Da Big Picture

/ Topic > Re: Da Big Picture - 1 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 5 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
> On 4Feb02 freeontheinside said: The deep questions I have enjoyed reading this post. Beanieboy,
> you bring up a very good point. I think that there is a natural fear to bring in the art of philosophy
> into our christianity.
.
 textman interjects: "a natural fear" you say? I'm not sure I quite agree with you on that one, freeontheinside. I personally have never experienced any such natural fear that you speak of. Maybe it would be better to say that there is an 'irrational reluctance' on the part of some not to think overmuch about questions and mysteries that are not so easily answered according to inches and miles.
.
 But this is (or rather WAS) not the Christian way. Right from the beginnings of church history an old tradition carried the love of Sophia deep into the very fabric of the early apostolic Faith. The first NT book in many ways is The Wisdom of Solomon, which preceded Paul's writings by about a century. It is a shining example of Greek scripture that sits among the best in prophetic literature. Then came Paul, who openly speaks of the knowledge of Christ and God. He was later followed by the Egyptian prophets who brought the gnosis of faith to the heights of apostolic development: "May grace and peace be lavished on you as you grow in the rich knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord!" (2Peter 1:2/NETbible).
.
 Later still, and only in Egypt apparently, the prophetic tradition (and its love of knowledge and wisdom) somehow managed to survive all the gnostic crises, sundry persecutions, and various hardships that accompanied the Faith's entry into the wider arena of the Roman Empire. Then it eventually gave rise to the first Christian schools ... And the first great Christian teachers; including Clement and Origen of Alexandria (who just happens to be the father of biblical criticism). After that the prophetic traditions lose ground to the priests (and their priestly ways), and also lose touch with the great libraries, and are more or less forced underground. But only for a time ...
.
> We have been taught that this is being worldly. I would like to submit though that without the
> art of philosophy and critical thinking we are nothing more than robots. I really do not think that
> for people of God that we should be just giving the simple answers from scripture and that we
> should know the why?
.
 Yes, but knowing the why requires considerable effort, imagination, and dedication just to know which questions are worth asking, and who to ask them of. Such things don't grow on trees, and can't be found in the nearest mall. In a faithless and distracted culture, how can anyone learn how to ask the questions that count most?
.
> I think for a long time now our churches have been teaching the answers but not the why behind them.
.
 The scribes and pharisees don't want to know the why behind them; for such things can easily put one's theology and religion at risk. No, they are good little solders who do as they're told ... Or Else!
.
> I think that we need to engage our brain and study the why behind our actions.
.
 Good plan.

>> On 4Feb Atheist_Divine asketh: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?
.
 textman asketh: Well, well, and what have we here now? Another of *those* cyber-saints who quotes famous quotes by not so famous saints perhaps? One who quotes without even a nod of acknowledgement to the source perhaps? Oh, for shame! Does Atheist_Divine even know who first said that oh so sayable saying? Does he understand what the esteemed author meant when he wrote those words oh so long ago?
.
 Well, if not, it may enrich the reader to learn these things; or at least be reminded of them now and again: Way back round the beginnings of the third century a certain lawyer of Carthage named Tertullian converted to the Faith. At once he set about scribbling his thoughts down on papyrus, and he never seemed to stop; for such was his nature, being a lawyer and all, you know. And in these many scriblings from his fertile mind, he fought the good fight for the Faith. But being only a man he naturally wrote down some bad ideas as well as some good ideas. This is how it is among writers. Being a saint is no protection from ignorance, blindness, and plain ol stupidity.
.
 And let me tell you something else about this cherished Tertullian chap of yours, Atheist_Divine. In one of his books he argues that only the true church holds the authentic traditions (passed along from the apostles, I imagine), and therefore only She has the authority to interpret scripture. The logical conclusion of these so-called facts is that believers have no need whatsoever to argue or even discuss such matters. Presumably Tertullian implies that the average believer ought not to concern himself with the effort of thinking about the scriptures, but instead should be only too happy to accept whatever crumbs of understanding the priests allow him! That's your hero right there, AD.
.
 But now let us turn more directly to the matter before us:
.
CHAP.VII. -> PAGAN PHILOSOPHY THE PARENT OF HERESIES. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFLECTIONS FROM CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE OLD SYSTEMS OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHY. These are "the doctrines" of men and "of demons" produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world's wisdom: this the Lord called "foolishness," and "chose the foolish things of the world" to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the AEons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato's school. From the same source came Marcion's better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed--Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions - embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those "fables and endless genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer?" From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost." He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.  --  from 'The Prescription Against Heretics' by Tertullian
.
 So there you go; and very well said, to be sure. But needless to say, I think old Tertullian is full of sh*t; but maybe that's just me. This is chiefly because I am very well aware that the first words of the first New Testament document (ie. 1Th2:13+) were written right there in old Athens herself (ie. Paulos was afraid of the place); and if that plain historical fact doesn't impress Tertullian in any way, then of course he'll feel free to bite the hand that feeds him! Simplicity of heart is always a good thing, but neither should it disable the mind in the process.
.
>> Here's to the sun God, He sure is a fun God, Ra, Ra, Ra
.
 It's not Ra, you heathen swine! It's Yati (ie. of the Glorious Light); who is the only sun-god worth knowing, of course. ... And you'd best not forget it, sir. btw: I love your avatar :) ... Where did you get it?

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 2 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 7 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>>> On 5Feb02 freeontheinside wrote: <snipsome> If we shun the area of philosophy
>>> from our life as a christian I believe that we lose something.
.
 textman agrees: Yes, we lose a lot!
.
> On 6Feb Atheist_Divine wrote: textman,
.
 textman looks: Wut?
.
>> tx previously wrote: <snip> Another of *those* cyber-saints
>> who quotes famous quotes by not so famous saints perhaps?
.
> Hardly a saint!
.
 You don't think he merits the rank of sainthood? I do. He was quite a character;
and quite an influential character too, you know.
.
>> And let me tell you something else about this cherished Tertullian chap of yours, Atheist_Divine. <snip>
.
> AD: I don't exactly 'cherish' Tertullian, but its a useful quote. And it was meant as a joke,
> hence the :) beside it.
.
 I knew that :)
.
>> tx: Presumably Tertullian implies that the average believer ought not to concern himself with the
>> effort of thinking about the scriptures, but instead should be only too happy to accept whatever
>> crumbs of understanding the priests allow him! That's your hero right there, Atheist_Divine.
.
> Well, look at what happens when you let laymen read the scriptures and interpret them
> for him/herself - lots of extremely strange ideas, cults, new religions...
.
 Yeah well, I'm willing to risk all that (and more) for the freedom and joy of spiritual liberty. Yes, there is a price to pay for breaking out of the established traditions and religions. It involves thinking for yourself, and taking personal responsibility for the quality of one's faith.
.
> AD: From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as
> that which he would have us be on our guard against.
.
 Of course, and he is certainly right to do so, for philosophy and science have always been (for the most part) hostile to Faith. But being on our guard is something quite different from an absolute rejection of philosophy and science. Moreover, the last two thousand years have shown the value and accomplishments of philosophy and science; and some saints have even shown that philosophy and theology can work together in harmony, and to mutual advantage (eg. Thomas Aquinas). So Paul is surely right to warn the average illiterate believer away from philosophy, but we should not forget that this same apostle also wrote this hopeful command: "Brethren, do not be as children in your thinking! Yes, be like babes in doing evil; but in your thinking, be mature" (1Cor 14:20).
