CYBER-PROPHET ENCOURAGES ATHEIST!

/ Topic >  Re: Enough is enough... / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 5 Jan 2002 /
.
> On 5Jan02 Flipper wrote: This is a long post. Sorry.
.
 textman interjects: No need to apologize, friend Flipper. It isn't really *that* long.
.
> <snip> My other reason for bailing is that I'm finding myself increasingly more exasperated
> and irritated with some of our more fundamentalist Christian buddies, and that's not good.
.
 Not good, no. But perfectly understandable *and* forgivable. :)
.
> <snip> There are those who say that if you don't have anything nice to say, you
> shouldn't say anything. Increasingly, I am running out of constructive things to say.
.
 This is a sign that it may indeed be time for a little re-evaluating.
.
> <snip> It's too easy to affect someone's life for the worse, change in irrevocably in
> some cases, and they, and you, may never have a chance to heal those wounds.
.
 But this is life, Flipper. It is not without good reason that the ancient Greeks said that life was at bottom a tragedy. Hence the significance of Paul's vision of the scriptures as something which generates hope in believers. The Faith, in other words, helps us overcome the world with all its pain, ignorance, and tragedy!
.
> <snip> Bearing in mind the vast weight of evidence to the contrary, I can only
> include those who claim this exclusivist grip on absolute truth are without merit.
.
 The rejection of 'absolute truths' is indeed a logical outgrowth of the current awareness of just how small and ignorant we really are (individually and collectively) in the vast cosmic sweep of space-time, but it is far too easy to just stop here and give up. Many post-modern thinkers have seen all assurances and certainties fall by the wayside one by one until they are left holding only an empty bag. What more can you say once you admit that words cannot accurately describe reality? Having lost your faith, what remains except a solemn and lonely bad-faith?
.
> The absolutes of Christianity are superficial.
.
 It depends on what you mean by that. Most absolute fundy doctrines are surely superficial (and then some). But the abiding human realities that energize and fortify the People of God (like charity, hospitality, hope, love, etc) are "absolutes" in a relative-to-human-beings sort of way.
.
> The more I learn, the less certain I can be on what constitutes an absolute truth or not.
.
 You worry overmuch about this thing you call "absolute truth", I think. This is your own cleverness coming back to smite you, Flipper. Look at me; I'm a working post-modern exegete/historian (and cyber-prophet), and yet I do not waste my time or energy chasing after "absolute truth". Such a preoccupation suggests a strong idealist bent in you. You need to burn the Plato out of yourself, sir! :D
.
> I believe there are certain physical realities, but it now seems clear that these physical
> realities are heavily constrained by a universe that is constantly in a state of flux.
.
 I do not consider the multiverse to be in a condition of random meaningless flux. I see the cosmos as "being-in-process". The significance of this seemingly minor change in perspective is profound in the extreme! The former vision is suitable to an atheist only, while the latter is suitable to any rationalist and/or believer. Now I'm not going to suggest to you that my point of view is "absolutely" better than yours, but it *is* more practical and workable since it leaves plenty of room for many possibilities not allowed for in your far more stringent "world-view" (as the sociologists say).
.
> <snip> Can absolutes be constrained by relative time and spatial frames - if so, can
> they still be absolute truths? How do we describe this as an absolute truth, except in
> the narrowest and simplest terms? Is it a relative or situational truth instead?
.
 And does it really matter anyway? :)
.
> The more I look at apparent absolute truths, the more elusive they become.
.
 Ha! This does NOT surprise me.
.
> What are apparently obvious absolutes seem more and more to be absolute
> only in a frame of reference that is limited to our miserable human perspectives.
.
 Yes, but since this is where we live (most of us, I mean), we have no choice but to make do with what little we've got. Nuff said!
.
> The nexus of human morality seems to be entirely situationalist. The best evidence that
> C.S. Lewis could offer for it was a weak sense that surely we all possess an innate sense
> of right and wrong.
.
 I disagree entirely. Children must be shown what is right and wrong; because if they're not shown they'll just make it up for themselves as they go along.
.
> It seems impossible to assess the claims of any religion that promises its payload in another life.
.
