosexuality is a modern invention; the "natural" product of our "enlightened and compassionate" society!?!
.
> 96tn Grk "hating even the tunic spotted by the flesh." The "flesh" in this instance could refer to the body or
> to the sin nature. It makes little difference in one sense: Jude is thinking primarily of sexual sins, which are
> borne of the sin nature and manifest themselves in inappropriate deeds done with the body. At the same
> time, he is not saying that the body is intrinsically bad, a view held by the opponents of Christianity. Hence,
> it is best to see "flesh" as referring to the sin nature here and the language as metaphorical.
.
Quite right. Judas is indeed thinking primarily of sexual sins. Not just in this verse, however, but throughout the epistle as a whole (being, as it were, the main theme of the letter); which is a unity devoted to one idea (namely, identifying the 'hidden reefs' and 'waterless clouds' that have 'crept in' among us). But the NET Bible's scribes, being themselves lying Pharisees and false teachers, would have you believe that these sexual sins are merely incidental, and that the real villains of the piece are a vague and nebulous set of 'false teachers' or heretics; all of whom are now long gone, such that we needn't bother our smurfy heads too much about anything that the prophet Judas has to say, since he's like totally irrelevant dude!
.
Sure he is!
.
P.S. The Beverly Hillbillies on Theology & Such: "Hey! Wuddja say to thet there donkey, Elly?"
"Yew wouldn't understand, Jethro. It's mule-talk."
More Washing
the Text
[Or: The True Meaning
Of Verse Four]
/ Ng: alt.christnet.bible / 25July99 /
.
The Preface to the NET Bible states that "With the NET Bible our concern was to be gender-accurate rather than gender-inclusive, striving for faithfulness to the original biblical texts while at the same time seeking to attain accuracy in terms of Modern English." ... It also says: "No translation is completely literal, nor should that be a desirable goal. A completely word-for-word literal translation would be unreadable. ... Literal is also not necessarily faithful."
.
Here, then, is the NET's supposedly accurate and faithful rendition of verse four:
.
"For certain men14 have secretly slipped in among you15 - men who long ago16 were marked out17 for the condemnation I am about to describe18 - ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil19 and who deny our only Master20 and Lord,21 Jesus Christ" (NET).
.
Very readable, to be sure; but a more literal (and faithful) rendition might run as follows:
.
"For certain people have wrongly crept in among us, the Ones of Old (who were written about for this judgment);
ungodly ones who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and debauchery, and also deny Jesus Christ (the only Master and Lord of us)."
.
By comparing these two versions we can easily see that the raw Greek text of verse four is much better seen as gender inclusive; and so is the more accurate and faithful version (see also the NAB).
.
At the same time, the Reader can also see that the NET version of v.4 deliberately washes away all hint or trace of so-called 'implied sexuality' in the language used by the prophet Judas. Now these sexual overtones to the Greek words used are clearly deliberate (and central to the prophets intentions), but the NET dissolves these all away, so
as to make the translation better support the view that the danger stems from false teachers and the heretical ideas which they forward.
.
In thus forcing the text to say what they wish it to say, the NET Bible demonstrates a total disregard for the author's intent, and also a profound disrespect for the Word of God. Yes indeed, where formerly it was monks and bishops and churches that "safeguarded" the text (more like fossilized it, really), and determined how much of the
Truth should be revealed to the People of God, now it is the scribes who make themselves the lords and masters of God's revelation to all True Believers!
.
Thus the NET (like the NIV) does not allow the text to speak for itself (ie. including women among the ungodly Ones of Old) but rather imposes a gender-exclusive interpretation straight into the very text itself, where it remains as a foreign intrusion into the Word. The reason why the NET does this stems from its scribes idea that the epistle concerns false teachers. Now this idea is plainly wrong (as v.4 so graphically demonstrates), but it leads directly back to the idea that only men can rightly teach the Christian mysteries; and thus the exclusive rendition of v.4 is supposedly justified. Therefore the Biblical Studies Foundation (at its 'Questions & Answers' web-page) has just this silly bit to say about the differences between prophesy and preaching:
.
