/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 8 / 4Oct2000 / E-mail: Aleksandar Katanovic <akatanov@bigfoot.com> /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
] Aleksandar Katanovic previously wrote: <snip> Paul had seen Jesus before Christ's death.
.
>> On Oct1 textman answered: Dear Alex, and what (may I ask?) is your source for this information?
.
> On Oct1 Alex replies: Textman, For every statement I utter, there follows reasons for my statements.
> You should not divide my text in such a manner. My reasons were this:
.
] Jesus was well known person in Judea. Multitude of people saw Christ, His preaching and miracles.
.
 textman say: Dear Alex, in other words, your evidence consists *entirely* of reasoning from a general premise (many saw Jesus)
to a particular conclusion (Paul saw Jesus). This despite Paul's own testimony to the contrary ... Where is the logic in that?!
.
>> tx: Paul was born and raised in Damascus; which is a long way from Judea.
.
> AK: By your logic, Paul was never in Jerusalem? I was raised in Belgrade, but now I live in Oslo.
.
 Oh, Paul was in Jerusalem all right. The evidence from his epistles suggests that he was there during the events leading up to the expulsion of the Greek-speaking Jewish believers, and it was then and there that he experienced his conversion; else he could not have said:
.
 "For you brothers and sisters 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* [ie. the post-Ascension Jewish-Christian prophets], and also drove *us* [ie. Paul and Silvanus include themselves among these dispersed Greek-speaking believers] out." -- 1Thes. 2:14-15 / Prophet Version
.
 But the fact that Paul was in Jerusalem round about c.38CE does *not* prove that he saw Jesus there or anywhere else.
.
> However, every Greek scholar would agree with me that the authority of an Apostle was equal in authority of
> the sender. Apostles had the authority of Christ. By saying that you are an Apostle, you maintain that you have
> the same authority of Christ.
.
 I'm not saying that I'm an Apostle. This is something that *you* keep putting into my mouth; despite my repeated protests to the contrary!
.
> Now, my crucial objection to your pretense of being prophet is simply that you are not able to state some
> information which is not possible to acquire without having direct contact with God.
.
 Right. I'm not omniscient, therefore I cannot be a prophet. Sure thing, dude! 
.
> Prophetic words were DIRECT words of God.
.
 I disagree. Such a conception may have existed in ancient times, but the Christian understanding of prophecy has long since moved beyond the idea of the prophet as a mindless zombie.
.
> God speaks DIRECTLY through a prophet.
.
 I disagree. Such a conception may have existed in ancient times, but the Christian understanding of prophecy has long since moved beyond the idea of the prophet as a mindless zombie.
.
> God had instructed His people on how to test prophets. You have not passed this test:
> "And if thou say in thine heart, "How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?" when a
> prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not nor come to pass, that is the thing which
> the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him
> (Deut.18:21-22)"
.
 How can you say that I have not passed this test when you are unable to show us what thing it is I have spoken that has not 'come to pass'?
.
> In other words, a prophetic word had a supernatural quality.
.
 I do not see that statement or idea anywhere in the quoted text. Obviously you are importing your own theology into a passage where it does not belong.
.
> The sign of a prophetic utterance, as a confirmation of its divine origin, was usually in telling some
> information a prophet could not possibly acquire in the natural way.
.
 Really? Do you have any scriptural passages to back up this assertion?
.
> The main point with this ministry was that God spoke directly to the Church, and that was the very core or
> essence of the ministry. The biblical notion is that God speaks directly through such person to edify, to exhort
> or to teach something of importance to the Church. But edifying, exhortation and admonishing the Church
> could be done also through simple preaching or teaching by teachers and preachers. So, some distinction
> existed between the edifying the Church through a prophecy and edifying the Church through a simple
> teaching or preaching. What was the distinction? The distinction consisted in the peculiarity of God's speaking.
> God spoke directly His words through the prophet, while through a teacher / preacher He spoke indirectly.
.
 Well, that's very interesting indeed, Alex. But since I don't share your inadequate and pre-Christian view of the prophet as a mindless zombie, I likewise don't agree that the distinction between the prophet and other church leaders is based on God's speaking *directly* through the prophets, and *indirectly* through the others. To my mind, the distinction is based on the quality or measure of the gifts granted, and in the nature of the authority that goes with the exercise of those gifts on behalf of the People of God. In the same way, teachers and preachers and priests all owe their allegiance and livelihood to whatever church they happen to serve, but the prophet takes his orders *only* from God, serves *only* God, and answers *only* to God.
.
> Don't you realize that speaking presumptuously in the Lord's name is a grave sin? -- Regards, Alex
.
Don't you realize that speaking presumptuously against the Lord's prophet is a grave sin against the Holy Spirit?  

/ Re: Prophets and the Bible - 9  [was: Re: Paul and Jerusalem] /
.
