/ Re: On The Sign Of Jonah / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 8Oct99 /
> On 7Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Did I hurt your feelings?
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, you sure did! Us cyber-prophet types are *very* sensitive, you know ...
.
> Let me see now ... how do you try and falsify God's Word? For starters you call some of it "a work of fiction!"
.
That's true enough. I regard the book of Jonah and Lk-Acts as being of the genre called 'historical fiction'. Now this is not to say that these books are worthless or lacking in truth. Far from it. This recognition of their literary qualities simply means that they do not have the same compelling *historical* value as the other books. In other words, *for the historian* these books say more about the author's generation than they do about the distant past. Thus if we
wish to know and understand Paul, we are much better off restricting our attention to his authentic epistles, than by importing Lukan materials (ie. from Acts of Apostles) as if there were no distinctions to be made between Paul's own testimony and those of a writer two generations later who never even met the Apostle to the Gentiles!
.
> It's not that you don't "agree with Fisherman" (that could not matter less), it's that you don't agree with
> Matthew, Peter, Jonah, Christ etc. etc. ...
.
Where does the author of Jonah claim that he's writing a scientific account of actual historical events? ... Wut? Can't you tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction?
.
> You call Matthew "a great scribal editor,"
.
Yes, because that is exactly what he was! Ask any bible scholar ...
.
> then go on to utter the *foolishness* that "he (along with most, in his day) was wrong in reading Jonah literally."
.
There's nothing foolish in this claim. Almost everyone in those days were utterly lacking for a sober and sensible (ie. scientifically and historically sophisticated) world-view. There were notable exceptions, of course; such as the greatest historian of antiquity: the Greek general named Thucydides; who wrote the 'History of the Peloponnesian
War' (which remains an outstanding example of sober and clear-headed historical literature -> *Very Highly Recommended Reading!*).
.
> When you are faced with a plain statment from the Word of God that upsets your position,
.
Nothing you have said or quoted in any way "upsets" my position.
.
> you simply say: "yeah, but that doesn't mean what it says, it was not meant to be taken literally." or you
> say: "yeah, but that wasn't spoken by the person that the Bible says that it was spoken by." As in 2Peter ...
> when Peter plainly says that he "was with the Lord on the mount of transfiguration, as an eyewitness," you
> say: but, that is not true, because Peter did not write that book ... that some "unknown 2nd century prophet"
> wrote it in Peter's name.
.
I fail to see why this concept is so terribly difficult for you to grasp. Apparently, you simply do not understand the way things were for Christian writers in the early Greek churches. You think that if some writer today writes as someone else then he is committing fraud, that this means the same applies to writers 2000 years ago. Not so! It was common practice for students and disciples to write in the name of their great hero or teacher. It was their way of honoring him. It was also a good way of providing authority for their works. The NT is full of things like this (4X: including the post-pauline epistles Ephesians, Colossians, 1Timothy, etc). What you also fail to understand is that
it is really NOT that difficult to discover that the author who wrote *this* letter is not the same author who wrote *that* letter. All the evidence is there in the texts. You just have to know how to evaluate it, and what it means.
.
> When Christ tells the "scribes and Pharisees," that the only sign that they will get is "the sign of the prophet
> Jonas; For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three
> days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:39-40). You say: "Christ really didn't say that, but
> the 'great scribal editor' Matthew, put those words in Christ's mouth."
.
My Dear Fisherman, how can you possibly understand what I am saying when you do not even bother to pay attention to what I actually say? What I said was that v.39 *IS* an authentic Jesus-saying, and that v.40-41 are Matthew's interpretation of that saying. This is not a difficult concept. Even the apostate Catholic church recognizes that there are distinct levels of traditions within the gospel accounts. If even those dummies can see the obvious, why can't you?
.
> Tondaar, may I ask you: just what *sign* does a poor uneducated common reader, such as myself, look out
> for when reading the Bible, to be sure that the part of the text I'm reading is really God's Word or *fiction*?
.
No problemo, big guy. Every passage in the Bible is *really* God's Word; even Jonah and Lk-Acts. ... One way to not be a foolish Reader is to be willing to listen to those who are able to speak with learning about the mysteries and hidden treasures within the sacred text. Read the commentaries! But also be well aware that not all bible scholars
are created equal. Some are worth listening to; others are not. Be critical in your reading of the commentaries (ie. don't believe everything they say), and you will be surprised at just how fascinating and enlightening they can be. The biblical secondary literature is an immense resource for the serious bible student; and to ignore it all is a sure sign of ignorance and vanity!
.
> I always did put my trust in 2nd Timothy 3:16. -- In His Service
.
Great verse alright. But let's not ever overlook verse 17: "so that one who belongs to God MAY BE COMPETENT, equipped for every good work."
.
> P.S. As far as insulting you, I would be hard pressed to find as many *insults* to hurl, as you do in each
> and every post you make ... it was not my intention to insult you ... but sometimes the *truth* does that.
.
Apology accepted. ... There, you see? Even rational and irrational Christians can enjoy a productive and interesting dialogue when both sides make some small effort to be civil and semi-respectful. You have restored my faith in you, Fisherman. Perhaps you Fundies are not so hopeless after all ... :)
/ Re: How To Study The Word / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 11Oct99 /
.
> On 9Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, I'm so relieved that you have accepted my heart felt apology
> for hurting your tender feelings!