> What is the difference between prophesying and preaching?
.
These days, I consider it quite an accomplishment for any True Believer if they so much as suspect that there even might be a distinction to be made here ...
.
> My understanding is that prophecy is not identical to preaching,
.
Yes. This would be a good place to start ... :)
.
> but involves both forthtelling and foretelling.
.
More of the former, than of the latter, I expect.
.
> The reason women may prophesy but not teach or preach to men is that the message that the prophet
> gets from God is not filtered through the interpretive process
.
Well, this view essentially implies that the prophet has no value apart from his function as a channel or pipeline for God's mysterious oracles. In this childish vision of prophesy, the prophet is nothing more than a medium waiting upon the whims of a finicky and capricious Spirit. Needless to say, I think that such a view is incredibly stupid and revolting!
.
> -- that is, it is directly mediated by the Spirit. Hence, in effect, prophecies are 'tamper-proof,' whereas
> teaching is not (cf.1Tim 2:12-14).
.
Wut? The prophetic ministry and vocation are "tamper-proof", you say? ... Really? ... Well then, it's really quite a shame then, that the book of Jonah (and many other biblical passages) so violently contradicts this absurdly simplistic conception of prophesy. ... No, the prophetic vocation is far from 'tamper-proof', or even fool-proof. And the reason for this is that there's just no getting around the fact that even the Spirit's best efforts are necessarily filtered through the interpretive process. Thus both the Spirit and the prophet are co-creators of the message revealed unto the People of God. Did not Moses himself smash the tablets in disgust when he came down off the mountain only to find God's hard-hearted People engaged in idolatry and debauchery? ... But perhaps Moses does not quite qualify as a prophet under the bizarre definitions of the BSF?
.
Moreover, the Bible as a whole surely suggests that women can and do teach (eg. Wisdom = Sofia), (although Paul encourages them to silence within the context of the working and worshiping assembly), and that prophesy is (with but a few rare exceptions) the all but exclusive province of men. Thus women are certainly capable of tongues, and
ecstatic utterances, and clairvoyance, and so forth; but genuine Christian prophesy has nothing to do with such melodramatic shenanigans. Indeed, effective and faithful prophesy very much depends on the interpretive process; and that is why a (mostly) cool and level head is mandatory for the prophet (as is a profound respect for truth, and a strong love of honesty). Thus very few women have the stomach for it. And most people (male and female) are anyways lacking the sort of character, values, and virtues that are essential for effective Christian prophesy. Sooth-sayers and fortune-tellers are one sort of thing; and prophets are another. This is why Paulos speaks directly to men when discussing the matter of prophesy:
.
"If anyone thinks to be a prophet or a spiritual man, let him fully know the things I write to you; that they are of the Lord, and so a commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he also is not recognized. So then, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy! And do not forbid the speaking in tongues. But let all things be done decently, and in an orderly way." [1Cor.14:37-40 / Prophet Version]
/ Subject: Peter & Jude / Date: 8/24/99
.
2Peter and Jude have many similarities. Some say that 2Peter used Jude as a source.
Others that Jude used 2Peter as his source.
Still others claim that neither used the other, but that they both stem from so-called 'common traditions'.
.
What's your view on these confusing matters? -- Tondaar
/ Subject > Re: 2nd Peter and Jude / Forum: TheologyOnLine BibleStudies /
.
> On 8/25/99 Fisherman replied to the cyber-prophet's queries: Tondaar, <snip a bit>
> What "some say" or "others say" doesn't confuse me in the least.
> I simply let it go in one ear and out the other, and keep focused on reality.
.
On 28Aug99 tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, that's probably a wise policy, given the many anti-christ cyber-trolls who thrive on creating unnecessary confusion where none need exist ... However, it IS important to know what people are thinking (if only to better answer them); and that won't happen if we let it go in one ear and out the other. In the same way, "reality" is largely a social construction (ie. a shared 'reality'); which means that the more people you exclude from your reality diminishes the adequacy of the reality you favor.