.
> AD: Many new religions indeed use philosophy, or a mixture of the ideas of other faiths
> mixed in with Christianity.
.
 Some people figure that the future of religion within the context of a computerized global village will involve more and more of this amalgamation, inter-seeding, and general mixing it up type behavior. Now while I agree that most of the great religions (along with the scientific and philosophical enterprise) do indeed have much of value to offer, I would not like to see the unique flavor of the Faith washed away under a tidal wave of spiritual mediocrity.
.
] Tertullian previously wrote: What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there
] between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians?
.
> Don't you agree with that?
.
 I do NOT! Athens was right there at the very beginnings of the New Testament, and indeed was herself the instrumental cause of the development of the Christian epistle (by the collaborative efforts of the Hellenistic-Jewish prophets Paulos and Silvanus). In light of that undeniable historical fact, how can anyone ever ask what Athens has to do with Jerusalem? ... It has *everything* to do with it!
.
> AD: What need has Christianity, if it is from god, to bring in various bits and pieces from
> other religions? Yet it did so.
.
 That is correct. It did so because it had to. 4X: The Faith adopted the Greek language of the masses because it was the best medium through which to spread the Good News to all the nations. Thank God the early Christian prophets did not think like Tertullian! If they had, there would not have been any Greek documents to collect together and make a bible out of.
.
> Are we to assume that God liked pagans?
.
 Why not? The Lord came into the world to save the sinners, AD.
He did not come to heal those who do not require a spiritual physician.
.
> Thought they had good ideas or *gasp* inspired those ideas?
.
 huh? Wut U mean please?
.
> Or that he gave incomplete revelation to the church,
.
 A *complete* revelation is a contradiction in terms, and would (in any case) be far too much for any infant religion to swallow all in one go! Revelation is gradual and progressive by nature, for it always waits upon the necessary background rationalization of culture. The spirit follows the mind as the mind follows the stomach! Men lead with their belly.
.
> and they needed to supplement such a faulty gift with the ideas of other religions?
.
 Growth always involves change and development. God is in process, just as His creation is always in process. We are a part of this same creation-in-process, and are ourselves creatures in process. Neither is the Word of God a static and frozen reality; as so many foolishly assume. If any religion, church, denomination, cult, or sect ever ceases to generate new ideas and new techniques, then that is the time to get out, for it is already a dead and dying thing, even as their members praise and thank God for their spiritual strength and vitality!
.
>> tx: <snip> and if that plain historical fact doesn't impress Tertullian in any way, then
> of course he'll feel free to bite the hand that feeds him!
.
> AD: Oh, I agree, the NT shows clear evidence of being influenced by Greek philosophy.
.
 What I find very curious is that there is even some evidence to show that friend Paulos was familiar with the writings of Philo of Alexandria. I find this interesting because it suggests that at some point in his travels Paul may have studied in Egypt for a time, and may indeed have gone over there with the original Graeco-Jewish believers (ie. after they were forced out of Jerusalem). Apparently these intangible threads of philosophical connections have concrete historical implications.
.
>> btw: I love your avatar ... Where did you get it?
.
> Somewhere in http://www.mysmilies.com/
.
 ha! great site, thx, AD.
.
> You know, you shouldn't end your posts with an "x" (a kiss) or I might get the wrong idea  ~AD~
.
 LOL ... Don't take it personally, pal. That little 'x' serves two masters: 1) it functions as an EOF (end of file) flag; and 2) it's a kiss for ALL the cyber-saints, semi-direct from the Father of Lights his-self . . . What's His name again? Isn't it Yati-something?

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 3 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 10 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /

>>> AD previously wrote: Hardly a saint!
.
>> tx said: You don't think he merits the rank of sainthood? I do. He was quite a character; and quite
>> an influential character too, you know.<snip>
.
> On 8Feb Atheist_Divine clarifies: My apologies, I assumed from your referring to "cybersaints who
> quote..saints" that you were referring to me, not Tertullian!
.
textman does some LOL ... I was, and you're far too modest :)
.
>> tx: So Paul is surely right to warn the average illiterate believer away from philosophy, but we should
>> not forget that this same apostle also wrote this hopeful command: "Brethren, do not be as children
>> in your thinking! Yes, be like babes in doing evil; but in your thinking, be mature" (1Cor 14:20).
.
> AD: The difficulty lies in saying who you would allow to mix philosophy with Christianity. You mentioned
> Aquinas, and the church certainly saw no harm in allowing an educated man (a monk, wasn't he?)
.
 The 'Dumb Ox' was a Dominican friar; and a born writer too.
.
> to do so, but the average believer? I doubt it.
.
 No difficulty at all. The average bible student is certainly literate enough to read some of the better philosophy writers (eg. Plato and Aristotle). Frankly, there's no excuse for any deliberate policy making for a grand ignorance of humankind's intellectual history. The history of the Faith is everywhere bound up with it; both being intimately involved with the ongoing process of universal rationalization.
.
>> tx: <snip> I do NOT! Athens was right there at the very beginnings of the New Testament,
.
> AD: He went on a visit, made a short speech and moved on. Whats so important about that?
.
 O my lordy! You are like *totally* off base on this one, AD. This is doubtless due to the contamination of Lukan images and texts which completely change the emotional and psychological realities of that historic occasion. ... Let us therefore make a nice distinction between the *primary* sources (ie. eyewitness accounts; namely, the Thessalonian letters), and the *secondary* sources (Acts of Apostles). So I'm sure you'll agree with me when I suggest that the author of Lk-Acts was not present at the events in question, and that no amount of divine inspiration or intervention is going to make up for *that* deficiency. And when we do even this much (say, in the name of a more historical-critical understanding of the scriptures), it is plain to see that there was no grand and glorious speech that humbled the gods and citizens of mighty Athens. Rather, it was Paul himself who was assailed by the demons of doubts and fears. Damascus was never like this!
.
 Let me put it another way. If someone wished to know, for example, how the first words of the earliest NT document came about, what would you tell him? Would you speak about the concrete circumstances surrounding the actual composition of the first draft (or original autograph, as the scribes put it)? It's an altogether interesting question; and yet one that most believers rarely even consider (as if it were of no importance whatsoever to the Faith). And even when they do consider it, they are eager to latch onto whatever meager and feeble explanation that they happen to stumble over first! Have you seen the way that these commentaries on 1&2 Thessalonians threat 1Th.2:13-3:5? I have --> Despicable! ...
.
[Brief timeout for silent fumings and heated simmerings ... ] 
.
 Anyway, lets try to picture the intrepid band of missionaries as they arrive in Athens round about the year 49CE. Here we have three men who have been travelling for many long and hard months. Two of them are mature men, Jewish-Hellenistic prophets recently out of Antioch (Syria): "Paulos and Silvanus" (1T.1:1). The third is a younger man (perhaps late teens or early twenties), named: "Timothy (our brother and God's fellow-worker in the gospel of Christ)" (1T.1:1&3:2). They are not entering the great city as conquering heroes. They are not so much going somewhere as getting away from the pillars at their backs (ie. Peter in Antioch, James in Jerusalem, John in Alexandria). They are not in Athens because they want to be there. They are not engaged in any triumphant march leading (eventually) to glorious Rome. No, they are simply taking the only route that is left open to them.
.