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, how could I refuse such a sweetheart? :)
.
> I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your most illogical and impossible assertion that Jonah, Luke and Acts
> are books of "historical fiction."
.
That is most unfortunate for you, sir; as a clear recognition of the true nature of the texts (ie. the type or genre of the literature) is the first step in reading them with knowledge and understanding. To treat all the books in the same way, as if there were no distinctions to be made among them, is a very silly and childish attitude. To approach the Bible in this ignorant manner means that one must ignore or deny the reality of conflicting accounts; such as abound between Paul's perceptions of events, and those of Luke (who very deliberately smoothes over the rough spots, and makes it seem as if Peter and Paul were bosom buddies, rather than the bitter antagonists that they actually were) ... And then you have the nerve to call me 'illogical'? What kind of twisted "logic" are you using?
.
> It is difficult to understand the position of someone who asserts and believes that parts of God's Word
> are myths and forgeries, while at the same time continuing to lecture about its authenticity.
.
Do you read the mythology of Genesis as a historical (ie. accurate and scientific) account of how the world and all its creatures were made? How then do you explain the dinosaurs and the fact that this planet is obviously more than 6000 years old? Is it not painfully apparent that woman was NOT created out of the rib of Adam? Clearly the truths of the Genesis accounts are NOT historical in nature, but rather symbolic and spiritual!
.
In the same way, I have never asserted that parts of God's Word are forgeries. That is *your* assumption cum conclusion based on an inability to understand the needs and thinking of the later NT authors. 2Peter is NOT a forgery! It is an authentic and inspired epistle written by a prophet who just happens not to be Simon-Peter. Why you should foolishly fancy that this means that 2Peter is worthless is quite beyond me. You seem to think that the biblical authors (including the Holy Spirit) are all fundamentalists whose thinking on *all* matters is (without exception) just *exactly* like yours! ... What colossal vanity! What monumental arrogance!
... And you wonder why so many people despise the Faith? You Fundies make it easy for them!
.
> You continue to assert that, even though the Bible is partly *fiction* it is also the "inspired word of God."
> Such a position *is* both illogical and impossible.
.
No it ain't! It is both logical and possible to accept the Word of God for what it really and truly is ... But *only* if one is first willing to rid oneself of all false and simplistic theological preconceptions. Empty your mind of all such childish assumptions, and open your heart so as to listen to the Word, and the Truth shall surely shine upon thee!
.
> If I had a dollar bill in my wallet that I knew was a forgery, I would take no further interest in it, beyond
> feeling sorry for the loss that I would have sustained.
.
This is not relevant to bible study.
.
> For any person to accept such a *foolish* position, is, to reject the claims of the Scriptures as being the
> Word of God ... for they cannot be the "Word of God" and at the same time be "works of fiction."
.
The book of Jonah is a work of fiction AND the Word of God at one and the same time; therefore it is *your* rejection of the truth of things that is foolish.
.
> I have accepted the claim that the Scriptures are indeed the inspired Word of the living God ... and simply
> refute your utterly *foolish* claims that any of them are "fiction." I cannot prove or establish that claim to you
> ... because you have taken the position that it doesn't matter what the Word claims ... its *fiction* anyway!
.
Where in the bible does it state that God is incapable of presenting his revelation in this or that literary form? Is not the Lord great and wise and powerful enough to reveal his truth in any and all manner and type of literature? Why then should you exclude one of the most potent and powerful means of addressing humankind? ... Yes, if *you* were writing the scriptures you would certainly not include anything even remotely resembling fiction. Fortunately, you are NOT God!
.
> The Bible is its own best proof of its inspiration.
.
This is the wisest thing you've said all month!
.
> It is a *Revelation" in writing and has been given to us in separate "Books". The separate books, therefore,
> in which it is given must have the same importance and authority as the revelation as a whole.
.
I'm sorry; you lost me there. Are you saying that the distinctive qualities and attributes of the various books are meaningless in light of the fact that they are bound together between the covers of a single book?
.
> If we accept the Bible as a revelation from God, and receive it as inspired by God, we *cannot* separate
> the different books of which that inspired revelation is made up, or call some of them "works of fiction."
.
Oh, I see. Because most of the biblical books are not fiction, this means that it's categorically impossible for *any* of them to be unique and distinctive. Is that the point of your argument? Where in the bible does it state that revelation simply cannot be given under the forms of fiction and apocalyptic literature (which is fiction's twin brother)? ... If the Bible makes no such claims, then who are you to bind and gag the eternal Spirit of Truth (ie. in order to force Her to conform to your inept logic)?
.
> It is difficult to explain the phenomena connnected with Inspiration
.
Are you now admitting that Inspiration is a complex reality? If so, is it not logical to conclude that the scriptures are equally complex? Why then must you simplify everything to the point of absurdity?
.
> ... and the only Divine explanation is in Acts 3:18, where we read: "Those things which God before had
> showed by the mouth of all his prophets ... he hath so fulfilled."
.
This is a clear reference to the opening of the book of Hebrews. This means two things: (1) the author of Lk-Acts knew and read the book of Hebrews. (2) Lk-Acts was written *after* the book of Hebrews had become well known among the early Greek churches. ... Do you know enough about canonical history to appreciate the implications of these facts?
.