 The Faith does not "pay off" in the afterlife, Flipper. The Faith is not about the perfect paradise in the great hereafter, nor about absolute claims, doctrines and dogmas, laws and customs, festivals and art, rituals and priestcraft, pious out-pourings of emotion, supernaturalism, magical thinking, etc etc *ETC* already! But it *is* about concrete everyday mundane and very boring discipleship, with the possibility (and even actuality) of salvation and redemption. I'd say that's better than just holding onto an empty bag; practically speaking, I mean.
.
> <snip> We have created the rules of logic ourselves.
.
 Logic is a servant, nothing more; although it can be a rather surly beast when you poke him in the belly too often.
.
> <snip> logic is of questionable virtue.
.
 Logic has *always* been of questionable virtue; owing chiefly to the fact that so few people really see any sense in it ... :)
.
> <snip> What then, of the next layers of abstraction where definitions can be increasingly precise?
> What of science, and of its great engine, math? Many scientists (not all, I grant) will tell you that
> science is not about absolute truths.
.
 No indeed. Science is about investigation (which is itself an acknowledgement of ignorance) through method and technique.
.
> There is no absolute truth, no theory that is not open to disproof.
.
 Spoken like a true post-modern dis-believer!
.
> It is in the nature of science to never have complete certainty.
.
 Openness to truth, and honesty, demand it in order to maintain the integrity of knowledge in general.
A fair trade-off, I'd say. We only start getting into trouble when we forget about values and virtues ...
.
> Therefore, it seems to me that science, while it is a vital tool for gaining an understanding
> of the world around us, is no more a vehicle to grasping absolute truth than morality or logic.
.
 I tend to agree.
.
> <snip> Does this mean that nothing is true? ...
> No, incoherence is not the state of the universe either
.
 No indeed; although listening to fundies all the time may provide evidence to the contrary!
.
 ... btw: I see something you don't, Flipper. Allow me to direct your attention to the fossil record of humankind's activities from about four or five million years ago to about 10,000 years ago (ie. the beginnings of civilization). I mean for you to focus your attention and intellect specifically on the surviving tools that witness to the stone-age technology that carried humankind for so long, and well into the Bronze Age and beyond. These artifacts are the texts on which is written the history of the human race before anyone ever thought to write down any idea. If there are any near-absolute truths about human life, there is where you'll find them.
.
> <snip> The best we can do is approximate.
.
 Well then Flipper, let's just do *that* then!
.
> <snip> All I can say for certain is that it seems likely that some things are less true than others
.
 That's a right fine place to start.
.
> (6,000 year old planet, anyone?).
.
 No thx, I just ate.
.
> <snip> I have some doubt that I will ever reach such a resolution, but that's ok.
.
 If it's ok with you, then it's ok with me ... :)
.
> <snip> The relative fits the absolute. As a box and its lid. The absolute meets
> the relative. Like two arrow points that meet in mid air.
.
 Sounds good to me!
.
> So what do I believe? I believe that science is our best hope for the most complete
> understanding because it has been tested again and again, and has shown itself to
> be self-improving and self-correcting.
.
 So has/is the Faith! ... Has science been tested by blood and sword and fire for century after century the way that the faith of the saints has been? I think maybe not. Your failure to recognize this salient fact is doubtless the main source of your troubles.
.
> <snip> There is too much noise. Too many potential influencing factors. Too few infallible referees.
.
 Amen!
.
> And it is precisely because of our insignificance in this world and in the universe that we should
> cling one to one another and do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves.
.
 Hey Flipper, you love Jesus and didn't even know it!
.
> Because life is a strange miracle, and there is nothing but a yawning abyss of time
> either side of our flickering existence, we should honor each other all the more and
> find what comfort we can.
.
 You are already on the road to being a true disciple.
.
> <snip> That's enough - more than enough - words from me for a while now.
> Have fun you wild and crazy guys!
.
 I don't blame you for being disillusioned with the Faith, Flipper. Our honorable cyber-brothers, the fundies, are perhaps not the best Ambassadors of the Faith in this strange and new post-modern world. Personally, I tend to think of them as a kind of mutated relic from the Reformation Age. You know; 'great strength through great ignorance' and all that sort of rot. ... Anyway, good bye Flipper; and good hunting! 