] On 28Sept textman wrote: <snip> Since Paul had not seen Jesus before his death, and had not seen the
] "Physically Resurrected Jesus" either (ie. prior to His Ascension),
.
> On Oct2 Alex replied: What do you mean that Paul had not seen the resurrected Jesus. What about his
> meeting Christ during the persecution of the Church at Jerusalem?
.
 That took place some 5-6 years *after* Jesus had already left this world. Whatever it was that Paul saw in Jerusalem was certainly not the same thing that the apostles saw prior to the Ascension. Jesus promised that he would return on the Day of the Lord (ie. the Second Coming) for all the world to see; he did *not* promise that he would return for Paul alone to see.
.
] he did not (according to your criteria) have any right to call himself an apostle. Yet the fact that he did call
] himself an apostle means that either he lied and/or deliberately deceived the People of God, or that you are
] wrong in stating that this is a "necessary condition for a person to be an apostle of Jesus". My guess is that
] Paul is right, and you are wrong. <snip>
.
>>> Aleksandar Katanovic replied: Paul had seen Jesus before Christ's death.
.
>> textman answers: Dear Alex, and what (may I ask?) is your source for this information? Paul was born and
>> raised in Damascus; which is a long way from Judea.
.
> First, Paul was not born in Damascus, but in Tarsus (Acts 21:39).
.
 Since Paul nowhere says that he came from Tarsus, it is safe to say that this is yet another bit of invention on the part of the author of Lk-Acts. As an amateur church-historian I am bound to assume that Paul knows more about things relating to Paul than an anonymous second-century Roman historian with a talent for, shall we say, inventive
speculation. Of course, Paul does not say that he came from Damascus either (and that is why Luke could get away with his statement in Acts 21:39), but there are subtle hints in his authentic epistles that suggest that Damascus is indeed his home town. Naturally, I don't expect you to take my word for it; but those bible students who are genuinely interested in historical realties (as opposed to fanciful legends) may want to keep an eye open for these hints I mentioned as you *carefully* read through Paul's writings.
.
> He was from a tribe of Benjamin and a zealous member of Pharisee party (Rom 11:1, Phil.3:5, Acts.23:6).
> He was raised in Jerusalem,
.
 I seriously doubt that.
.
> because he was taken to be a disciple of a famous doctor of Law.
.
 Hardly.
.
> Paul was a disciple of Gamaliel (Acts. 22:3).
.
 More fanciful invention without any solid foundation in reality.
.
> Gamaliel is the same one who advised the high officials of Jewish Court not to persecute early Christians
> (Acts 5:34). Gamaliel had a great reputation among Jews. Paul acknowledged him as his teacher,
.
 Is this more nonsense from Acts, or does this info come from Paul?
.
> and he was held in such high honor that he was designated 'Rabban' ('our teacher'), a higher title than
> 'Rabbi' ('my teacher'). See J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70.
.
 No comment.
.
> We could compare Gamaliel's reputation among Jewish scribes (scholars)
> with the reputation Einstein has among contemporary scientists.
.
 That would surely be an exercise in futility, no doubt.
.
> The point is that Paul was a high official in Jerusalem in the virtue of being a disciple of Gamaliel.
.
 There is *zero* possibility that what you have just said is anything other than a baseless legend intended to do only one thing: magnify the stature of Paul so as to make him a larger than life super-hero. As for myself, I much prefer to think of Paulos of Damascus as a mere mortal man; and one helluva SOB to boot!  :)
.
> As such he knew a lot about Christ and early Christians.
.
 Of course he did. He spent several years among the exiles in Egypt (ie. after the expulsion of the Hellenistic-Jewish believers from Jerusalem) before returning home to Damascus and beginning his career as an apostle. Note to Reader: this information is gathered from the data found in Paul's own letters; ie. information derived from documents that are *entirely* uncontaminated by the incredibly unreliable Lukan texts.
.
> <snip glorious Lukan legend> (Acts 7:59 - 8:2)"
.
 So do you see how Luke's fictitious "history" distorts the true history of Paul so as to make it virtually impossible to see the man behind the super-hero? One of the goals of biblical science is the attempt to recover the *real* historical Paul hidden away behind the thick fog of 19 centuries of arrogant and ignorant piety. ... If anyone wonders why the offensive one is so impious all the time, it is simply because *nothing* so hampers the search for the truth of things as an undisciplined and unrestrained piety that imagines *itself* to be the very soul and essence of the Faith!
.
> We see that Paul, then called Saul,
.
 Paulos of Damascus was *never* called Saul; except in pious fantasy, of course.
.
> as a high official witnessed Stephan's death, which happened in Jerusalem. (cf Acts 7:1, the high priest
> Caiaphas was in Jerusalem). Therefore, it is quite implausible to suggest that he did not know who Christ was.
.
 You're the only one who's implausible here, Alex.
Alas, you're just *too* impressed by your own cleverness to realize it!