 Behind them lay some several months of sporadic preaching and church-building in Asia Minor and up the coast of the Aegean Sea to Greece; with mixed results. Most of these alien Greeks who heard them voicing the gospel of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ thought their accents barbaric, and their claims ridiculous (and perhaps even dangerous). They were driven out of town after town with rods and stones (most of the time). They felt lucky to escape with only cuts and bruises and bloodshed. Sometimes they even got arrested for causing what the English call a brouhaha. It was more for their own safety than for any deliberate intent to maliciously persecute the new Faith (of which the cops knew, and cared, nothing).
.
 In the middle of the night, the guards would hustle the trio through the back streets and escort them well out of town. When they were far enough away, they would be warned not to return, and then given a good smack on the head to show that they mean it. Good riddance to bad rubbish! Good luck and get lost! That's how it was for the Lord's free-thinking prophets Paulos and Silvanus. Paul himself seemed to have been traveling about aimlessly for the last ten years, ever since his conversion being driven out of one place after another. Thus the opening words of the first NT letter looks back on this tradition of persecution, and reveals the dark and sober mood of the two hellenized Jewish prophets who survived it:
.
 "Because of this we for our part unceasingly thank God that when you received from us the Word of the message of God you accepted not a word of men, but what it really is, a word of God (which works in you who believe). 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, and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all people by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved. They always fill up the measure of their sins; but the wrath of God has come upon them at last!" -- 1T.2:13-16 / Prophet Version
.
 Always going away, never going forward. This brave expedition into the heartland of paganism was supposed to change all that. But look what has become of them now! Here in the shadow of the Parthenon listening to the debates and teachings of the students and teachers (and even citizens), Paul realized that his tongue could never topple this city. What was he doing here? Paul had had enough of it. He was sick of travelling, sick of running, running from the Jews, running from the pagan mobs, running from the mighty pillars of the church (who did not see the liberating potential of the gospel in quite the same way as these two radical prophets). Paul wanted desperately to go to the only safe place he knew, Thessalonika, where the prophetic pair had had their greatest success in converting the Greeks:
.
 "Now, brothers and sisters, when we were made orphans, physically but not spiritually, from you for a short period, we endeavored (with great desire) all the more to see you face to face; for we resolved to come to you (I, Paulos, indeed; and that, several times). But Satan prevented us. For who is our hope and joy and crown of boasting - is it not you, with others - before our Lord Jesus in his Parousia? ... Yes, indeed you are our glory and joy" (2:17-20/PV). But under the relentless pressure of a vain and self-assured Athens, Paul's troubles and woes ("in all our affliction and tribulation" 3:7) began to catch up with him. He even wondered if they were doing any good at all!
.
 "And so because we were no longer able to endure it, we [ie. Paulos and Silvanus] willingly resolved to remain behind (alone in Athens), and we sent Timothy (our brother and God's fellow-worker in the gospel of Christ) to strengthen you and encourage you in respect of your faith, so that no one may be disturbed by these tribulations. For you yourselves know that we are destined for this; for indeed when we were with you, we foretold you that we were to experience tribulation (as even it happened, and as you know). So because I, for my part, was no longer able to endure it, I sent Timothy to learn about your faith; fearing that in some way the Tempter had tempted you, and our labor might have been in vain and fruitless" (1Thes. 3:1-5 / PV).
.
 And when Timothy returned with the good news that Paul's panic attack was unfounded, the prophets were pleased and rejoiced (see 1T.3:6-10). And *that* is when the three missionaries hit upon the idea of writing a brief letter (ie. 1Th.2:13-4:2; letter 1 of 4) to the believers in Thessalonika; in order to encourage them you see (although it was the prophets themselves who got all the encouragement). Thus the prophets begin the letter's closing with a reiteration of the original primary impulse, but now in bold new tones that show the prophets intention to go forward after all: "Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our path to you" (3:11). Instead they stayed in Athens for a few months, keeping a low profile, and making preparations for the next leg of their journey (which would take them to Corinth, and the parting of the ways for the two brother-apostles).
.
 So there never was any pretty speech in pagan Athens by the all-conquering hero (Saul of Tarsus) marching off to Rome! But there was a small and beaten prophet of Jesus whose own personal fears and doubts led them to the very depths of despair. Timothy's return must have seemed to them as clear evidence of the Lord's power and grace. Good news indeed; for it is out of this joyous outburst that the New Testament was born! No speech, but something better than a speech: the first Christian epistles, and the beginnings of what would eventually become the New Testament.
.
>> tx: <snip> That is correct. It did so because it had to. 4X: The Faith adopted the Greek language of
>> the masses because it was the best medium through which to spread the Good News to all the nations.
.
> AD: Yes, they used the language, but I meant the ideas, the philosophy, not the language.
.
 It's a package deal. :)
.
>>> AD: Thought they had good ideas or *gasp* inspired those ideas?
.
>> tx: huh? Wut U mean please?
.
> AD: If it is ok to mix pagan philosophy with Christian faith, then are we to assume
> that God agreed with or inspired these pagan beliefs?
.
 Not necessarily. Reality/Creation is a complex machine. Human beings are complex creatures. Accordingly, things like art, religion, literature are also complicated affairs. Not all men are created equal, and not all religions or philosophies are equally valid. Some are better than others because they are closer to the truths relating to the big picture. Look at ancient Egyptian religion for example. For thousands of years the chief concern powering the religious machinery throughout the Black Land was the desire (or perhaps 'lust' would be a more accurate word) for personal immortality. They wanted only to live a good Egyptian style life (beyond the grave), and to live it forevermore! Clearly there's no hope for such a spiritually blind religious system as that. Best to just put it out of its misery; which is exactly what happened later (since it just couldn't compete with the more developed - and more ferocious - new religions).
.
> And what would such an assumption mean?
.
 It might mean that the Logos of God enlightens every man and woman ... to some degree. Those who take up the gift, and run with it, (like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle), are surely loved as much as the saints by the Father of Lights!
.
>> tx: Growth always involves change and development. God is in process, just as His
>> creation is always in process.
.
> AD: Prov 24:21 My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them
> that are given to change.
.
I think he means changing hearts & minds that never sit still.
.
> James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from
> the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
.
 Good quote, and quite true in many ways. Nevertheless, from the merely human perspective
God appears to be in process; and I hardly think he'd be offended by my saying so.
.
>> tx: What I find very curious is that there is even some evidence to show that Paulos was
>> familiar with the writings of Philo of Alexandria. I find this interesting because it suggests
>> that at some point in his travels Paul may have studied in Egypt for a time <snip>
.
> Not just Paul, John the Evangelist seems to show the influence of Philo - or the Stoics - in his
> use of the term 'logos'.
.
 I rather suspect that the Gospel of John grew straight out of the rich earth of the Black Land. There is lots of evidence in the text linking it to the historical situation of the church there towards the end of the first century (eg. the 'local' conflict with the re-established Judaism). In this case, it is not at all difficult to imagine that the early church in Egypt was more than familiar with Philo's writings. Thus Paul could also have stayed there (with the newly arrived church of Egypt) for a year or two as a novice (ie. a brand new convert) to learn about the Faith; and that it was during the course of this instruction that he learned his Philo.
.
>> - the almost pharonic one - textman ;>
.
> anet, heq, aua embah neteru aaiu --> [Homage to you, prince, I am in the presence of the great gods]
.
 hehehe ... cute
.
> an÷ uta senb (life! strength! health!) ~AD~
.
 Another fine ancient egyptian blessing ... They sure did love life, those folks!