P.S.  "I don't know why you say good bye. I say hello." - beatles

/ Topic >  Re: Enough is enough... / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / Date > 6 Jan 2002 /
.
> On 6Jan02 someone wrote: Textman....... Gosh and golly, what can I say!!! I wish I had your
> abilities to state my beliefs as you do. That was one heck of a post. I really don't see anything
> I could disagree with and there are many of us who think like you do but just cannot express
> ourselves so eloquently and clearly. I once too thought that I had to come to absoluteness
> and I tried to do it the wrong way. You cannot think yourself into it, you can get there by
> everyday mundane living by the rules of love and having hope and being satisfied with what
> is (I believe that is called humility). And yes, there are lots of people who love Jesus they just
> don't know his name. Thank you for a wonderful post.
.
 textman replies: Your very welcome indeed, friend someone. Your post is pretty wonderful too, since it's nice to be reminded once in a while that my efforts are not in vain. In any case, there are plenty more wonderful posts still to come from this old cybrwurm; (ie. it's how I worship the Father of Lights).
.
 Yes, if unbelievers could know what joy there is in serving the Lord with all your heart and mind and strength, then I dare say they'd think twice about wasting their entire lives chasing after Mammon and the ever elusive financial (or whatever) security!

P.S. They were very much surprised at his teaching because he taught them as if he had the right to teach them. He did not teach them like their teachers called scribes. ... The people were all surprised. They said one to another, "What is this? Is not this a new teaching? He tells the bad spirits what to do and even they obey him!" -- Mark 1:22&27 / Worldwide English Version