.
> You imply that Clement wrote the Epistle of James ...
.
No, actually I never implied any such thing. I am saying straight out that the second century Egyptian-Christian prophet called Jacob wrote both the Epistle of James and the long epistle erroneously attributed to Clement of Rome, and wrongly named 'The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians'.
.
> are you implying that 2nd Peter and Jude had the same author?
.
No, I am implying no such thing. It is quite obvious that two different people wrote these epistles. It is also obvious that both epistles are closely related, such that they undoubtedly came from the same geographical area, and from the same background of Christian traditions. My questions are offered to the end of getting people to think about the importance of this literary relationship and the implications of same ...
.
> I believe that Jude was written prior to 2 Peter by at least 15 years.
.
I tend to agree ... But a more important question might be: When?
.
> Both were probably written to the same people, i.e. the "Dispersion," so the similarity of the teaching
> of 2nd Peter to the teaching in Jude isn't all that bothersome.
.
I don't follow you. Are you suggesting that because the intended audience is the same, that this accounts for their similarities? Just how exactly does that work? ... And are you further suggesting by this that the author of 2Peter (whom I presume you take to be the apostle Simon-Peter) didn't know of Jude, and therefore didn't use it?
.
> I don't believe that either one uses the other as a source, but the Holy Spirit is the "source" of both.
> -- In His Service
.
And why is it such a terrible sin if one of our authors used the other as a source? Would this somehow diminish the authority or value of that epistle? Would it make that epistle any less the Word of God? Would uncovering the truth about how these epistles came to be reflect badly on the Sacred Scriptures? Or only on the piously foolish schemes devised by those who fancy that their particular interpretations and understandings of the Book are just as
'infallible and authoritative' as the Holy Text itself? -- Tondaar
/ Subject > Re: 2nd Peter & Jude / Forum: TheologyOnLineBibleStudy / 30Aug99 /
.
> On 8/28/99 Fisherman replied: Tondaar, <snipsome> This reality that I'm talking about has nothing to
> do with a social construction.
.
tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, that's funny, I always thought of the Kingdom of God as that spiritual reality which all True Believers share and inhabit, and to which each individual contributes something.
.
> And it doesn't take long to distinguish between those that are, and those that are "not" focused on this
> reality, and exclude their sayings. Doing so, in no way diminishes the adequacy of this reality.
.
If you say so, Fisherman. I won't try and talk you out of it; but the universe I dwell in is much larger than that ...
.
> No, I am not suggesting that Peter didn't know of Jude,
.
Let me see if I've got this straight: Peter (who you wrongly assume wrote 1&2Peter) certainly knew of the Epistle of Jude, but he just didn't make use of it when he wrote 2Peter (even though 2Peter offers an abundance of evidence suggesting that he did). ... Is that right?
.
> he knew of the "epistles of Paul" (3:15-16) ... does this suggest that he used these also?
.
Only in a very general sense (ie. 2Peter's relationship to Jude is *very* much closer, such that the two should always be read and studied together). What pseudo-Peter's references to the epistles of Paul does demonstrate, is that in the early second century the pauline letters were not only very well know by all the churches, but also that some elements within the churches were distorting Paul's teachings so as to use them to support their various heresies and iniquities.
.
> And, I didn't say that it was a "terrible sin" if one author used the other,
.
Then why do you so strongly reject that possibility?
.
> all New Testament writers quote other scriptures.
.
This is not a matter of quoting, it's a matter of one author building upon and completing the work of the other.
.
> I simply stated, "I don't believe that either one used the other as a source."
.
Why not?
.
> This isn't to say that Peter didn't know of Jude.
.
If you admit that pseudo-Peter knew Jude, then you must logically admit the possibility that he used it also. If you dismiss this possibility in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, then I assume that there must be a compelling reason why . . . Why do persist in holding out on us, Fisherman?