> The particular "things" referred to here are "that Christ should suffer;" but the asserton is comprehensive
> and includes all other things "showed" by God.
.
Right. So then are you willing to now listen to the prophetic word?
Or will you continue to resist the workings of the Spirit of Truth?
.
> It was God who, before, had showed them. And it was the same God who had fulfilled them. The "mouth"
> was the mouth of "ALL HIS PROPHETS," but they were not the prophets' words. They were the words of God.
.
Are you here arguing that the effective mode of all inspiration is by way of 'literal dictation'? That the prophets are nothing more than glorified secretaries? ... That is not what "showed by the mouth of all his prophets" suggests to me. You are reading into the words more than a literal reading can justify. This is not exegesis; this is eisegesis (ie. you are *wrongfully* placing your assumptions and preconceptions into the text; where they don't belong). If you
read the scriptures *literally*, as you constantly claim, then clearly what Luke means is precisely what he says -> no more, no less!
.
btw: Your understanding of who and what the prophets were and are (as indicated and implied by your statements above) is entirely and absolutely inadequate to the fullness of the reality of revelation. Not only do you demean, despise, and belittle the prophets themselves; but in doing so, you *also* demean, despise, and belittle the source
of their inspiration! Shame on you!
.
> Hence, concerning other words, it is written: "This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy
> Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas" (Acts 1:16). David could not have known
> anything about Judas.
.
Right. So then it is Luke's interpretation that must be carefully examined as to adequacy and appropriateness.
.
> His "mouth" spoke concerning Ahithophel; but they were the words "which the Holy Spirit
> spake concerning Judas."
.
It's more like they were the words that (centuries later) were read by the author of Lk-Acts with Judas in mind. He's the one who made *that* connection. The Holy Spirit certainly was not speaking (in David's day) about a man who would not even exist for another thousand years. ... Gee Fisherman, are you a closet Calvinist now, or what?
.
> David was "a prophet"; and, being a prophet, he "spake as he was moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).
.
Right. But he did NOT 'spake as he was moved by the second century author of Lk-Acts'! There is an important distinction to be made here. You cannot have it both ways. Either the OT text means what it says, or it means what Luke says it means. To say that it means both is to abandon the literal reading that you claim to follow at all times
and in every way. ... Is this how it is with you, Fisherman? Do you abandon your literal reading every time it becomes convenient for you to do so? Your inconsistency in the face of your claims to the contrary is revolting!
.
> Hence, in Psalm 16, he spoke concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:30-31).
> In the same way he "spake before concerning Judas."
.
Same problem as before. You can't have it both ways ...
.
> You see Tondaar, I get these things from 2 Peter (which you cast doubt on by your assertion that this book *lies*)
.
I do NOT assert that 2Peter lies! That nonsense comes straight out of your silly misunderstanding, and nowhere else.
.
> and Acts ... which you assert is *fiction*.
.
Whose the liar? As I recall, I said that Lk-Acts was 'historical- fiction'. In no way is this the equivalent of saying that Lk-Acts is a pack of lies. That is a leap of illogic that I want no part of, thank you very much indeed.
.
> In this *foolishness*, you are simply *wrong* and you know it ... and most people know it ...
> and God knows it. -- In His Service
.
Since the Lord has graciously called me to be his cyber-prophet unto His twenty-first century People of God, I would have to say that it is fundamentalism that is wrong. It is wrong because it is both simplistic and childish, foolish and disrespectful, illogical and irrational. And you know what? Most people (both Christians and pagans) know it! Check it out, dude ...
P.S. "Brothers and Sisters, do not be as children in your thinking! Yes, be like babes in doing evil; but in your thinking, be mature" (First Corinthians 14:20 / Prophet Version).
ON THE PERNICIOUS CHARGE OF PLAGIARISM
>> On 4Oct99 Timothy2;15 wrote: Tondaar, I have huge volumes of bible interpreters that you seem
>> to mirror. <snipsome> Please quit plagerizing the wasteful works of those who never really trusted
>> God and begin to study the message of his word.
.
> On 10Oct99 T.Matthew wrote: This thread does prove what scripture proclaims that knowledge "puffeth up".
> I can look up this stuff in the endless commentaries available. Though I am certainly glad that we have been
> given the gift of the teacher by Christ himself, I believe that the arguments posted here obviously lack
> Galatians 5 fruit. I am inclined to agree with Timothy's posting. <sniprest>
.
Tondaar say: Dear Cyber-Saints, since these two silly fundies have taken it upon themselves to discredit my ministry not by way of an intelligent and considered rebuttal of my exegesis of 2Peter, but rather by way of a direct attack upon my person (thereby showing themselves to be swine of the lowest order), I am left no choice but to defend myself against their vile and pernicious accusations.
.
Now Matthew claims that he "can look up this stuff in the endless commentaries available." Let us therefore see if this self-proclaimed prophet is correct about this matter. In order to test his statements I have thought it best to examine four popular commentaries (on the much neglected and ill-understood Second Epistle of Peter), representing the full range of available views and opinions, in order to compare them with my own thinking regarding 2Peter:
.