/ Topic >  Re: Re: Enough is enough... / Forum >  TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 7Jan2002 /
.
 textman sayeth: There can be little doubt that 'The Apostle' is himself the best source for those who may wish to know where the Christian prophet stands in the greater scheme of things. At one point he practically defines the function of the prophet in the Body of Christ:
.
 "Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit. But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened. Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or with knowledge or prophecy or teaching?" 1Cor.14:1-6
.
 In other words, the Christian prophet is (like Paul) the churches' best living source for revelation, knowledge, prophecy, and teaching. You can't really find a much plainer statement than that, and yet how many believers today take these verses at all seriously?
.
> On 6Jan geoff sayeth: sheesh:
.
>> textman previously quoted the Word: They were very much surprised at his teaching because he
>> taught them as if he had the right to teach them. He did not teach them like their teachers called
>> scribes. ... The people were all surprised. They said one to another, "What is this? Is not this
>> a new teaching? He tells the bad spirits what to do and even they obey him" - Mark 1:22&27/WE
.
> Now the cyber-lunatic is claiming to be Jesus....
.
 Dear friend geoff, the cybrwurm is NOT "claiming to be Jesus". What these and other similar quoted verses are intended to show is that there is a direct line of continuity that runs through all the prophets; from the earliest Bronze Age proto-prophet up through Moses and the great Hebrew prophets to JB and Jesus, through Paulos and Silvanus, through the early Christian Egyptian prophets, all the way up through the great heroes of the Reformation, and right up to the present. Indeed, Jesus himself provides us with the best model of what a Christian prophet should be like, and how he should perform his duties for and within the People of God. In fact, Jesus promises us that future believers will outdo even the wonders of his own ministry: "I tell you the truth. The person who believes in me will do the big work that I do. And he will do even bigger work because I go to my Father." -- John 14:12 / Worldwide English (New Testament)
.
 "do even bigger work", sayeth the Lord?!? ... Oh yes; and Amen to that!
.
> whatever will he come up with next?
.
 Ah well, as to that ... It just so happens that I am currently working on a little something that I hope will be of some interest to any cyber-saints with a small curiosity about the Bible's many and fascinating prophetic traditions. Actually, this is rather more of a ground-breaking investigation into the history of the earliest origins of the prophets. It will also raise some questions that many will doubtless consider blasphemous in the extreme; and I would like to apologize in advance if my vision of the Word be found offensive to anyone: Sorry bout that, folks! :(
.
 Ah well, it can't really be avoided, you know. Breaking new ground inevitably involves breaking down grandiose ideological structures that are invariably considered to be divinely approved and sanctioned, and not to be trifled with under any circumstances please! Hey, I said I was sorry. But our post-modern hermeneutics places a premium on the evidence. Consequently, all other extra-biblical traditions are (for the most part) very secondary. Ah, to hell with them, anyway . . . Follow the evidence, I say!
.
 So that's what I've been doing lately, see? Just looking around various web-sites for anything interesting. Just checking my sundry authorities to see what's what, you know. And so I found some interesting items (which will be revealed in due course). And I found some even more curious omissions; not in the evidence itself (ie. in the archeological records and artifacts), but in the *evaluation and understanding* of these historical realities!
.
 Anyway, now might be a good time to prepare the reader for what is soon to come. Now you know that every biblical exegete and commentator has his own point of view, and particular approach toward the scriptures, as well as his own biases toward the texts. This is just human nature, and nothing to worry about; as long as everyone (including especially the exegete himself) is well aware of what all these background influences are. So everyone knows that my biases center around the prophets, and their vital role in the early history of the Faith, and in the creation of the New Testament. So anyway, I tend to read the sacred texts through the eyes of an historian, and I ask of the texts the sorts of questions that historians usually ask; with an eye to building up our common knowledge of the Worlds-Within-&-Behind-the-Texts. So that's fine. But this is not the only way to read the Word, by any means. And perhaps it is not even the best way for everyone.
.
 But believers should understand that Christianity is well-grounded in actual concrete historical events in a way that few other great religions are. Our Lord was a real flesh and blood man, by golly, as limited and as mortal as any other man. And prior to the great revelation of the Incarnation, the progress of the faith of the Hebrew People of God revolved around the key historical events of the ancient world. In the age of rival empires, it was the ascendancy of the Persian Empire that released the Babylonian Captives to return to their homeland and rebuild the religion of their fathers. And in the very beginnings of the story of faith, the history of the Word and the history of the World blend and merge together such that pressing such distinctions quickly becomes far too artificial to maintain with any degree of effective utility.
.
 In order to understand Moses and the Exodus within the context of world history then, we have to gain some understanding of the rise of civilization (approx. 8000 years ago) in the Ancient Near East. If you consult with the bible scholars, they will tell you that prior to the Exodus and the founding of the new nation under God, the most significant event in the life of ancient Egypt was the so-called Hyksos Invasion, where the ancestors of 'the scum of the earth' entered and conquered Egypt, and ruled that great nation for a couple of centuries before finally being knocked off the throne, expelled, and subjugated. And then came Rameses II (c.1290-1224 BCE), perhaps the most stubborn and arrogant Pharaoh of them all! So that's all well and good, but there's far more to this story than meets the eye at first glance; and it shall be our purpose to inquire a little deeper into the untold story surrounding these momentous events and larger than life people.
.
 So then I would like the reader to think well about all these things for the next few days. For there is a certain common blind spot that all the scribes and pharisees and scholars seems to share; and it is *not* really all that difficult to find.
.
 ... Till next time then!