But not so much their prophets 

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 4 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 12 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /

<snipsome>
.
>> tx previously wrote: The average bible student is certainly literate enough to read
>> some of the better philosophy writers (eg. Plato and Aristotle).
.
> On 10Feb Atheist_Divine replied: They can read it, but can they understand it?
> There are an awful lot of stupid people around...
.
 textman sayeth. Sure; but a constant reading of good books is still the best way around *that* little problem. :)
.
>> tx: Frankly, there's no excuse for any deliberate policy making for a grand ignorance
>> of humankind's intellectual history.
.
> AD: Christianity will fall if it idealizes ignorance, as so many of its branches seem to do, for the laymen.
.
 I agree. But old habits die hard, and it's hard for the 'duly appointed shepherds' (and their preferred theologians) to admit that maybe they *don't* already have ALL the answers.
.
>> tx: <snip> O my lordy! You are like *totally* off base on that one, AD. This is doubtless due
>> to the contamination of Lukan images and texts which completely change the emotional and
>> psychological realities of that historic occasion. ... Let us therefore make a nice distinction
>> between the *primary* sources (ie. eyewitness accounts; namely, the Thessalonian letters),
>> and the *secondary* sources (Acts of Apostles).
.
> I was primarily thinking of Acts - Thessalonians not being among my favourite books...
.
 Most people tend to agree with your assessment. There is a vast difference in "literary quality" between these few pages of primitive and obscure letters, and the entirely modernish two-part historical-novel canonized as 'Gospel of Luke', and 'Acts of Apostles'. There would have to be a *LOT* of literary development going on somewhere in order to get from 1&2Thess to Luke-Acts! Most people don't seem to realize that by supposing Lk-Acts to have been written early on (ie. first generation eyewitness account) they are in effect allowing NO possibility of literary and theological development. But if Lk-Acts just happened to appear out of thin air, well that's just fine too (they say), since it's inspired and all, you know. So I guess that the Holy Ghost was in such an all-fired up hurry to get every little thing down on papyrus before the future-determined cut-off point of 100AD (so as to satisfy the exacting specifications of fundyfied believers twenty centuries down the road yet) that He couldn't wait a few generations in order to get the job done right! ... HA!
.
 So 'Acts of Apostles' is certainly a great read, but it's not really of much value to church historians trying to piece together the very beginnings of church-history (ie. the actual course of events in the first century). The biggest problem is that most people simply refuse to accept that it is a secondary source on the first century, and a primary witness to the early second century. That little distinction makes all the difference in the world when we're actually trying to understand the texts and how they emerged out of the context of the living faith of the urbanized and romanized and Greek-speaking believers of the early churches.
.
>> tx: <snip> Always going away, never going forward. This brave expedition into the heartland of paganism
>> was supposed to change all that. But look what has become of them now! Here in the shadow of the
>> Pantheon listening to the debates and teachings of the students and teachers (and even citizens)
.
> AD: That is a rather amusing misspelling
.
 Not a misspelling, but rather the completely wrong word! I'm so embarrassed. It got by the spell-checker, and the editor was out taking a nap at the time. Thx for pointing it out. The Parthenon (ie. 'virgin's place') is the building I meant to indicate: the sacred temple of Athena on the acropolis at Athens. I ought to know, I have a needlepoint type poster of it on my wall in the living room. ha :)
.
> AD: I'd have liked to go to the Parthenon, and listen to the philosophers, if such a thing existed today...
.
 Alas not. Today the Sophists have taken charge, and they demand their payments up front first please!
.
>> <snip> So there never was any pretty speech in pagan Athens by the all-conquering hero (Saul of
>> Tarsus) marching off to Rome! But there was a small and beaten prophet of Jesus whose own personal
>> fears and doubts led them to the very depths of despair. Timothy's return must have seemed to them
>> as clear evidence of the Lord's power and grace. Good news indeed; for it is out of this joyous outburst
>> that the New Testament was born! No speech, but something better than a speech: the first Christian
>> epistles, and the beginnings of what would become the New Testament.
.
> AD: Hmmm....I'm none too big a Paul fan, but I liked your exegesis. I would have preferred it
> if John had written more of the NT, but there you go...
.
 In a way, there is more, AD. It all depends on how you look at it. I see the gospel of John as the "prophetic" gospel (ie. as an example of Christian prophetic literature); eg. compare the number of times that the word 'prophet' appears in the various NT books. What I'm trying to get at is that John's Gospel (along with 1,2,3John) is a part of a larger prophetic tradition that includes people like Paul and Silvanus (ie. the author of 1Peter), and also the author of Hebrews, and even the later egyptian prophets (who wrote James, Jude, and 2Peter). Jacob in particular demonstrates a good knowledge of John's gospel, and even develops Johannine themes and theology to his own unique prophetic homilies. ... Check it out.
.
>>> AD: <snip> Yes, they used the language, but I meant the ideas, the philosophy, not the language.
.
>> tx: It's a package deal.
.
> AD: So you think that the language we use influences the thoughts we have?
.
 Absolutely! For this reason alone it is very useful to have *some* knowledge of the original Greek of the NT documents.
.
>> tx: <snip> Not necessarily. Reality/Creation is a complex machine. Human beings are complex
>> creatures. Accordingly, things like art, religion, literature are also complicated affairs. Not all
>> men are created equal, and not all religions or philosophies are equally valid.
.
> AD: Rather an unusual position to take ... most Christians would argue that the writings
> of the Bible are the only valid spiritual/religious writings.
.
 There are signs that this is changing too. Many people recognize that there is some value and truth in most of the world's best religious literature. I personally find the sheer variety and abundance of Buddhist scriptures to be endlessly fascinating. 4X: There is even one document in 'The Buddhist Bible' (by D.Goddard) called 'Awakening of Faith'.
.
<snipsome>
.
>> tx: It might mean that the Logos of God enlightens every man and woman ... to some degree.
>> Those who take up the gift, and run with it, (like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle), are surely
>> loved as much as the saints by the Father of Lights!
.
> AD: Didn't some of the Church Fathers/Catholic theologians argue something like that, for the use
> of Aristotle? That people before Jesus came were spoken to by God, even if they were not Jews?
.
 It's an old idea that goes way back, but the big debate over Aristotle took place in Europe during the Middle Ages at the earliest universities with the re-introduction of Greek classics from the Muslim civilization to the East. There was a big scrap about it since the church had finally made peace with Plato, and bang out of nowhere they get smacked with Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas himself was largely responsible for legitimizing 'the pagan ways of Aristotle'. This is one reason why Martin Luther later burned a bunch of books by Thomas. I guess he wasn't as impressed by Aristotle as Aquinas was. :)
.
>> tx: <snip> Good quote, and quite true in many ways. Nevertheless, from the merely human
>> perspective God appears to be in process; and I hardly think he'd be offended by my saying so.
.
> AD: A way to rationalise the differences between the OT and NT? Presumably along the lines that
> God changed the message as the capacity for understanding it increased? So for a bunch of warlike
> primitive (relatively) people - a warlike religion, and for a group of people more in tune with philosophy
> and mysticism, a more thoughtful and less bloody religion?
.
 The people weren't ready for a bloodless religion, AD. That's a plain historical fact. The failed religious reform of the black pharaoh Akhenaton in the fourteenth century BCE demonstrated that. These things need lots of time to ferment.
.
> AD: Would that not mean that there is continuing revelation
.