.
> He knew Christ very well precisely because he had to know as a high official in Jerusalem, especially if Christ
> was a famous person. It was Paul who had the charge of persecuting the early Jerusalemian Christians.
.
 "Jerusalemian Christians" ... ??? ... Good one, Alex ...  :)
.
> Such responsibility is not given to a person who was not familiar with the teachings and history of the
> movement. We know that many Pharisee tested Christ and listened on Christ's teaching. Paul was zealous
> Pharisee. Although we have no reports that he saw Christ, it is quite implausible to suggest that Paul did
> not see Christ.
.
 We know that Paul did not see Christ in the flesh because he tells us as much (alas, the exact verse reference escapes me for the moment); and his testimony outweighs your so-called reasonings by a long shot!
.
> Anyway, we have more reasons to believe that Paul did see Jesus.
.
 Oh, I just can't wait to hear them! :)
.
> Also, you ignore the fact that Christ was very famous in Judea.
.
 He was not nearly as famous as you obviously think he was! Note to Reader: This is a fine and typical example of how the ignorant pious imagination sadistically magnifies historical realities until they lose all sense of proportion and context.
.
> Because of your ignorance of both Greek and the culture of ancient east you do not understand the meaning
> of "apostolos." Paul could never be an apostle unless he witnessed the resurrected Christ. Criteria were strict
> because being an apostle you had the equal authority of the sender. -- Regards, Alex
.
 Well, Alex, I'll refrain from expressing my initial reaction to these closing statements - so as not to unduly offend those Readers of delicate conscience and sensitive sensibility - and instead console myself by pointing out to the Reader that Alex here is obviously incapable of recognizing the plain fact that his criteria exists nowhere else outside his own mind, least of all in the minds of the earliest Christians (who - unlike today's Christians - were well able to recognize a prophet when they saw one).
.
 But now it seems to me that we have wandered much too far from where I wanted to go when we began this little thread. This is entirely Alex's fault, of course! :) He is clearly stuck in a groove that sends him (and us along with him) round and round and round over the same untenable theological ground such that I am now feeling distinctly claustrophobic. So I think now would be a good time to attempt to break out of this rut by firstly recognizing that Alex and the cybrwurm have dramatically different conceptions regarding the nature and function of the prophet. Indeed, our two views are so un-alike that there is no possibility that they can ever meet at *any* point. This in itself is an achievement of sorts, as it clearly demonstrates just how ignorant Christians really are regarding the vital matter of prophets, and the nature and meaning of the prophetic ministry.
.
 A good question for our Readers to consider now is this: Where does Alex's negation of the Christian prophet really come from? Surely not from his half-baked theology as expressed in his half-baked essay entitled "The End of the Supernatural Charismatic Gifts: An essay about the gifts of the Holy Spirit". No. There must be something hidden lurking behind this essay that motivated this absurd chain of reasoning to the end of justifying an irrational hatred of the prophets that, I suspect, has deep historical roots. The question then becomes: What is it that first sparked this rejection of the prophetic ministry? Well, it may be that the answer lies way back in the early sixteenth century,
when the Radical Reformation was just beginning ...
.
 In those early years of ferment the Radical Reformation was extremely diversified and included many people all along the religious spectrum; from contemplative spiritualists (such as Hans Denck) to apocalyptic fanatics. People such as Melchior Hofmann (1495-1543), who proclaimed himself the "apostle of the end", Thomas Muntzer and the Zwickau Prophets, along with disturbing events such as the Peasants Revolt (1524-26), based on the principle of freedom by violence, gave the young Anabaptist movements a bad reputation, and caused both secular and religious leaders (including the Reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli) to react against *all* the Radical Reformers with a frenzy of horror and violence. Most of the Radical Reformers repudiated these excesses from the "false brethren", and much of the character of Anabaptism was shaped by a deliberate attempt to distance the new movements from these false starts and apocalyptic errors (eg. the practical necessity of pacifism).
.
 And it is *here* that the seeds of anti-prophetism were sown. For rather than simply acknowledging that people like Hofmann and Muntzer were *false* prophets, and likewise affirming the existence of *true* prophets, the tendency was to take the easy way out and simply deny the existence of prophets altogether. In thus side-stepping the issue in one fell swoop, as it were, the Anabaptists knocked away the very ground upon which they stood, and the eventual result was that the Anabaptist character changed from being 'tradition breakers' to being 'tradition keepers' (like everybody else). Under these conditions it is no surprise really to find people like Alex advocating a supposedly "biblical" theology that absolutely denies any possibility of the existence of prophets!

HOW TO READ LK-ACTS?
[With a Map, of course!]

/ Was> Re: Prophets and the Bible [#10] / 9Oct2000 / Email: Wayne Sutton <oleta@mindspring.com> /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
>>> Alex K. previously wrote: <snip> Jesus was well known person in Judea. Multitude of people saw
>>> Christ, His preaching and miracles.