.
> It seems that the authorships of the books of the New Testament have been accepted
> since the very beginning.
.
Nonsense. There was considerable debate within the early churches about the source of many of the early Christian documents. 4X: one of the reasons that the book of Revelation had such a hard time being accepted by the churches in general was the confusion over whether or not the author was an apostle. In the same way, the epistles of James and Jude were only admitted into the canon because people *wrongly* attributed authorship of them to the brothers of the Lord. In all three of these cases it is a good thing that the bishops over-emphasized the literal reading of the texts (else they might have been excluded from the canon; which would have diminished us all)!
.
> Not until the 19th century when the so-called "rationalist critics"
.
Rationalist critics can be found in the 18th and 17th centuries also.
.
> tried to discredit the Word of God were these authorships called into question.
.
Their motives were sometimes dubious, to be sure, but they were nevertheless right to raise such questions about the texts.
.
> It seems that at the third council of Carthage (397 A.D.) when the 27 documents of the New Testament
> were officially confirmed as the New Testament canon, there was no doubt concerning their authorships.
> -- In His Service
.
There *was* some doubt even then regarding some of the sacred books; even among the bishops in attendance. But this did not prevent the bishops from creating the canon. And rightly so. The fact is that their simplistic literal readings of the texts served the cause of the churches in that the canon was a necessary development for the
churches (which were already suffering from corruption). But the rightness of their achievement in no way demonstrates that their faulty reasonings were correct and of eternal validity! -- Tondaar
/ Re: The Bible-What is figurative and what is literal? /
/ Christwatch Forums: Ask your general Biblical Questions here / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 1Dec99 Hopetocome wrote: Hello, Many people spiritualize certain parts of Scripture.
.
On 22Dec99 textman say: Dear Hopetocome, Hi. The one holy book that suffers most from this aggressive spiritualization of scripture is the Song of Songs (which is basically a celebration of sexuality).
.
> They say the passages aren't meant to be taken literally but are just symbols to explain a point.
.
Under this sort of rationalization the Song is taken as "really" referring to another kind of love altogether (eg. the love of Christ for his church, the love of the believer for God, the love of the saints for Jesus, etc).
.
> While that is true of some things, its by no means true with all things.
.
I agree completely. An unrelentingly allegorical reading of scripture is just as ill advised and wrong-headed as an unrelentingly literal reading of scripture. Both methods are necessary to the bible student, but they must be used carefully (according to the specific nature of this or that particular text). Thus the Song of Songs can be read
profitably both literally and allegorically, but they uncover very different kinds of truths; and these are not always in harmony.
.
> I would like to take some of the passages that are being talked about and talk about them some more.
.
Which ones did you have in mind?
.
> If anyone else would like to discuss it would you post something that interests you in this area.
> The Book of Revelation is one that people discuss.
.
Yes. Sadly, the number of people who discuss the book of the prophet of Patmos vastly dwarfs the number of people who actually understand that mysterious symbol-laden book.
.
> The book of Daniel is another.
.
Same problem here. People seem to love to talk about things they understand not at all.
.
> There are plenty to pick from.
.
How about the parables?
.
> Once we have a passage to start with we will pick it apart and when we are done with that if
> anyone else is interested, another could be chosen.
.
How about this then: "Yet these very Ones are the hidden reefs in your love-feasts, feasting together with you without fear (and always mindful unto themselves). They are waterless clouds carried about by the winds; and late-autumn trees without fruit, having been uprooted, and having died twice. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shameful actions; and like wandering stars for whom the Blackness of the Darkness has been kept unto the Age." - Jude 1:12-13
.
So then, Hope, how shall we best understand what the prophet Judas is here trying to tell us about the Ones of Old. A literal reading would seem to suggest that these "hidden reefs" look like "waterless clouds" and "late-autumn trees" and "wild waves of the sea". But surely people don't really appear to be any of those things, so a literal reading seems not to get us very far toward where the prophet is taking us. So tell us. Hope: What does the prophet mean by calling these people 'clouds' and 'trees' and 'waves'?