 Revelation will continue because the Faith is also in process, and will continue as such until we all attain to the perfection of Christ: "It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God; a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ's full stature. The purpose of this is to no longer be children, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who with craftiness carry out their deceitful schemes. But practicing the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into Christ, who is the head" (Eph.4:11-15/NETbible).
.
> AD: - that the canon is not closed -
.
 The Holy Bible is in desperate need of an editorial overhaul all round. It's long overdue, in my opinion; but then again I seriously doubt that there are more than a small handful of people on the entire planet who are competent enough to do a good job of *that*!
.
> and that the religion might undergo a further change?
.
 Christianity will continue to change and evolve as it has always done since day one. The Faith will continue to go through cycles of spiritual decay and corruption (such as the present evil age of faithlessness) followed by lively periods of spiritual growth and renewal. Out of the long history of the Faith we see these patterns repeated over and over again. The places, the people, the times, and the cultures all make their mark, and affect the course of the flow of the living waters of faith in the hearts of believers.
.
>> <snip> Another fine ancient egyptian blessing ... They sure did love life, those folks!
>> But not so much their prophets. :(
.
> They were quite keen on death, too May I ask what flavour of Christianity you partake of? ~AD~
.
 Well, I used to be a Catholic (of all things) until it was made clear to me that this church, like so many others, is simply a front for the Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart. Since then I have joined the ranks of another assembly, which is not a church or a denomination in the normal sense. Rather, it is the company of the Christian prophets who have always appeared outside the narrow channels of the established religious systems. This assembly of the prophets contains many different sorts of people, including the likes of the teachers Clement and Origen of Alexandria from the pre-Constantine days, the early Anabaptists from the Radical Reformation period, the early Quakers in 17C England, scholars such as Erasmus and William Tyndale, many and various writers (such as Leo Tolstoy), and even a few philosophers (such as S.Kierkegaard). And many others besides. These are the shining lights of the Faith. These are the true and inspired good shepherds of our religion. The only true successors to the original apostles are these authentic prophets chosen by grace to serve the whole People of God. Amen!

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 5 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 19 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>> tx: / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 12 Feb 2002 /
.
> On 12Feb Atheist_Divine asks: What does this mean, BTW?
.
 textman answers: Well, basically what it means is that a copy of this post has been re-directed to an ng on UseNet in the alternative category called alt.bible.prophecy. Newsgroups are like bulletin boards where people post messages on various topics. You can access newsgroups with dedicated newsreader programs, Outlook Express, or with any browser. To see for yourself just goto  http://groups.google.com/  and do a search for alt.bible.prophecy  When you get there do a search within that ng for textman and then sort by date. This will bring up my recent postings to abp. Just clik a link and away you go! :)
.
>> tx: <snip> I agree. But old habits die hard, and it's hard for the 'duly appointed shepherds' (and
>> their preferred theologians) to admit that maybe they *don't* already have ALL the answers.
.
> AD: They should have a better knowledge of church history, church doctrines and biblical studies -
> otherwise how are they ever going to be able to evangelize people properly?
.
 They have seminaries, theological colleges, and bible schools for just that sort of thing. The pastors, however, know better than to try and teach anything at the Sunday services, so they set up special bible study classes for another day. Few even bother with them. Not that I blame them much, but most of the lack of interest in these subjects (that you and I are crazy about) is generated by the people themselves. They are utterly lacking for any sort of passion for the truth. Hey, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
.
> AD: If you do not know all about your own faith, how can you possibly instruct others
> as to how good it is and why they should join?
.
 Ha! You should invite a couple of JW's over for a chat. :)
.
> AD: No salesman tries to sell his product without knowing as much as he can about it -
> the same should apply to Christians.
.
 I agree. I think maybe the general feeling is that if you can read, then all these things are available in the Bible, and whatever isn't in there isn't important anyway. Which idea I very *don't* agree with!
.
>> tx: <snip> Most people don't seem to realize that by supposing Lk-Acts to have been written early
>> on (ie. first generation eyewitness account) they are in effect allowing NO possibility of literary and
>> theological development.
.
> AD: Isn't Luke-Acts generally thought to have been written c70 upward?
.
 It varies somewhat around that period, but any time prior to 100CE is still way too soon. The texts flow out of events as smoothly and naturally as leaves on a bush. Each in its own time, each in its own place.
.
>> tx: But if Lk-Acts just happened to appear out of thin air, well that's just fine too (they say), since
>> it's inspired and all, you know. So I guess that the Holy Ghost was in such an all-fired up hurry to
>> get every little thing down on papyrus before the future-determined cut-off point of 100AD (so as
>> to satisfy the exacting specifications of fundyfied believers twenty centuries down the road yet)
>> that He couldn't wait a few generations in order to get the job done right! ... HA!
.
> AD: I've never really understood some of the objections the "fundyfied believers" use. Why is it not
> possible for them to believe that God did not override the personalities of the authors when the
> Bible was being written?
.
 Because that would logically allow for the possibility of errors being introduced into the texts. BUT since the SACRED text is PERFECT because it is God's WORD direct from God's MOUTH (to the fundy ear) then *of course* the Bible is INFALLIBLE and all . . .
.
> Why could it not be that the books of the bible can be inspired and reflect the time of writing, the level
> of education of the author, the general direction of Christian thought at that time, and the personality
> of the (human) author?
.
 These are the basic assumptions that I, and most bible scholars and students (and even most scribes and pharisees perhaps), operate under while studying the texts. Alas, many believers see no value in such an approach, and may even consider it sinful, or worse, an act of unfaith. It's very difficult to convince such people of the need to be sensible about church history and how the scriptures fit therein.
.
>> tx: The biggest problem is that most people simply refuse to accept that it is a secondary
>> source on the first century, and a primary witness to the early second century.
.
> You go for a later dating than c70+?
.
 Very. I put it in the 105-115CE range. It took time for all the necessary source documents to get written (they didn't all appear at once). It took more time for all these books to be edited, collected, and gathered from distant lands. It took more time to study all the sources and work out a considered proposal. And it took several years to get it all down just so. And most likely there was more than one person involved in the actual writing and editing; which would explain a lot regarding those pesky little mysteries and inconsistencies about Lk-Acts that scholars so love to ponder.
.
> Luke's memory could have gone a bit fuzzy after all that time,
.
 The text doesn't say who the author is, AD. Nor does it give any hints in that direction (which in itself is unusual for early Christian literature); and therefore constitutes (I think) evidence for collaboration in composition. The idea that 'Dr Luke wrote it' is sheer fabrication based on the flimsiest evidence. But since the scribes just HAD TO put a name on it (ie. the gospel half), they plucked out a handy one from Paul's writings!
.
> AD: but while the Gospel is a secondary source (as admitted in its pages), Acts is generally
> considered to be a primary source, albeit one remembered a few years after the event.
.
 Right. And I'm saying that this is *very* impossible because it doesn't allow for enough time for social, theological, and literary development. People who don't care about early church history don't see this as any problem to their beliefs since inspiration provides an easy answer to any and all such problems. But truth demands knowledge, not pious theology.
.
> (Paul died in the 60's sometime, didn't he?
.
 It is supposed he perished in the mid-sixties. He says he's off to Jerusalem with a bag of gold for the poor believers, and then *poof* he just vanishes. I rather suspect that he met a violent death along the way; perhaps killed for his loot. It's not as glorious a fate as a fancy public execution in mighty Rome, but its more true to the measly and mundane laws of history.
.