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> Paul was born and raised in Damascus; which is a long way from Judea.
>> Jesus was also well known in Galilee, which is much closer to Paul's home-city; but this does not mean that
>> he *must* have seen Jesus, or even heard about him, before the Crucifixion. There is no logical or historical
>> connection between your first statement and these two that follow.
.
> On Oct4 Wayne Sutton emailed: Textman, This has been an interesting thread.  Thanks for sharing it.
.
 textman replies: Dear Wayne, no problemo ...  :)
.
> Regarding the quote above, Paul was from Tarsus.
.
 LOL ... Well, you certainly sound very sure of that well established *FACT*! ... What if I told you that this particular well established fact is *far* more well established than 'fact' as such? What if I suggested to you that Paulos of Damascus really was from Damascus, despite the undeniably fierce traditions to the contrary? Would I be asking you for too much if I asked you to consider it, at least, as a plausible alternative possibility?
.
> On reading your post I thought maybe it was a suburb of Damascus,
.
 I can't imagine why you should think that ...  :)
.
> but I looked it up.
.
 You mean like on a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea at mid-first century?
.
> It was actually in Cilicia almost due North of the Eastern tip of Cyprus on a line between Antioch (in
> Syria) and Derbe (in Galatia), not at all close to Damascus.
.
 Yup, just as I thought; a map. This is a very good habit for all students of the NT, because nothing so demonstrates the blatant absurdity of the common conceptions regarding the history of the NT documents (their attributed dates, places of origin, authors, etc) than a good long stare at a good map of the area around the eastern half of the Great Sea. The absence of the city of Alexandria on some of these maps only highlights and underlines the problems with the popular scholarly consensus on the early history of the Greek churches ...
.
 You see, Wayne, there are good reasons why I think that the author of Lk-Acts is wrong (ie. as a matter of plain historical fact) in saying that Paul was from Tarsus. Firstly, as he was writing (in the early years of the second century) he didn't know where Paul came from because he couldn't know. Paul doesn't give us that detail in the writings that came into his hands. For Luke, you see, was basically a scribe and a scholar, and documents of all sorts (eg. scrolls and codex) were his bread and butter. He modeled his two-part history on the (then still recent) works of Josephus; and he used both pagan and Christian literature as his source material.
.
 Thus there is no way any bible student can truly appreciate the meaning and significance of the one book 'Lk-Acts' without a clear image of its author; this graying and brilliant "historian", sitting at his desk for hours each day, year after year, surrounded by books and scrolls, pouring over these documents as he slowly and carefully writes and edits and then re-writes and re-edits the biggest book in the Bible. Some knowledge of the sources he used is, of course, essential to the zealous student of Lk-Acts. These sources include the above mentioned Jewish historian Josephus, the letters of Paul (authentic and pauline), and the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John. I cannot stress enough just how important it is for the bible student to be well aware of the necessary relationship between these documents and the final result of Luke's scholarly labors; AND also the fact that 'Luke' knew them all (and very likely
much better than you do)!
.
 But what, you may be wondering, is the relevance of all this to the "fact" that Paul came from Tarsus? Well, the relevance is that Luke didn't know where Paul was from, and so he "invented" that particular location as being a very good and likely spot at which to give birth to *the great superhero* who would carry through the divine and cosmic scheme of shifting the spiritual center of the universe by having Paul carry the Gospel from Jerusalem to Rome. Thus the very essence of every word and passage in Lk-Acts is this grand cosmic movement around the north-east coast of the Great Sea. Think of it as a kind of journey or pilgrimage where the Ark of God is solemnly carried from its old home to its new home, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, from Moses to Jesus, from the ancient Holy City (soon to be destroyed, as the author well knew (having read Josephus)) to the new and future Holy City, the new Jerusalem -> ROMA! Any bible student who can understand all that I have just said will take great strides in understanding Lk-Acts, while the scholars, fundies, and priests continue their feeble deceptions by beating on a horse that died over nineteen hundred years ago already, for the love of Mike!
.
 And what evidence do I have for all this "idle speculation", you ask? Well, you said it yourself, Wayne: Tarsus is "on a line between Antioch (in Syria) and Derbe (in Galatia)". After all, you don't seriously think that the meaning of this location is purely coincidental and/or circumstantial, do you? If so, then I fear that you're not going to get very far in your pursuit of Lk-Acts.
.
> This puts Paul's home town even farther away from the earthly ministry of Jesus. On the other hand, the
> dispute between Stephen and the Synagogue of the Freedmen whose members included Jews from the
> provice of Cilicia, where Tarsus was, (see ACTS 6:9) seems to have taken place in Jerusalem and as you
> know ACTS 7:58 records when Stepen was stoned, "the witnesses laid their clothing at the feet of a young
> man named Saul."
.