/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 12April-2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology /
.
 (1) The Way of the Pharisees -> EO, Cats, Anglicans, etc: priestly religion. The way of the pharisees is the path taken by those who seek their salvation through the cheap grace of ritual and ceremony at the hands of the priests (who they consider to be the final authority in all matters of religion). This is the way of those who cannot, or dare not, think for themselves.
.
 (2) The way of the scribes -> evangelicals & fundamentalists. The way of the scribes is the path taken by pious simpletons who emphasize doctrine and emotion over the artificial systems of priestcraft. For these, the final authority on all religious matters is not so much the scriptures as it is their own preferred understanding and interpretation of the sacred texts. Thus while the pharisees are a part of a larger institution with a well-established history and tradition, the scribes are atomistic and autonomous to the point of being absolutely independent of all history and tradition (ie. except their own).
.
 (3) The way of the prophets -> early Anabaptists and Quakers, Kierkegaard, Tolstoy, etc. The way of the prophets is the path taken by those individuals who recognize the fraud of the pharisees, and the foolishness of the scribes; and who therefore take personal responsibility for the quality of their faith and discipleship. These do not locate religious authority in external institutions, or in their own personal opinions, but rather they accept the Spirit-inspired contributions of all the prophets and saints throughout history as authoritative (but not in any absolute or infallible sense).
.
 These are the three forms of faith available to every believer. The Pharisee-form is the way of spiritual children who take (grace, salvation, etc) without giving much of anything in return (ie. the Spirit does not recognize any religious value in mammon -> grace cannot be purchased with money). The Scribal-form of faith is the way of spiritual adolescents much impressed by their own independence, and by the power of their own thoughts, emotions, and convictions. The prophet-form is the way of mature adults who acknowledge the limitations and potentials of the individual believer, and who accept that the life of faith is necessarily a never-ending process of growth and development unto Christ.

/ Topic > Re: TOL Faith Statement-1 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology / 13-April-2002 /
.
 I have many problems with Webmaster's recent faith statement. I am especially not impressed by the extremely naive view of history that it incorporates. However, this does not bother me much owing to the fact that such a simplistic view of historical realities is far too bloody typical among believers in general. But besides that, I am particularly upset by the following line: "He has spoken through the prophets and through the Scriptures". This is perfectly true, of course, but there seems to be a further implication that the scriptures have rendered the prophets null and void. So tell me, if you can, is God now incapable of speaking through the prophets? Is God so impressed by the scriptures that He has been struck dumb? Or perhaps is it the case that the Lord has nothing to say to us?
.
 "O my God, how does it happen in this poor old world that thou art so great, and yet nobody finds thee?! That thou
callest so loudly, and yet nobody hears thee? That thou art so near, and yet nobody feels thee? That thou givest thyself to everybody, and yet nobody knows thy name? ... Men flee from thee and then say they cannot find thee! They turn their backs and then say they cannot see thee! They stop their ears and then say they cannot hear thee!" -- Hans Denck

 
> On 13April Paradõsis asks: Are you one of the prophets that God speaks through today?
.
 On 13April textman answers: Yew betcha!
.
> "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the paradosis which ye have been taught,
> whether by word, or our epistle" -- Saint Paul
.
 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called The Word of God.  -- Revelation 19:11-13 / KJV

Another Prophetic Faith Statement

/ Topic > Re: TOL Faith Statement-2 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology / Ng > alt.bible.prophecy / 13April2002 /