.
> Is anyone interested in talking about these things? In His Love, Hope
.
Yes, Hope, I am always interested to talk about the sacred scriptures.
.
- the one who never leaves well enough alone - textman ;>
/ Re: The Bible-What is figurative and what is literal? /
/ Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 26Dec99 / Christwatch Forums: Ask your general Biblical Questions here /
.
> On 23Dec99 Hopetocome wrote: Hello, Thanks for replying Textman. <snipsome> Most understand word
> pictures very well. I use them often. Its always a touching of the natural to explain something spiritual. Or
> touching one natural thing to explain something else in a new way. Its focus is always to bring clarity. Yet I
> never use examples of things that aren't true to what is being discussed. Thats all for now, In His Love, Hope.
.
textman say: Dear Hopetocome, many thanks for the explanation . . . If explanation it truly be. You say that 'word pictures' are to the end of bringing clarity, and I can't say that I disagree much on that, but I don't really think that your article achieved much in the way of clarifying the meaning of the prophet's use of trees, clouds and waves to describe a certain group of people who look like Christians, claim to be Christians, and otherwise behave like Christians (to some extent).
.
The first point to clarify, then, is that Judas does not mean for us to understand his 'word pictures' literally, but rather figuratively. Thus the Ones of Old are not literally trees, clouds, and waves, but rather are similar to these things as regards their basic characteristics. Thus these homosexual invaders posing as believers are like waterless clouds in that they share the quality of appearing to be something good while utterly lacking the promise of life-giving rain. In the same way, they are like trees without fruit in that their pretense of faith does not result in anything that is pleasing unto God. Thus the prophet Judas uses these figurative images to describe the main attributes of these faithless pretenders who corrupt the Faith in favor of their own perversity, such that they may serve the Evil One while at the same time *seeming* to be good and pious believers.
.
The whole purpose of the universal epistles of Jude and 2Peter is thus to warn us of the danger to the churches that these Ones of Old represent. In the second century that warning was taken seriously, and so the threat of the Gnostic heretics was defeated by the prophets emphasis on traditional values and the true Christian gnosis of the
Christian prophetic tradition (which began with John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth). But today Christians have forgotten how to read the scriptures with understanding, and so the warning of the prophet Judas is submerged beneath the ludicrous idea that Jude is simply talking about 'false teachers' in general; as if the prophet had no idea as to who he is talking about. Pick up any commentary on Jude, and you will see this deliberate attempt to convince the reader that Judas is most certainly NOT talking about homosexuals; oh no, perish the thought!
.
But in any case, we can see from the prophet's language that a literal reading of scripture is woefully inadequate to a mature and complete understanding of the sacred texts. And yet Fundies continue to insist that only an unrelentingly literal reading of the texts can uncover the meanings intended by God. If we close our eyes to the variety and complexity of the scriptures, then it is no wonder that today there are no longer any Christians left who are able to read the Bible with an eye to its original intended meanings, but rather all read it with a biased attitude; taking from the scriptures whatsoever they wish to put there, and simply ignoring all that displeases them. The Cats do this to perfection; conforming the scriptures to their vile priestly vision of all things. The homo's likewise read the scriptures with an eye to what will best serve their own interests; and turning a blind eye to Jude and 2Peter. And the Fundies also abuse the Word by making the scriptures into something that they were never intended to be.
.
All of these believers corrupt and distort the truth by forcing the Word of God to say things that simply are not there. It is a problem that goes way beyond simply identifying what is figurative and what is literal within the sacred texts. It is a problem of respect and attitude. Cats, homo's, and Fundies are all alike in that none of these has the slightest respect for the Word of God as it actually is, OR for what the prophets and saints are really and truly saying to us! Thus they cannot see the truth because they do not want to see it . . . As our good Lord says: There are none so blind as those who will not see.