 The hidden meaning of this passage is that Christ's superhero had to begin his quest in the soon to be obliterated Holy City. It is for good reason that Luke first introduces him as "a young man named Saul". The significance of the name change (soon to come) is that of a dramatic break with his old life now that the divinely chosen voyager has arrived at the place from which the great movement to Rome begins. Onward and upward; that's the author's intention that powers the ongoing plot from the opening words of the Gospel According to Luke to the closing lines of Acts of Apostles! Learn this well, if you wish to read the Word of God with maturity and discernment (as opposed to the hopelessly childish and outworn reading habits of the vast bulk of 21st century post-modern Christians).
.
> This could put Saul (a.k.a. Paul) in Jerusalem not too long after the crucifixion. And as a religious Jew, he
> could have very well been in Jerusalem as a pilgrim for the holy days when Jesus was also there. But we
> can only speculate about whether Paul ever saw Jesus before the crucifixion.
.
 Actually, we do not need to speculate about it at all; for I am 100% certain that if Paulos (not Saul) had seen Jesus before the D&R, then you may be sure that he would have made mention of it somewhere in his epistles. It is implausible, and well nigh inconceivable, that he would have deliberately withheld such information. In this case, the absence of such statements more or less proves that Paul never saw Jesus in the flesh.
.
> I think that Alexandar's problem with the idea of modern apostles may come from the criteria that Peter laid
> out for selecting an apostle to take the place of Judas: "choose one of the men who has been with us the
> Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up
> from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." ACTS 1:21&22. I doubt that
> Paul would have met those criteria. And as you pointed out he was an apostle.
.
 Yes. Everybody knew that Paul was the odd man out, and that he was not always "receptive" to the leadership of the three main Jewish-Christian traditions (centered around the churches in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria). In his epistles, Paul gives abundant evidence of his contacts with all three traditions. We might say that his general attitude towards these three pillars of the Faith (represented by Peter, James, and John) was one of general regard with a strong wish that they would not encroach upon his churches around the Aegean Sea. Of course, sometimes Paul's respect for the Apostolic churches dwindled almost to the vanishing point, and it is not hard to admit that they in turn could hardly tolerate him. Silvanus was only the first to be turned away; either *by* Paul, or *because* of him. I want you all to bear these things firmly in mind the next time you may have occasion to read that historically symbolic pericope in Mark 9:1-8 ...
.
> I don't know why Alexandar feels that the "charisma" are not for today.
> I don't think this point view is very common among Brethren.
.
 That's good to hear.
.
> The Church of the Brethren blends Pietism and Anabaptism, and it's not always clear to me which is which -
.
 Such distinctions are probably pointless anyway.
.
> but the idea of the church remaining open to the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit (seeking the mind of
> Christ) is very important to the Brethren. There are Brethren who are charismatics and I know that there
> are also Mennonite charismatics. This point may be something that is peculiar to Alexandars particular group.
> I'd be interested to hear from other anabaptists on this question.
.
 So would I.
.
> As I read over your dialogue on the question of prophets I wondered whether Alexandar may be taking the
> position that after the Pentecost, the gift of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon all regenerate
> Christians so that Old Testament style prophets are no longer needed.
.
 Such a theological position can *only* be maintained by either ignoring the testimony of Paul entirely, or by *grossing* distorting and misunderstanding it. And that's how they treat their "Supreme Authority" in all matters religious! "Good Grief!" sayeth the Lord.
.
> "No longer will a man teach his neighbor or a man his brother saying 'Know the Lord', because they will
> all know me from the least to the greatest." -- JEREMIAH 31:34
.
 Good quote. But that is a vision of the distant future, of a world entirely devoted to God. It certainly does not describe the current chaotic age we live in now!
.
> Instead of a prophet we now have prophets - plural.
.
 The Quakers have the same problem, I see. And the source of all these problems seems to be the same one thing: an abounding ignorance regarding the biblical teachings and witness about the prophets.
.
> "If an unbeliever comes in while **everybody** is prophesying he will be convinced by all
> ... exclaiming 'God is really among you!'" -- 1Cor.14:24-25
.
> So prophesy has not disappeared but the importance of the OT style individual prophet has given way
> to the importance of discernment within a gathered church: "Two or three prophets should speak, and
> the others should weigh carefully what is being said" (1Cor.14:29).
.
 As for myself, I do not see that the churches have gained much of anything by adopting such an approach; although it *is* clear that what was lost has left *all* Christians bereft, and hiding their meager lights under a bushel.
.
> Does Alexandar believe that the Holy Spirit no longer guides his church in this way? -- Peace, Wayne Sutton
.
 His essay (ie. the one that we have lately been discussing) suggests that he does believe in the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit, but not to the point of creating prophets; because we now have the Bible to guide us. Do you see how this works? The established high-churches have replaced the prophets with bishops. The Quakers have replaced the prophets with mass-prophetism (ie. every believer is a prophet equal in all things with every other believer / prophet). The Charismatics have replaced the prophets with abounding spiritual gifts and charisms and manifestations. And the evangelical types have simply replaced the prophets with their infallible and inerrant Holy Bible.