> AD: Which would put Luke as remembering the events of the 50's or so....20 years is plenty
> of time to forget little details and polish it a bit.)
.
 Or not.
.
>> tx: <snip> Alas not. Today the Sophists have taken charge, and they demand their
>> payments up front first please!
.
> AD: In a sense, the internet, and its networks of newsgroups and bulletin boards (and chat)
> is the new Parthenon. Terrifying thought!
.
 For the first time in the history of the world we have an almost free medium for the free exchange of ideas unbounded by the limiting forces of space and time, and censors . . . It's not terrifying, it's liberating! :)
.
>> tx: <snip> It all depends on how you look at it. I see the gospel of John as the "prophetic"
>> gospel (ie. as an example of Christian prophetic literature); eg. compare the number of times
>> that the word 'prophet' appears in the various NT books.
.
> AD: In what sense prophetic? You mean that in the Gospel there are prophecies, or that it concentrates
> on prophecy and the gifts of the Spirit? The latter I agree with, but I'm not so sure about the former.
.
 Quite right, AD. Christian prophecy is far more than mere fortune-telling. It also involves, teaching, exhortation, interpretation, criticism, and wisdom in general. In other words, Christian prophecy and *true* Christian gnosticism are one and the same thing.
.
>> tx: What I'm trying to get at is that John's Gospel (along with 1,2,3John) is a part of a larger
>> prophetic tradition that includes people like Paul and Silvanus (ie. the author of 1Peter),
.
> AD: You think Silvanus wrote 1 Peter?
.
 Yup. Exhibit A: the original and authentic signature verse of the text -> "Through Silvanus (your faithful brother, as I consider) I wrote briefly encouraging you, and testifying that this [letter] is the true grace of God in which you stand" (1P.5:12). Of course, this interpretation requires us to understand the two I's as referring to Silvanus (the writer of the letter), rather than to an unamed someone else. People resist this understanding because it seems to them a very odd way of identifying yourself, but you have to understand that Silvanus was not over-eager to assert his apostolic authority after the manner of his former associate Paulos. On the contrary, he was a rather quiet and humble man, more than content to be thought of as a 'faithful brother' and 'elder'.
.
>> tx: and also the author of Hebrews, and even the later egyptian prophets
>> (who wrote James, Jude, and 2Peter).
.
> AD: I heard today that Prisca is thought of as a possible candidate for the author of Hebrews.
.
 That's news to me. I won't ask what kind of evidence leads to this conclusion, since I doubt there even is any :)
.
> Which Egyptian prophets do you reckon wrote James, Jude and 2 Peter?
.
 The prophet Jacob wrote James, as he clearly states in the opening: "Jacob, a slave of God". Jude was written some years latter by a student-disciple of Jacob's: "Judas, a slave of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob". And 2Peter was written some years after that as an expanded revision of Jude, wherein the anonymous author writes under the name and authority of Simon Peter: "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ".
.
> (I've never liked Jude he seems weird)
.
 Yeah, but he was writing at a time when the egyptian church was being undermined from within by believers who preferred their own gnostic theologies to the truth, and who engaged in practices and behaviors that the prophet deemed perverse. In the same way, today's enlightened and progressive churches are more than tolerant and welcoming to these very same 'Ones of Old', and so gladly ignore Judas' warning, or dismiss it as referring to "something else".

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 6 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 19 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>> tx: <snip> There are signs that this is changing too. Many people recognize that there is some value and
>> truth in most of the world's best religious literature. I personally find the sheer variety and abundance of
>> Buddhist scriptures to be endlessly fascinating. 4X: There is even one document in The Buddhist Bible (by
>> D.Goddard) called Awakening of Faith.
.
> On 12Feb Atheist_Divine wrote: I've never read Buddhist stuff...I've read Hermetic things, and the Book
> of the Dead, and a few new agey things, but not Buddhist. We live in a peculiar time - with the morass
> of new and ancient religions all fighting for worshippers, and all claiming to have truth. It is entirely
> possible that they will settle down to some sort of amalgam of faiths, but then again, it may remain
> as it is for centuries to come.
.
textman say: The changes will be slow, gradual, and no doubt painful to many.
.
>> tx: <snip> This is one reason why Martin Luther later burned a bunch of books by Thomas.
>> I guess he wasn't as impressed by Aristotle as Aquinas was.
.
> AD: Martin Luther was a boor. The language he used to people can be quite an eye-opener!
.
 He was totally retro, no doubt; but Luther can also be considered a true Christian prophet. The fact that he made mistakes of various sorts doesn't alter that fact. Indeed, the use of strong language is a peculiarly prophetic characteristic, one of the features that marks out a prophet.
.
>> tx: <snip> The people weren't ready for a bloodless religion, AD. That's a plain historical fact. The
>> failed religious reform of the black pharaoh Akhenaton in the fourteenth century BCE demonstrated
>> that. These things need lots of time to ferment.
.
> AD: Akhenaten's religion wasn't really bloodless - didn't he kill off the old priests and
> remove the names of their gods?
.
 He was a killer of gods, but I think he merely fired the priests, rather than eliminate them outright.
A strategic error on his part maybe? In any case, I merely meant bloodless sacrifices to the god.
.
> BTW a black pharaoh? Weren't they all?
.
 O no. Akhenaton was unique in having a Nubian mother, from whom he inherited his 'black is beautiful, baby' qualities.
.
>> tx: <snip> Revelation will continue because the Faith is also in process, and will continue
>> as such until we all attain to the perfection of Christ: <snip>
.
> AD: That seems to be indicated by the texts of the Bible - particularly John - but is usually denied
> by many/most churches today. Mystics, prophets and dreamers cannot be controlled by a church
> hierarchy, they are dangerous to the men with power at the top.
.
 Tell me about it! :( Things are especially difficult today, because everyone (and their dog even)
wants to claim total and absolute ownership of the Word of God.
.
>> tx: The Holy Bible is in desperate need of an editorial overhaul all round. It's long overdue, in
>> my opinion; but then again I seriously doubt that there are more than a small handful of people
>> on the entire planet who are competent enough to do a good job of *that*!
.
> AD: You mean, the inclusion of more books? Just out of interest, what sort of books would
> you include, were you making this choice?
.
 Here's two right off the top: The Wisdom of Solomon, and the letter to Corinth mistakenly called 'First Clement'.
.
> AD: I think they should have put more of the Gnostic scriptures in - particularly Thomas, but
> the Apocryphon of John and the Hypostasis of the Archons, too.
.
 Archons, you say? Hmmm, I've never read that one. Sounds rather too gnostic though. Doesn't mix well with a more practically oriented version of the Faith (ie. the authentic prophetic-apostolic version as expressed in the NT).
.
>> tx: Christianity will continue to change and evolve as it has always done since day one. The Faith
>> will continue to go through cycles of spiritual decay and corruption (such as the present evil age of
>> faithlessness) followed by lively periods of spiritual growth and renewal. Out of the long history of
>> the Faith we see these patterns repeated over and over again.
.
> AD: Similar problems have beset the church for many years. The RCC had gone through periods of gross
> corruption, before eventually reforming itself, with Luther that period of corruption was marked by a
> split - but then the Counter-Reformation showed the RCC reforming itself again. In a sense, all the
> corrupted eras could be counted as "faithless", for if they had greater faith, surely they would not
> have become corrupt? When and if the revival / reformation of the Church comes in our era (if we are
> alive to see it) I hope it is not fundy Christianity which is revived.
.