(1) Our conservative evangelical source tells us about 2Peter that it was certainly written by Simon-Peter the apostle; (all the evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed as "inconsequential" and/or "inconclusive"). That it was written in Rome; although "no hint of the place of composition is given in the epistle" (D.E.Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament: Volume Three, The Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation, p.153). That it was written "in the early part of the year A.D. 65" (p.152). And also that 2Peter was written prior to Jude. Needless to say, none of these idiotic assertions (masquerading as considered conclusions) bears any resemblance whatsoever to our understanding of 2Peter.
.
(2) Our Catholic source recognizes that the apostle Peter was not the author, but apparently has no clue as to who the author was. As to the when of 2Peter, "the most likely date for its writing would be about AD 100" (J.H.Neyrey, The Second Epistle of Peter, New Jerome Biblical Commentary). As to the relation with Jude: "It would appear that 2
Peter edited a general document (Jude) to fit a specific situation." As to the intended readers: "It was written to a church of both Jewish Christians and Greek converts." Here again none of these opinions accurately reflects our own.
.
(3) About the author of 2Peter, our scholarly source claims that "it is reasonable to suppose that a follower of Peter composed the writing in the name of this great man" (Bo Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude, AB#37, p.143). The date favored by Bo is "about A.D. 90" (p.144). As to the place of composition, Reicke makes the following
laughable assertion: "The actual place of origin does not greatly matter, but since the author wrote in the name of Peter, he must have desired his readers to associate the letter with Rome. And in this way he could easily capitalize on the authority of the Roman church" (p.145). As to the intended recipients: "But failure to designate a specific audience rather indicates that the second epistle is intended for the church in general" (p.145-6).
.
Here I agree only with the remarks relating to the recipients. One other interesting feature about this commentary is Reicke's clear recognition of the literary form of 2Peter: "All this justifies the designation of Second Peter as a 'testament', rather than as an epistle" (p.146). These two details aside, I take serious exception to the views expressed in this otherwise authoritative commentary.
.
(4) Our popular commentary (The Daily Study Bible) also recognizes that Peter is not the author: "But the difference between the two letters [ie. 1 and 2 Peter] in atmosphere and attitude is so wide that it is hardly possible that the same person should have written both" (William Barclay, The Letters of James and Peter, p.287). As to the date, Barclay rightly recognizes that "It is practically impossible that anyone should write like this until midway through the second century A.D." (p.288). Even more surprising is the following statement: "The great interest of Second Peter lies in the very fact that it was the last book in the New Testament to be written and the last to gain entry into the New Testament" (p.288). Now here I quite agree with the commentator's observations on all these matters; and indeed I am most impressed with Barclay's cogent and insightful analysis of the epistle in general.
.
However, even here there is no substantial recognition that our author is an Egyptian-Christian prophet standing in a well-established prophetic tradition that runs back through Jude, James, the Gospel of John, and Hebrews. Thus while there are some important points of convergence, my general vision of 2Peter is very distinct from that of Barclay's, and this naturally results in quite different readings of the epistle as a whole.
.
Now these four commentaries well represent the full spectrum of current scholarly thinking regarding the NT book called Second Peter. I daresay that one would be hard pressed to find any commentary that expresses views and opinions not already contained within the range of positions as set forth above. In light of all this, it is apparent
that the cyber-prophet's vision of 2Peter (its meaning, origin, setting, etc) is nowhere to be found among the scribes and scholars and recognized authorities whom the world looks to as experts on the general epistles. Yes, the cyber-prophet learns much from the exegetes and commentators (even the bad ones), but his vision of the scriptures in no way depends upon them. Therefore it is very apparent that Matthew (and Timothy) knows not whereof he speaks when he claims that "I can look up this stuff in the endless commentaries available." Indeed it is plain to see that Matthew is simply 'talking through his hat', and really has no business forwarding these ludicrous
and prejudicial accusations.
.
- the almost annoyed one - Tondaar ;>
.
P.S. "Give me your hungry, your tired, your poor; I'll piss on them!" That's what the Statue of Bigotry says. Your poor huddled masses; let's club them to death, and get it over with. And just dump them on the boulevard. Get em out! On the dirty boulevard. -- Lou Reed, 'Dirty Blvd.'
/ Re: On The Pernicious Charge Of Plagiarism / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / 16Oct99 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 15Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Who are these people (D.E Hiebert, J.R. Neyrey, Bo Reicke and the
> commentator in the daily study Bible) that they take it upon themselves (along with Tondaar) to contridict
> the Holy Spirit?
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, well, sir, they are all bible scholars (of some measure of renown) who make it their business to study the scriptures. They are all professionals whose career is directed to this end. In other words, they are scribes, sages, and wise men who are recognized experts upon the scriptures, and therefore know (presumably) whereof they speak. ... I find it curious that you should refer to Hiebert as one who contradicts the Holy Spirit, since his views bear an uncanny resemblance to your own. Therefore one can easily assume that if he contradicts the Holy Spirit, then so do you!
.
> The second Epistle by Peter was written to the same readers as was the first Epistle (3:1).
> That's what the Holy Spirit says!
.
I have no objection to this assertion. Since both letters are 'general epistles' [ie. the general epistles stand in contrast to the 'occasional letters' of Paulos written to specific churches and persons, and all come from a later generation] they are by definition written to the same readers; which is to say, to Christians in general.
.
> Peter's second Epistle was written between 61 and 65 A.D. which was within a comparatively short period
> after his first Epistle.
.