.
 I only have two words to say about all this: IN-credible!!

P.S.  BTW: I just *luv* that Aquinas quote you sent ...
] On 28Sept Wayne Sutton wrote: ... "Truth has nothing to fear from honest questioning." -- Aquinas
.
P.P.S. Well! It seems that prophet-bashing has become all the rage in some circles. Did you see Satan's media assassin viciously attacking the cybrwurm the other night? WOW! That was a real eye-opener, let me tell you. Talk about embarrassing! That's just the sort of thing that makes a prophet seriously consider putting up his quill for good ... So what do you think, Dear Reader? Should the offensive one retire (according to the will of the Wicked One)? ... Or not? ...

/ Re: How to Read Lk-Acts? / 16Oct2000 / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian.anabaptist.brethren /
.
> On Oct11 Wayne Sutton replied: Textman, How do you know when you are wrong? -- Wayne Sutton
.
 textman answers: Dear Wayne, usually I can tell just by re-reading any particular article a few days, weeks, months, years, or decades after I first posted it. It's interesting that you should ask this, because just the other week I was re-reading an article from 1998 and I noticed at once a mistaken statement regarding the possibility that 2Peter was written in Antioch. Further research revealed that this is not much of a possibility after all. So there you go. Not only am I not infallible and inerrant, but I can even know when I'm wrong!
.
. . . (On those very rare occasions when I *am* wrong :)
.
 btw: How do you know when *you* are wrong? For example, what do you say to my rebuttals of your statements in the following article:
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
/ Re: W h o K i l l e d J e s u s ? /
.
>>> Ronald J. Gordon wrote: History is usually written by the winners which
>>> makes corroboration appear to be a mute point.
.
>> tiglath wrote: I know first hand what you are talking about. The years of peace in my country following
>> the war, were not year of peace, but years of victory. Fortunately the world has more than one country
>> and many historians. If propaganda is disguised as history by the winners, it is only a matter of time for
>> the record to be balanced; it might take generations, but unless all evidence is wiped out, which is very
>> difficult, even for meticulous dictators, the truth will be known, or a good approximation to it. <snip>
.
> On 23Sept Wayne Sutton wrote: You guys are being soooo objective I'm not sure you are
> even conscious that your opinions are your opinions.
.
 textman asks: But Wayne, what else *could* they be?
.
> The opening post of this thread included the following charge by that the NT amounts to a body
> of anti-Jewish propaganda...
.
] Crossan notes that, for Christians, the Gospel accounts are divinely inspired, but that inspiration comes
] through human beings in human communities and can come as inspired propaganda. When Christianity
] was a relatively powerless sect within Judaism struggling like other sects for the hearts and minds of the
] Jewish community, its propaganda about "Jewish responsibility and Roman innocence" was relatively
] harmless.

> Hmmm-- A book written by Jews for the purpose of arousing anti-Jewish sentiment.
> Seems like a logical agrument to me (NOT!).
.
 Logical or not, the above statements make an important point. Besides, who ever said that history has to be logical. No real historian would ever make such a claim these days, since there are many events (even in just the 20th century) that clearly demonstrate just how illogical human history can be.
.
> Crossan seems to have "issues" with Christianity. Does that make him more objective?
.
 I wouldn't think so, no.
.
> Why would I want to give more weight to his theories, removed two millenia as they are from the events,
> than I would to the texts left by those who lived at or near the time of the actual events, while
> eye-witnesses were still available.
.
 Since *those* eye-witness are no longer available to us (except by the words they left behind) we have to make do with the best substitutes available to us still (even "removed two millennia as they are from the events"). And those substitutes would have to include the best bible-scholars from around the globe. Whether Crossan qualifies to be among this cream of the crop, I don't know.
.
 Another reason why one might want to take a second look at "the texts left by those who lived at or near the time of the actual events" is based on the observation that everyone reads the sacred text through an interpretive-grid. Today there are many such grids available to bible-students besides the familiar historical-critical perspective. There are feminist, liberationist, Buddhist, etc, approaches that filter the text through a hermeneutic that deliberately focuses on specific values and meanings. Then there is literary-criticism, which comprises a wide variety of specific methodologies designed to treat the text in certain ways to certain ends. Textual-criticism, the canonical approach, history of traditions, etc, are all branches of the same profuse art/science called biblical-studies.
.
 All of these methods of reading the Bible require a certain attitude and focus that admits some aspects and features of the text as relevant evidence, while it also excludes other aspects and features of the text as not relevant to these specific concerns, values, and methods. In that sense, all the biblical sciences are biased to some extent, whether or not they deal with historical realities.
.