 Ah but that's the thing, you see. In this post-modern age people are sick to death of complexity and unknowing. They want their religion at least to be simple and straight-forward, with no BS about it. This means that the majority of believers will continue to come in two main flavors: 1. The priestly varieties (that know all). And 2. the fundyfied sort (who *also* have all the answers) ... Not much to choose from there, in my opinion.
.
> AD: Most people could live with a less violent (in attitude, but sometimes also in actions) faith,
> and while humans may be violent in nature,
.
 What do you mean "may"? Surely you're not suggesting that this fact is subject to debate? I should
think that the events of the last century constitute more than sufficient evidence to settle that score!
.
> the trend of spirituality seems to be leaning (particularly with the popularity of eastern religions
> and neo-paganism) toward a gentler faith.
.
 Yuucchh! Smurf-Christianity is just SOOOO gross! :<
.
> In some senses, the Church is already reforming itself, with such things as feminist theology
> (in its less mad form), queer theology, liberation theology and ecological theology.
.
 This is not so much 'reforming' as it is 'deforming'. :)
.
> AD: Particularly feminist theology has come up with, in certain areas, an increased spirituality -
> and they seem to have a good sense of humour, too - if you ever feel like buying a feminist /
> queer theology book,
.
 Ha! That'll be the day.
.
> you should check out "Indecent Theology" by Marcella Althaus-Reid - her first chapter is called
> "Indecent Proposals for Women who Would Like to do Theology Without Using Underwear"!
.
 Sounds real spiritual alright :D
.
>> Well, I used to be a Cat (of all things) until it was made clear to me that this church, like so many
>> others, is simply a front for the Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart.
.
> Cat? As in things that go "meow"?
.
 No, as in 'Catholic'; as in: What do you call the Sunday Eucharist? ... A gathering of Cats!
.
>> tx: This assembly of the prophets contains many different sorts of people, including the likes of the
>> teachers Clement and Origen of Alexandria from the pre-Constantine days, the early Anabaptists
>> from the Radical Reformation period, the early Quakers in 17C England, scholars such as Erasmus
>> and William Tyndale, many and various writers (such as Leo Tolstoy), and even a few philosophers
>> (such as Soren Kierkegaard). And many others besides.
.
> AD: Many mystics/prophets have practised in isolation - mainly due to some of them having
> rather strange habits.
.
 Occupational hazard.
.
> St Cuthbert, for example, was a rather strange man...
.
 How so?
.
> AD: You've got to love Origen - he was so very sincere! Fancy castrating yourself out
> of enthusiasm like he did!
.
 Don't be believing everything you read, AD. I don't think he did anything like that. Being passionate about the Faith is one thing; being downright stupid is quite something else. For example, his ideas on biblical hermeneutics (which are surprisingly developed) make a clear distinction between the literal and the spiritual sense (4X) of the texts.
.
> Didn't he hold rather heretical views, though -
.
 Oh, of course. Don't get me wrong. I don't have to agree with everything he taught in order
to appreciate his contributions to the Faith.
.
> did he not preach that all people would be saved, regardless of whether they were believers or not?
.
 He figured that given enough time even Satan would see the error of his ways and convert to the Faith.
Now that's what I call optimism!
.
> AD: Rather a neat way to get round the problem of a loving God condemning the majority
> of people to eternal torment,
.
 No problem at all really, since the majority of people surely deserve eternal torment.
However, I think that most will get away cheap with mere oblivion :)
.
> but not really looked upon with great regard by Church folk.
.
 No surprise there since most believers have no real knowledge of early church history from which to measure his meaning and stature. They are told that Origen was a heretic, a self-castrater, a dirty no-good slimy *gnostic*, etc etc, and that's the end of it!
.
>> tx: The only true successors to the original apostles are these authentic prophets chosen
>> by grace to serve the whole People of God. Amen!
.
> How do you know a prophet is authentic? ~AD~
.
 Well, it's certainly NOT because they're perfection personified! People figure if they're not perfect in every conceivable way, or if they make any errors in their judgments or theology, then they can't be true prophets. Problem is that if you make perfection the prime measuring rod, and then fly up and down the vast sweep of history, nowhere will you ever find anyone even remotely qualified to merit the name of prophet. However, this is a false and unfaithful approach, not worthy of the true believer. In fact, there have been many prophets down through the centuries. They all have only one thing in common: they all fight the good fight for the Faith --> They are all Warriors for the Lord!
.
] On 14Feb AD wrote: Thats ok, textman :) BTW did you choose your name to sound like a superhero?
] "Is it a bird? is it a plane? No, its textman!"
.
 ha ha! Heck no; it only seems that way. But actually I *was* feeding on comic books when the other kids were still sucking their thumbs. I had quite a collection at one point back then (all that remains is the Batman and a few assorted titles). I loved them all though: Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, DareDevil, the Incredibly Big, Ugly, Dumb, & Green One, Dr Strange (the ex-surgeon turned super-warlock), Deathlok (the cyborg killing machine: half-man, half-computer), and many others too numerous to mention. Oh well, comics are WAY too over-priced these days. Nuff said.

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 7 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 28 Feb 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
> On 27Feb Evangelion wrote: Hey textman, just what is the story with you anyway?
.
 textman answers: Hi, Evangelion. I dunno  . . . Don't believe everything you read, maybe? :)
.
> I'd be interested to know your background.
.
 I read a lot. I write a lot. I don't get out much. ... That's about it.
.
> How does one become a "cyber-prophet"?
.
 Well, in my case it happened very gradually, and without my even being aware of it really. One day I got to writing articles and things for the college newsletter, and lo, the labor was both fun and easy. So I kept on scribbling, and even designing newsletters, until everyone was right peeved with my less restrained articles. But shortly after I was fired as editor (and student too :), I stumbled upon the WWWeb, and the prophetic postings began to flow in earnest. And, sure enough, the offensive one was now distasteful to thousands, instead of just dozens (as was formerly the case). Thus was a cyber-legend born. And cyberspace was never the same thereafter!
.
 ... ooooooo, scary :)
.
> And Happy 44th Birthday!!!
.
 Thx, bud. ... Same time next year?

P.S. In order to expand on the explanation above (IF thou be-est so curious) I have included just below a copy of one of my earlier postings dealing with this particular topic:

 So there I was, working away at a rebuttal for Paddy, when all of a sudden I hear this voice behind me: "Jonah!" ...
"Huh?" I turns and looks, but there's no one there! "Whozzat?"
 "It is I, your Lord & Master."
 "Jesus? ... Is it really you?"
 "Yes", says the disembodied but authoritative voice.
 "What do you want of me, Lord?"
 "My People have forgotten themselves. They no longer know who they are. Who they should be. They have given themselves over to weird idols and false doctrines."
 "Yes, Lord. I'm just beginning to appreciate that."
 "You must tell them that I am not pleased with this."
 "Tell them? ... But Lord, they will not listen to me. They will not believe me. They think me a bad joke."
 "Never mind that. Only do as I say."
 "But Lord" ---
 "Jonah!"
 "Why do you call me that? You know that is not my name."
 "You are just like your silly brother. He bitched and moaned and complained too. He also resisted me. Will you now turn and run in the other direction as he did?"
 "No, Lord!"
 "Then do as I say. Tell them the truth about my wayward people in Canada. Tell them of the madness that has possessed them and driven them into the arms of the Evil One."
 "They will laugh at me!"
 "Let them laugh then."