> On 13Apr the happy atheist named JGaltJr asketh the offensive one:
> So what kinds of things have you prophesied?
.
 the WWWeb's only authentic cyber-prophet sayeth: Hi ho JGaltJr. Well, perhaps things like this:
.
 A deep and abiding concern for history, and historical realities, was built, right from the start, deep into the very fabric of the Faith as an enduring legacy from the mother religion of Judaism. Thus the first words of the first NT document includes a brief recollection of the genesis of the persecution-tradition in the expulsion of the Hellenistic-Jewish believers from Jerusalem (c.40CE): "For you, brothers, became imitators of the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea. You suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and also drove us out" (First Thessalonians 2:14-15).
.
 Concern for history is also somewhat evident in the gospels themselves (in the sense that they are basically apostolic memories), and even in the apocalyptic hopes and fears that shaped much of the emotion and theology of the earliest generations of believers. Later on, in the early second century, the religious concern with history reached a new and explicit awareness with the two-part 'theological history of the church' called Luke-Acts, and also in 2Peter where the anonymous author deliberately assumes the persona of the long-dead apostle Simon-Peter. After the NT period (50-150CE) the concern for history remained a vital feature of the Faith; and resulted in many important books that have retained their value even unto the present day. Two notable examples are 'The History of the Church' by Bishop Eusebius, and Bishop Augustine's famous autobiography called the 'Confessions'.
.
 Therefore it can be fairly said that the NT documents are throughout well-soaked in many and varied historical reminiscences. But just because they are so many and varied means that they are not all of equal value; ie. in the sense of historical information and content (which MUST BE the chief concern of each and every student of the historical circumstances surrounding the bible). Some memories, claims, and statements are better than others. There is no simple or easy way around this brutal reality (and those who think that there is verily art a stench unto the nostrils of the Lord). Sometimes statements that not even intended as explicit and self-aware memories or 'historical facts' (as such) can yield some fragments of raw historical value. Even a deliberate evasion on the part of Paul - which he sometimes does to a thoroughly unacceptable and even infuriating extent - or an outright lie and/or misrepresentation on the part of some early scribe or editor can provide some useful information about the history of the Faith, and about the course of this or that verse or passage or document along its centuries-long march to its eternally fixed and final and canonized-already form we now recognize as the New Testament (ie. from the early fourth century via Emperor and Council).
.
 There are many such informative nuggets of data that have little or no apparent relevance to the literal meaning of the narrative account, or to its deeper theological significance, or even to the still greater inspired meaning and message of the written Word of God. Usually these minor and obscure bits of historical data are pondered for a moment, dubbed mysterious (or irrelevant), and then discarded in the rush to get on with the far more important matter of preaching the soul-saving and life-giving gospel, and/or building the great paradigm of the churches. But when we gather up in a small velvet pouch all these tiny and forgotten gems of meaningless and unimportant historical fragments they begin to seem perhaps not so pointless after all. At least not to the biblical historians and historical-critics and other serious students of the scriptures who may be wondering about all these mysterious bible bytes apart from any supposedly greater purpose or propaganda. After all, even these tiny bits and pieces of the NT are still part of the Word of God, and can also help us to envision the setting and thinking of the authors in question.
.
 So if you believe that this allegedly fixed-forever canonical format is divinely inspired and church-sanctioned and not to be tampered with in any way please then that is well and fine for the faith of you and yours. And if you further believe that every part is equally valuable and historically informative, and that no discriminations and distinctions can and should be made in this regard, then you are in gross violation of all critical protocols and logical procedures and rational methodologies. Let us rather insist that any and all historically aware readings and understandings of scripture must make MANY such judgments and discriminations as to the historical value of this or that word or verse or passage or book. To say that the universe was built in a week is historically worthless. To say that the story of Noah (or Joseph and his brothers) is literally true is irrational, and perhaps even immoral. To say that Abraham was a real live historical man is nonsense. To say that the fine short story of Jonah is historically accurate in all its parts reveals a colossal blindness on the part of the over-eager believer-reader that can in no way be justified on the grounds of passionate faith or abounding love of truth or flourishing strength in the conviction that God is not a liar.

/ Topic > Re: TOL Faith Statement-3 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology / Ng > alt.bible.prophecy / 15April2002 /
.
> On 14Apr JGaltJr wrote: So what kinds of things have you prophesied - or were just telling a little fib?
.
 textman replies: No fibs here, JGaltJr. Just a little misunderstanding, no doubt. The main problem seems to be
that you can't recognize true Christian prophecy even when its dumped into your lap. Let me spell it out for you: if you're looking for authentic Christian prophecy, then you've come to the right place. But if you're looking for a fortune-teller, then I suggest you try the nearest circus.
.
 ... And good luck with that, btw. hehehe 