 Nor does it end there. Even if one is not educated in the biblical arts, and is in no way influenced by ecclesiastical traditions, s/he still cannot escape reading the text through an interpretive grid that notices some aspects of the text while ignoring others. Objectivity cannot be gained by a ruthlessly scientific and dispassionate approach, any more than it can be gained by those who scornfully reject any attempts to reason about the scriptures.
.
 All bible-readers today are 2000-years+ removed from the authors of the sacred documents. That means that all of us cannot help but see the text through the smoky haze of 19 centuries of developing customs, traditions, theologies, social-religious movements, etc etc, that both guide and condition the things we see in the Word of God.
.
 The most obvious way to demonstrate this fundamental fact is to simply compare the approach of a pious and reverent reader with that of an irreligious skeptic who only seeks ammo with which to mock and disrespect the Faith. Interpretive grids are built into us by the very fact that we are all historical creatures participating within the ongoing historical process. We shape and are shaped by history, by all the past events that continue to unfold as present events. There are many sorts and styles of interpretive-grids, yes; but we all have them, whether we acknowledge it or not, whether we are aware of it or not. Thus the prime virtue in historical studies is no longer the chimera of
objectivity. No. Rather, what makes one particular reading of the text more valid and valuable than another is the reader's disposition and demeanor toward text, the way the reader notices and handles the *evidence* of the texts, and the way that the texts in general are used (or (as is usually the case), abused).
.
 Nor does it end there. The awareness of the presence of interpretive-grids in all current readers implies the presence of interpretive-grids in all previous readers of every century going right back to the authors themselves. If some people today read the gospels as straight-forward historical accounts comparable to the news-stories in their morning-paper, then that is a gross and distorting error on the part of the reader, *not* the text. The gospels were not written as objective historical accounts, and it is foolish beyond measure to treat them as such! Thus Lk-Acts was deliberately written as a history of the early years of the Church, but Luke had his own interpretive-grid (his own unique guiding vision), just like the other evangelists did. Indeed he was no more objective and dispassionate than they were on account of his being a self-aware historian. Invention, focus, and speculative extrapolation were as much a part of the historian's tool-box then as now.
.
> I think that Ron Gordon's point was that everybody has an opinion and that we are fooling ourselves if
> we think we can achieve an objectivity that is free of human bias.
.
 For the church-historian, it is not a question of objectivity, but a question of methodological validity (based upon a prior methodological-respect for the text), and a rational assessment of all the relevant evidence. ... Let me give one brief example of the significance of this latter point. When studying the early apostolic period of church-history (ie. c.30CE to 70CE), most students and many scholars like to include the entire NT among the primary sources because they presuppose that since all the NT books are "apostolic-by-definition" they must also have been written within the period in question. So when studying Paul, it is only natural and sensible to study Paul with the assistance of all the post-Paul pauline materials along with the 'historical' Acts of Apostles (because they are all the same, inspiration-wise). But, in fact, this approach is just as biased and shortsighted as any atheistic or social-political attack upon the text. Nor is it at all sensible from the perspective of historical-criticism.
.
 Therefore a sound methodology cannot afford the luxury of broadening the scope of primary sources so as to include documents written several decades later on the basis of prior assumptions built on mountains of piety, vanity, and custom. In other words, only the *genuine* epistles from Paul can witness to the years between 50-60CE. All that other stuff came years and decades later, and so must be treated as *secondary* sources, and cannot be considered as *primary* sources. This is not a question of faith or piety or scientific objectivity or skepticism or anything like these. This is simply a matter of necessary historical procedure. And yet many people, who really ought to know better, snub their nose at all these "pointless" logical precautions, and continue tossing Paul and Acts hither and yon fully confident that the Lord is well pleased with their blind and irrational methodological bumblings!
.
> A real scientist would know better.
.
 A real church-historian knows enough to treat his source documents with a measure of *real* respect (as opposed to the phony respect of the bible-idolizers).
.
> The very act of observation changes the event observed. This is most certainly true of history. How can we
> ever be objective about history when we are, always and unavoidably, in it?
.
 Since the events of the past *are* past, and so cannot be observed directly, there is no possibility that the observation of historians changes the events themselves. What the historian does is to re-tell the nature and meaning and value of these events based upon his understanding of all the relevant evidence. So it's not that history itself changes, or has changed, but rather that our knowledge and understanding of this or that particular moment in church-history has grown and increased thanks to a rational and respectful historical-critical evaluation and assessment of the evidence provided by the primary source-texts. Such an approach takes discipline, determination, and imagination; so it is no surprise that the average biblically-illiterate bible-reader cannot read the Book *that* way, and can't even imagine why anyone would want to!
.
> Regardless of their perspectives, people are only motivated to record events because they believe that they
> have some significance. And that significance which the recorder attaches to the event is itself an extreme
> bias. Any record, no matter what the science, no matter how dispassionately it is made, is only an abstraction
> of reality - it is NEVER the whole story. Certainly the absolute truth of the events is a reality, but the best we
> can do as mere humans is to try to get close to it. There is only One who knows it completely and absolutely.