Where is your evidence for this outrageous claim, please? Surely you have some, to make such accurate and definitive statements. And please also explain how it is that the same one man could write two such completely different letters. Was Peter a split personality perhaps? Was he able to foresee events that would overtake the church a century later, and write to their situation (since no such problems existed in the churches of the sixties)? ... No doubt your answer to these queries will be your usual lame response; namely, just ignore them!
.
> There may be a slight difference between the tone of the two, but this difference has been exaggerated by
> people such as you, who deny that Peter was the the author of both. A comparison of the language used
> shows close resemblance between the two epistles.
.
The differences are NOT minor or insignificant or "slight" in any way, shape, or form! Rather, the differences are both profound and fundamental, and exist even on the most basic level of diction (where one could not rationally suppose that extreme divergences could occur; especially if, as you claim, the letters were written just a few months apart). Thus we find 369 words in 1Peter that are absent from 2Peter, and 230 words in 2Peter that are not found in 1Peter. Add to this the differences in style, tone, thinking, demeanor, theology, etc, and it becomes *impossible* to assert that the same man wrote both. Impossible, that is, unless one is willing - as you clearly are - to deny, ignore,
and/or dismiss the facts and the implications of those facts!
.
> It can be clearly see (if you would open your eyes) that the apostle continues the practical teaching of
> the first epistle, exorts, and warns, illustrating again from the Old Testament history, while fortelling the
> condition of "the last days", "the day of judgment", and "the day of the Lord."
.
What is clear to my eyes is that the silly claim that Peter wrote both epistles is based solely and entirely and completely and absolutely upon nothing more substantial than the pious *wish* that it were so!!!
.
> Because there is a similarity to the teaching in Jude
.
The correspondence and convergence between 2Peter and Jude go *way* beyond mere "similarity". If you would bother yourself to impartially compare both epistles, this fact would very quickly impress itself upon any *sensible* and *rational* reader ...
.
> does not mean that Peter used Jude as a "source"
.
Oh no, of course not. They just happened to "magically" think the same thoughts in the same ways using the same words in the same order. Sheer coincidence, of course! ... What a fine exegete you are, Fisherman. How could anyone possibly doubt anything you may say?!
.
> ... that's a bunch of plain old "bunk".
.
Oh good grief!
.
> The Holy Spirit was the "source" of both, and the "similarities" found in them only proves this point.
.
Riiiight. That's because the only real author of both epistles is the same one Holy Spirit. Right? Well then, that would certainly explain the astonishing similarities between Jude and 2Peter, but it also raises a couple of other problems. Namely, how does this explain the differences between 1&2Peter? ... Oh that's right; there *are* no differences (how silly of me to forget)! Another problem though, is that since the Holy Spirit presumably authored all three of these letters, then it hardly matters who the human "writers" were, since they are really nothing more than glorified secretaries. Why then must you foolishly insist that Peter "wrote" both epistles attributed to him, when you know darn well that each and every word was dictated by the Holy Spirit such that the identity of the scribbler could not
possibly be more irrelevant!!!
.
> The Holy Spirit tells us in 2nd Peter 1:1 who wrote the epistle, "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ."
.
Now you're denying what you just said above; unless "wrote" means simply that he 'wrote' down whatever the Holy Spirit told him to write down. A pretty neat trick for an illiterate man; but hey, that's no problem for Fisherman and his ignorant and irrational ilk, as the Holy Spirit no doubt miraculously provided him with the necessary skills needed to "write" (even though any literate Tom, Dick, or Harry could just as easily have done the job without the need for unnecessary miracles). But then people like Fisherman would not be able to idolize their hero by claiming that Peter "wrote" both 1&2Peter ... when, in fact, he neither "authored" nor "wrote" either of them!
.
> And, by reading this and believing it we are able to "silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1st Peter 2:15).
.
Your self-serving abuse of scripture is noted.
.
> You should try learning the message that the Bible contains
.
And what message would that be, Fisherman? That Fundamentalism is the only true and valid and authentic way to read the scriptures? ... I'm sorry; I don't see that message anywhere in the Word of God.
.
> ... and stop trying so hard to discredit it
.
It is only your silly and childish interpretations that discredit it.
.
> ... you or no other person can discredit the Word of the Living God ... and, you might as well stop trying!
> -- In His Servic.
.
It is your stubborn rejection of all plain and simple facts and realities that discredits the Word of the Living God! It is your disgust and disdain for any and every rational and sensible approach to the scriptures that discredits the Word of the Living God! It is your arrogant refusal to listen to anyone other than Fisherman that discredits the Word of the Living God!
.
Hey, if you want me to leave this forum, just say so, big guy. I'm not one to cast my pearls before swine ... Actually, yes I am; since one can hardly find any forum or newsgroup that is not overflowing with unbelievers, with fools like Timothy2;15 and T.Matthew, and with "puffed up" experts who think that they know all that there is to know about anything and everything that has to do with the Word of God.
P.S. When Ahab saw Elijah, he said to him, "Is it really you, you Troubler of Israel?" And Elijah replied, "I have not troubled Israel. But you and your father’s house have ..." [1Kings 18:17-18]
MORE SWINISH BEHAVIORS
>> On 18Oct99 T. Matthew wrote: Like I said, my points that you quote in your postings are proven
>> simply by your responses.
.