/ Topic > Re: TOL Faith Statement-4 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology / Ng > alt.bible.prophecy / 18April2002 /
.
> On 17Apr Paradõsis wrote: Vincent of Lerins mentions prophets in the Christian context a number of times
> in his "Commonitory," calling (for instance) Origen a great prophet. Here's what he meant by that:
.
"Lest any one perchance should rashly think the holy and Catholic consent of these blessed fathers to be despised, the Apostle says, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 'God hath placed some in the Church, first Apostles,' of whom himself was one; 'secondly Prophets,' such as Agabus, read in the Acts of the Apostles; of whom we 'then doctors,' who are now called Homilists, Expositors, whom the same apostle sometimes calls also 'Prophets,' because by them the mysteries of the Prophets are opened to the people." (Paragraph 73)
.
 textman replies: That is most fascinating, Paradõsis. I was under the impression that knowledge about the early Christian prophets had pretty much died away (or at least went underground) after Origen (ie. after the third century CE). Is this Commonitory of Vincent's some kind of history or commentary or something?
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 17Apr JGaltJr wrote: I realize that some of you claim it means to preach which of course it doesn't,
.
 tx: It means more than to merely preach, friend Galt. It also means to understand and interpret, to expound and amplify, to teach and elucidate, and so on in order to enrich the life of faith in general. Think of the Body of Christ with all its members in the right place. Religious enthusiasm can be likened to the heart, priestcraft can be likened to the hands and feet, but the prophet is the eyes in the head (the head being, as it were, the Lord Jesus Christ).
.
> and others mean that they can predict the future,
.
 That's a very old definition. A Bronze Age view of prophecy. Prophecy has evolved a bit since then, I'd say.
.
> but Textman seems to mean that God reveals things to him as a modern day prophet,
.
 As a post-modern day prophet ... Notice the difference here?
.
> yet he refuses to state what any of those things are. Why can't he just list a few things
> instead of being so obtuse?
.
 If I'm reading this right what you're asking for is concrete examples of post-modern prophecy, ok? So what I'm answering is that pomo-prophetic literature constitutes concrete examples of what a 'modern day prophet' might write. So what's the problem? If you go to my web-site you'll find lots of examples of prophetic literature of various sorts and types (but chiefly dialogues). So everything's listed there in good order (more or less), so I don't follow how I'm being obtuse about it. :)

/ Topic > Re: TOL Faith Statement-5 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology / Ng > alt.bible.prophecy / 19April2002 /

 By way of comparison with early creedal faith statements (such as in the 'Epistle of the Apostles'), have a look at a more recent creedal type faith statement from Wheaton College (an evangelical-Protestant institution) in Illinois, by way of their college catalogue:
.
 "We believe that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say."
.
 Now this kind of shameless idolatry (of the Bible) might be considered progress (of sorts) in some quarters of Christendom, but it looks to us like the earlier creed is better in some respects. That is to say, it seems to be more focused on the essentials, and less deliberately exclusive of all those who may hold a contrary opinion. And while you gotta admire the flare of this more-current creed for making the point so dramatically, it would be even more impressive if the statement had managed to stick closer to the facts (again as with the earlier creed), and had avoided error by so blatantly over-stating the case; ie. as with the use of phrases like 'verbally inspired', 'inerrant in the original writing' [How do they know that the original autographs contained no typos or other minor mistakes that were corrected by later copyists? Their theological reasoning seems to them to be so logically iron-clad and faultless that they can accurately determine the shape and features of far distant historical realities sight unseen!], 'fully trustworthy', 'supreme and final', and most especially the dreaded 'in all they say'.
.
 One problem with all this is that while fundies and evangelicals certainly consider themselves fit to ascertain and judge long-vanished historical realities, they do not otherwise display any considered use of philosophy or history. How does that work? Indeed I'd say that in general most believers are rather badfaithfully uninterested in both philosophy and history. And to compound this dismissive attitude (towards those who only seek truth and knowledge) they do not really seem to care whether or not all philosophers and historians will forevermore judge their faith statement to be sheer nonsense in every conceivable way! This situation might create some serious problems should any believer ignorantly and unwisely settle his nose in any worthy commentary or introduction to the NT; most of which gladly recognize the need for (at least) some input from philosophy and history.
.
 Thus we are left with a curious situation wherein the creed from 'Epistle of the Apostles' (which is *mostly* oriented to the teachings of the NT) contrasts so sharply with pomo-fundy creeds wherein a concern for emphasizing the authority of scripture eclipses even the actual teachings of the Word of God! ... Obviously something's not quite right here.