.
 Exactly! And that is why the church-historian can never rest content with the accepted view, with the traditional view, with the oh so comfy-cozy view, with the view that has it all worked out down to the last dot and comma and has no need for any further questions or inquiries or re-examinations of the primary sources in the light of historical realities ...
.
> So I don't believe the New Testament because it has been proven by the "science" of history.
.
 Of course not! It is not the purpose of biblical science and church-history to prove the validity of the Faith. Anyone who thinks it is is blind to a great deal.
.
> I believe it because it works for me.
.
 I'm sorry Wayne, but historical realities cannot be determined on the basis of what works for you. Rather, the truth must flow out of the texts themselves, in the form of all the evidence that exists within the worlds within the text, behind the text, in front of the text, and between the lines. That's where the true story about the NT books, and the early Greek churches, will be found; not in your easy idea that whatever 'works for me' *must* be true.
.
> I believe it because of how often I meet God when I read it. I believe it because it has the power to move
> my soul. And somehow, it has never moved me to become antisemitic. Somehow I've just seemed to miss
> that particular point which appears to be so obvious to a learned historian like Crossan. Guess I'm just not
> objective enough. -- Wayne Sutton
.
 I tend to agree  :)
.
 However, there is also a danger that our positive affections toward the Word of God may seriously hamper and inhibit the efforts of bible scholars and church-historians to reconstruct the *actual* history of the early churches; as opposed to the legendary histories that are everywhere! For example, everybody knows that Lk-Acts is the earliest example of Christian historical literature. It is the first Christian history-book, and because it is inspired (ie. in the NT) it must be infallible in every way; including especially all the history therein. But this an incredibly biased position that prejudges every issue and answers every question even before we first set eyes on the texts.
.
 The church-historian cannot proceed with a proper evaluation of the historical validity of Lk-Acts with such powerfully distorting lens firmly locked over his eyes! And since there is no possibility of any clear view of the text, there is no way to find the clues and evidence which the historian seeks to gather and collect (before fitting the pieces together). For you see, Luke deliberately wrote Lk-Acts as a historian, and *therefore* must be evaluated *as* a historian (for that IS what he was: a *classical* historian); just as his 'history' must be evaluated and judged from the categories, and by the methodologies, of the biblical sciences as they exist *now* (which, of course, Luke had no knowledge of). Accordingly those believers who would rather not have these church-historians doing their "dirty
work" at all (if it endangers their idolatrous worship of the scriptures), are actively preventing the discovery of the real history behind the sacred texts; and so are actually offending the Spirit of Truth.
.
 In other words, just *because* Lk-Acts is a history-book, the church-historian must treat it like any other history-book (ie. imperfect and limited like any other history-book; shaped and conditioned by the author's own biases, vision, and intentions (ie. his interpretive-grid), just like any other history-book); and NOT as the perfect and infallible words of God. And if ordinary Christians are offended by such a seemingly caviler, skeptical, and faithless approach to the text, well, then the problem is not so much with the methods of the scholars as it is with their own irrational attitudes and biased dispositions that prohibit *any* rational investigations into scripture and church-history!
.
 Now I can appreciate that all this puts the average bible-reader in a rather tight squeeze. For most Christians, who have neither the time nor the inclination to dig into the mountains of secondary literature surrounding the sacred text, it seems to be an either/or dilemma. Either we read the text superficially (with the surface (or 'plain' meaning) being the infallible words of God), OR we abandon simplicity, and promptly fall prey to the anarchy of conflicting interpretations. But this is neither a wise nor healthy approach to the Word of God. The good bible-student will do well to abandon entirely this 'either/or' way of thinking as being far too simplistic to do justice to the diversity and depth of the Word of Love & Light ...
.
 Instead, we might adopt the approach of Origen, who taught that most passages of scripture have two or three (sometimes even four) levels of meaning. Now this observation is not only correct and true, but it leads naturally to the recognition that the main purpose of the scriptures in general is to convey saving and spiritual truth. This means that it is not wrong to question various historical or literal details, because even the narratives of historical events are secondary to the prime purpose of imparting a higher truth. This is certainly the case with the gospels, where the proclamation of the Good News makes historical accuracy *almost* irrelevant. And it is even the case with Lk-Acts, where the whole movement of history revolves around the establishment of Rome as the new Holy City and new center of the universe.
.
 Thus Origen's starting-point for bible-study is a clear recognition that a simplistic and literal approach that only skims the surface of the text, and remains satisfied with a very superficial reading, makes it all but impossible for the believer to rise above the letter of scripture to its Spirit ...

P.S. textman's theological dictionary defines the Sunday Eucharist as 'a gathering of Cats'.