Tondaar say: Dear T.Matthew, if you say so, sir. I mean, there's no need to actually bother your silly head with demonstrating the truth and/or validity of the things you say. After all, you are a "true prophet" aren't you? ... So I guess that's proof enough?
.
>> You also seem ignorant of what prophetic ministry truly is,
.
Really? Well then, why don't you kindly explain it to all of us cyber-saints here (who are apparently so hopelessly
ignorant of such things)?
.
>> thus it is futile to discuss it with you, so I will not even try.
.
Fine. You are certainly free to do so ... But what about everybody else who may happen to look in on this thread (now and forevermore)? Are they also unworthy of even the slightest regard and due consideration on your part?
.
>> I will not cast my pearls.
.
before swine?
.
>> Probably, anything else I would share would be casting pearls,
.
That's wut they all say ... :)
.
>> so I shall no longer even attempt.
.
How about casting your bread upon the waters then?
.
>> "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.
>> Know when to walk away, know when to run." -- Kenny Rogers
.
Good advice for the professional gamblers among us, perhaps?
.
>> And I flee from such.
.
You flee from swine? ... Be that a long, wide yellowish type streak crawling up thy back-side, sir prophet?
.
> On 18Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Do I want you to leave this forum? I am only a guest on this forum
> ... and therefore would have no authority to ask you to leave it ... even if I wanted to!
.
LOL ... Who do you think you're kidding, Fisherman? Do you suppose that I haven't figured out by now who you are? You may fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!
.
> The answer is "no Tondaar", not me, because if you left, I'd have no one to insult me and keep me alert
.
LOL ... Yer a wise man (sometimes), Fisherman; I must admit ... Perhaps that's why I love you so! ... :)
.
> Yes, I think that Peter probably had some influence on Mark.
.
Wutta ya mean "probably"? And wutta ya mean "some"? Both scripture and church tradition bear witness to their undoubted collaboration. It seems to me that such skepticism is out of character in one who claims to speak in the name of the first apostle (that great fisher of men).
.
> Some, such as Papias, assert that Mark was both Peter's disciple and interpreter. And, Mark's close
> association with Peter is corroborated by many details of internal evidence.
.
That is, the Gospel of Mark & Peter itself bears witness to the truth of these claims and contentions.
.
> But, Mark did not use Peter or any other human as a source.
.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm simply asserting that *both* Mark and Peter *together* worked out the shape and substance of the first, and still greatest, gospel. That is, in their collaboration they are both equally the co-authors of Mk; (consider the implications of this fact as regards your claim that the illiterate fisherman *also* wrote both 1&2Peter). The fact that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so does NOT negate the fact that these two men really and truly created this awesome testimony of faith! They are the authors of the first written gospel, Fisherman. The Holy Spirit surely inspired and encouraged them every step of the way; but She did NOT technically (or literally) *author* this, or any other, NT document!
.
> The Gospel was given to Mark, as Luke's Gospel was given to him, and that was: "from above" (Luke 1:3).
.
Yeah, as in 'from above' the entire historical (ie. temporal) story that is here depicted in Lk-Acts (ie. the one story in two parts (ie. the one book in two halves)) ... Think about it ...
.
> All the conjectures about Mark "copying" and "transcribing" human sources, are just that, "conjectures."
.
This is not a question of copying and transcribing. This is a simple question of authorship. One can either say that Mark and Peter authored the gospel; with Mark doing the actual scribbling upon the sheets of papyrus that he scribbled upon. Or that the Holy Spirit authored it through Mark. But one cannot say that all three of them authored it
(contradiction), or at one time that Mark and Peter wrote it, and at another time that the Holy Spirit wrote it (inconsistency). My understanding of your position is that the Holy Spirit solely and directly authored each and every word in the Bible; ie. presumably you mean in the original autographs themselves (if not in all available translations) ... *IF* that is your stance, then defend it; do not keep shifting about from one view to another (as this seriously
damages your credibility).
.
> Are you now claiming that Peter didn't write 1st Peter either?
.
It has always been my view that 1Peter is a late first century writing (c.90CE?); which means that it was written *after* Simon Peter had gained his eternal reward, which means that, yes, he did not write it, but rather someone else wrote it in his name; (as is the case with *many* another of the later NT epistles).
.
> Ah come on Tondaar!
.
The evidence in support of a post-Jewish War date for 1Peter is quite literally overwhelming, Fisherman; to the point where I daresay that even the majority of sensible scribes and scholars would not bother to dispute it ... Check the commentaries for yourself, and see if this is not so ... And never mind that swine D.E.Hiebert!
.
> Even you know better than that!
.
All I know is what the evidence provided by the sacred texts tell me. For you, piety and wishful-thinking combined with an unrelenting literal interpretation constitutes the sum and substance of all the evidence. For me, the evidence largely consists of the facts and realities inherent within the texts themselves (internal evidence), as these are combined with the actual history of the early Greek churches (external evidence). The two must always go together.
One cannot simply divorce the biblical books from their history and original settings, and still expect to *rightly* understand them.
.
> Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc... all acknowledge that Simon Peter wrote 1st Peter.
.
Certainly most of the early church Fathers accepted the author's claim at face value. It was that very acceptance that gave 1Peter the "apostolic" authority that was needed to defend the Faith from those who would distort and corrupt the Lord's lasting legacy. This does not change the fact that the author was not Simon Peter. The mere fact
that 1Peter could not have been written in the sixties (or earlier) is sufficient to discount that idea (regardless of whatever the text may claim to the contrary). Moreover, the author of 1Peter certainly was not illiterate (as Simon Peter was), but, on the contrary, was very fluent and effective in the written Greek language. These are just
some of the textual facts (there are many others) that you must ignore in order to pursue your claim of Petrine authorship.
.
> Let me quote you a "real Bible Scholar" on 2nd Peter (real, because he sees the truth): "There is nothing
> romantic or indisputably anachronistic about Peter's Second Epistle.
.
What about his quote from the Gospel of Matthew? Did your "real Bible Scholar" conveniently forget that indisputable fact?
.
> This is in striking contrast to the apocalyptic 'Gospel of Peter' and the 'Apocalypse of Peter'.
.
So what? The nature and style of these other documents is mostly irrelevant here. It is the facts within 2Peter itself that must be used to determine both date and authorship . . . All other evidence is secondary, at best.
.
> Against the charge of spuriousness is the apostolic tone,
.
"spuriousness" is also irrelevant. As for the "apostolic tone", this is evidence in favor of our second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet as the author; as he deliberately (and rightly) assumes an apostolic tone in keeping with his intention to write in the name of the apostle Simon Peter (ie. in order to give his epistle the authority it needed in order to the combat the Gnostic heretics who are the subject and target of the letter).
.
> the Christian earnestness,
.
The "Christian earnestness" stems from the prophetic nature and character of the author; (who was an unknown second-century Egyptian-Christian prophet)!
.
> the genuineness of the autobiographical allusions
.
This stems from our prophet's love of, and close acquaintance with, the gospel traditions; (ie. specifically Mark, Matthew, and John; all of which writings (along with other early Christian literature) our author gives ample evidence of having known extremely well).
.
> and the absence of the fantastic.
.
It is the nature of the second-century Egyptian-Christian prophets to be eminently sensible believers (see especially the book of James). Thus they stand in stark contrast to the folly and foolishness of the fantastic fundies!
.
> It ought, therefore, to be accepted as a GENUINE WORK OF THE APOSTLE PETER."
.
Since none of your nameless scholar's arguments is worth a pound of heathen sweat, I feel no pressing need to accept his baseless and ill-supported assumption masquerading as a conclusion. ... btw: What is the source of this quote, please? You give a citation, but fail to provide the necessary reference!?! Good grief, man!
.
> Start studying the Word Tondaar ... you'll be OK! -- In His Service
.
I am studying the Word, Fisherman. I dig deep into the text in order to uncover the treasures hidden there lost and forlorn for centuries. They remain lost and hidden because far too many believers are content with a childish and superficial reading of the sacred texts. A reading that is long on pious foolishness, but horribly short on honesty and
reason. The time has come when the Lord is calling His stubborn and ungrateful People to a mature faith that is not afraid to respect the Text for what it is, and for what it really & truly says & means!
.
- the one who brings forth the hidden treasures - textman ;>
.
P.S. And for this very reason apply all diligence to lavishly equip your faith with courageous and effective excellence, your excellence with practical knowledge, your knowledge with self-control and restraint, your self-control with patience and endurance, your endurance with practical religion, your religion with brotherly love, and your brotherly love with divine love. For when these things are abounding within you, they will make you effective and productive in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. -- The Universal Epistle Called Second Peter 1:5-8 / Prophet Version
/ Re: More Swinish Behaviors / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / 24Oct99 / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 23Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, What is the source of your knowledge that peter was
> an "illiterate" fisherman and that the Holy Spirit is a "She?"
.
Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, most people in the first century were illiterate; including poor fishermen types. Thus it is unreasonable to attribute to a poor Galilean ex-fisherman the knowledge and skills of a trained scholar or scribe. Moreover, the traditional view of Mark and Peter's collaboration assumes this fact of the latters illiteracy (ie. Peter did the talking, while Mark did the writing). And even Mark was just barely literate (ie. his command of the Koine Greek was rough and spotty at best); this is why their gospel lacks the smooth flow and polished shine so event in Lk-Acts (which was clearly written by an experienced scholar and historian).
.
As to the Holy Spirit being a 'She'; this is suggested by Her nature (Sophia/Wisdom) and Her function as the Encourager. And also by the necessity of having a feminine principle in the Godhead (ie. And God said 'Let us make them in our image, after our likeness'). ... But, of course, this is just a manner of speaking; since the Holy Spirit, being
spirit, is not technically or literally 'male or female'. I just find it far more sensible to think of Her as a 'Her' rather than as a 'Him' (eg. to distinguish Her more clearly from the Father and Son, etc).
.
> Let's look at your accomplishements so far, in your crusade to "uncover the treasures hidden there
> (in the Scriptures I assume) lost and forlorn for centuries."
.
> 1) Peter was illiterate.
> 2) The Holy Spirit is a "She".
.
See above for explanations.
.
> 3) The books of Luke, Acts and Jonah are all *fiction*.
.
The book of Jonah is a humorous and insightful short-story of the historical-fiction genre. In the same way, the one book Lk-Acts (which is NOT two books) is also more properly historical-fiction than scientific-history (although, of course, it is based in part on the more "historical" earlier gospels and (authentic) pauline epistles; (and therefore contains a wealth of information pertaining to the amazing events of the earliest period of church history).
.
> 4) The story of Genesis is a *Myth*.
.
Of course they are. This is perfectly obvious to anyone who cares enough to make a careful study of such things. I fail to see why this plain and simple fact should be so offensive to you ... ??? ... Oh, that's right, I forgot; all the biblical authors were *fundamentalists* ... [insert much rolling of eyes]
.
> 5) Only Paul is to be considered the actual writer of those letters that bear his name.
.
Huh? Where did that come from?! This is not my view at all! Far from it. Here is my view regarding the pauline (ie. authentic) and post-pauline epistles that bear his name: (1) The four Thessalonian letters (ie. canonical 1&2Thessalonians) were co-authored by both Paulos and Silvanus. Just as Mark and Peter collaborated on the first gospel, so Paulos and Silvanus collaborated on the creation of the Christian epistle; (the process is clearly visible when one sets the four Thessalonian letters side by side in chronological order). (2) The remaining authentic pauline epistles were all authored by Paul (although sometimes he used a secretary to do the actual writing). The precise number of these epistles is difficult to determine, but they are all contained in the following canonical books: Philippians, Philemon, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, & Romans. (3) All of the other so-called pauline epistles were authored by later writers in his name; (just as 1&2Peter were authored by later writers in Peter's name).
.
> 6) The most of the New Testament was written sometime in the 2nd century, by authors unknown to
> anyone but you.
.
That is incorrect. The documents that were later collected as the NT were originally composed over a period of about a century (c.50-150CE). Mark and the authentic pauline epistles were written prior to the Fall of Jerusalem (70CE). The period from there to the end of the century saw the appearance of Matthew, Ephesians, Colossians, Hebrews,
Revelation, 1Peter, and the Johannine literature (1,2,3, and gospel). The final period of composition saw the remainder of the NT books: Luke-Acts, James, 1&2Timothy, Titus, Jude, 2Peter. . . . Did I get all 27 of them? :)
.
> 7) That the Scriptures cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
.
Now you are just being deliberately insulting. Of course the sacred scriptures can be relied upon to tell the truth. Provided that one bears in mind that 'the truth' is spiritual in nature, not scientific and historical. Thus a literal and simplistic reading of the sacred texts is *necessarily* insufficient and erroneous, and fails to do full justice to the complex and varied nature of the texts.
.
> 8) That Peter *did* author one book,
.
Co-authored one book ... The one book that rocked the world!
.
> but that book was scribbled down by Mark because Peter couldn't write.
.
Right. Peter was illiterate, and therefore couldn't write.
.
> 9) The author of 2nd Peter copied Jude.
.
Again you are being deliberately insulting. I have never made any such claim. What Peter2 did with Jude is essentially the same thing that the author of Matthew's Gospel did with the Gospel of Mark and Peter.
.
> 10) Revelation shouldn't be a part of the *Canon* at all.
.
Where did this come from? Obviously you are very confused. I have no objection to Revelation being in the canon. On the contrary, it is an important part of the strong prophetic tradition in the New Testament. What I *do* object to is the abuse that most Readers foist upon it when they attempt to fuse the prophet's visions with their own skull-full-of-mush!
.
> That's ten *great* accomplishments Tondaar ... there are more, I'm sure
.
I'm sure too. And they are all freely available to any and all good cyber-saints who may care to learn about the scriptures from the prophetic perspective (ie. see the Just Plain Miscellaneous category on TOL's main resources and links page).
.
> ... it's just that I can't recall all of them right now
.
That's OK. They are, in any case, far too numerous and complex to fit easily into such a narrow and unimaginative mind! :)
.
> Keep up the *good work* ...
.
As the Lord wills!
.
> It's great to know that we have one, with such great *scholastic* abilities among us!
.
Well, Fisherman, it's painfully obvious to me that you fundies are in dire need of someone to do your sound, sober, and sensible thinking for you. How fortunate for you that the Lord cares enough about his silly and foolish fundies to send the cyber-prophet unto them! If it were up to me, I'd just as soon let you all wallow in your shameless arrogance and self-serving ignorance ...
.
> Tondaar, you should realize that *inaccuracy* is very disastrous in the reading and study of the Word of God.
.
You're telling me?!
.
> The want of *accuracy* causes all artists as well as theologians, to represent "angels" as women.
> But, in the Scriptures they are always men ... Now don't all you beautiful women jump on me for that ...
.
The cyber-prophet would like to take this opportunity to announce that he is always available to beautiful women who have an irresistible urge to jump on someone ... :)
.
> I love women *more* than men, but that's the fact of Scripture.
.
Actually, I'm sure you're right about the 'messengers' always being male. And this is (or rather ought to be) a very sobering fact for all those budding smurf-prophetesses out there!
.
> This same want of accuracy leads those ... such as you ... who set themselves up as "Higher" Critics to
> forget that it is the Word of God which is to be their critic, or judge (Hebrews4:12 & John12:48).
.
Dear Fisherman, the scriptures do not serve me, but rather I serve the scriptures as a humble (well, sortta humble :) slave of the very Voice of our Lord (being also the Word of God). That's what it means to be a cyber-prophet, you know.
P.S. "For there is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light" (Gospel of Mark 4:22 / RSV).