 "They will hate me, and despise me, and throw stones at me!"
 "Many will; but not all. Some few will even listen."
 "But Lord" ---
 "Jonah!"
 "Stop calling me that!"
 "Have you no faith in me?"
 "Of course I do!"
 "Then fear not. Just tell them. And keep telling them. Let nothing prevent you from speaking plainly and honestly ... That all may understand."
 "I am not worthy of this impossible mission. I am not fit to carry it out. Surely there are others better situated to succeed in this task?"
 "There are others, of course. People with greater power, talent and resourses. Like you, they are all unworthy. I called out to them; but they could not hear my Voice. Their hearts are filled with other things."
 "Is there no one else then?"
 "No one."
[textman wails in despair]
 "Then we are doomed; and all is lost!"
 "Jonah!"
 "DOOMED, I say!"
 "Jonah!"
 "Sorry, Lord. But it seems that the Evil One has taken everything! Oh what shall become of us?"
 "It is not yet too late. There are still some few who believe in me, and have the courage to obey my commands. And there are many more who want to believe. Many who try to believe, but cannot, for they see the double-mindedness in those who are called by my name. You must encourage them. You must convince them that their faith in me is not in vain."
 "I don't know that I can."
 "Do not doubt yourself. Do not doubt the necessity of this. Remember always that I am with you."
 "Yes, Lord."
 "Listen to me. Listen to my Voice."
 "Yes, Lord."
 "Fare thee well, Jonah."
 "Bye, Lord." The Presence departs, and textman is left numb and staring at his screen-saver which displays the truth according to the Church of Canada: 'No greater love exists than she who lays down her body for her sisters.'
 "Oy vey!"

/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 8 / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 1 April 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>> tx previously wrote: <snip> Not that I blame them much, but most of the lack of interest in these
>> subjects (that you and I are crazy about) is generated by the people themselves. They are utterly
>> lacking for any sort of passion for the truth. Hey, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't
>> make him drink!
.
> On 19Feb Atheist_Divine replied: Christianity has become apathetic, in the main. People who post on
> bulletin boards are not really representative. Most people are nominally members of a church - even I
> am, good old CofE - but don't actually attend except for weddings, funerals and baptisms. It seems a
> bit more vibrant in America though.
.
 textman say: I suppose so. There are still plenty of churches in the Yellow Pages.
.
>> tx: <snip> It varies somewhat around that period, but any time prior to 100CE is still way too
>> soon. The texts flow out of events as smoothly and naturally as leaves on a bush. Each in its
>> own time, each in its own place.
.
> AD: If the events are c50 and Luke wrote 70-90 at the most (which seems to be the general dating)
> then surely he would have had time to edit and form a coherent and free-flowing narrative? Especially
> as he seems to have been a well-educated man, unlike, say Mark.
.
 I already have any number of problems with this suggestion; although I agree that the author was well-read. While it seems that forty years is plenty of time to write even a big two-part book, this in itself does nothing by way of establishing the date. In fact, you are already pointed in the wrong direction because of your prior assumption that Lk-Acts was written as a more-or-less eyewitness account by someone called Luke. BUT the text itself does not support this pious, traditional, and o so comfortable mis-interpretation of the scriptures. Indeed the author does not identify himself, and the text plainly states (in the opening of Acts) that it's *not* an eyewitness account; that it IS based on a long and careful study of MANY texts (and these would include eg certain books by Josephus). This in itself rules out even the nineties as too early, as some of the nameless author's sources had yet to be written, or yet to arrive in Rome.
.
 You know what, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that our good Roman scholar-believer could not have accomplished his masterpiece alone. I'd say that he had considerable support from his local church, and from the Spirit as well. But there was no rush to get it all down quickly. There was also no real concern for historical accuracy either; the story is far more important than the facts. Most readers forget this little detail when reading Lk-Acts, and tend to treat it as history rather than historical fiction (which is an offense to their piety). Far better to remember that, for the author, the main thing was to get the big picture right (or rather, semi-right).
.
>> tx: <snip> These are the basic assumptions that I, and most bible scholars and students (and
>> even most scribes and pharisees perhaps), operate under while studying the texts. Alas, many
>> believers see no value in such an approach, and may even consider it sinful, or worse, an act of
>> unfaith. It's very difficult to convince such people of the need to be sensible about church history
>> and how the scriptures fit therein.
.
> AD: Yes, these are the people who scream "scholarsh*t" at you when you mention scholars ...
> and who say that education = evil. The people behind Chick tracts seem to operate under such
> assumptions, in fact most KJVOs seem to.
.
 Scary stuff alright. But there have always been such people. They're timeless. Why just the other century they burned the library at Alexandria for the very same reason! But although scholarsh*t is important, the only *real* requirement for anyone seeking to study the sacred scriptures is an open mind and an open heart combined with an unshakable willingness to learn. Seek out strange new ideas, I say! The centuries-forged chains of pious traditions and fanciful legends bind the minds of post-modern believers as firmly now as ever they did before. Fogging the eyes and clouding the mind with carefully crafted illusions built upon lies and delusions of their own devising; these are the assumptions and preconceptions that most Christian readers bring to the text and place therein, thinking that the Word of God thinks just exactly as they do, when in fact they cannot read the text rationally at all (for want of the necessity to pay attention to the text itself)! Yet the most authentic and faithful traditions witnessed to in the Bible are those stemming from the forgotten and ignored (or grossly misunderstood and/or misconceived) heroes of Faith; faithful and committed *tradition breakers* ...
.
>> tx: <snip> The text doesn't say who the author is, AD. Nor does it give any hints in that
>> direction (which in itself is unusual for early Christian literature);
.
> AD: Aren't there reams of literature going on and on about the medical knowledge displayed in Luke?
> Most of the gospels seem to have been given authorships based on Papias, but then he isn't the
> greatest of sources.
.
 You know what, AD? If you want to get *really* serious about bible-study, the best way to proceed is to discard ALL the secondary sources (including even the titles and canonical formats of the NT documents) as necessarily unreliable in assigning dates and authors to the various NT documents. Now this is hard to do, fer sure, but it has the good effect of focusing attention on the evidence within the primary sources: only Lk-Acts can say who and when it was written (ie. any other source is already far removed from the answers). Once you get used to this method, you will find that it's no big loss anyway, since the bulk of the early Christian (secondary) literature (eg. Eusebius) is composed of guesswork and sheer speculation (mostly unfounded).
.
>> tx: <snip> Right. And I'm saying that this is *very* impossible because it doesn't allow
>> for enough time for social, theological, and literary development.
.
> AD: The trouble is, it is difficult to say that it is impossible for Luke to have written a relatively
> theologically sophisticated document that early on - or for any of the other writers - without
> knowing more about the author. He could have been exceptionally clever, had a touch of the
> mystic about him, all sorts of things which might make his work appear more sophisticated
> than otherwise.
.
 Yes, but you have to fully appreciate the way in which Lk-Acts came about. It did not just spring forth from one mind independently of the world around the author. Lk-Acts is everywhere tied to the world around it. There are links to the gospels of Mk, Mt, and John, links to Paul's epistles, links to the early Greek apologists. Even the two-part-history format is borrowed directly from Josephus. Thus while Lk-Acts is indeed a unique and timeless element in the scriptures, it is also very much influenced by the prior literary traditions. These traditions take time to appear and spread and become established. In order to correctly date Lk-Acts you have to fully understand *all* the streams and rivers that flow into it. If you can't place the book into its proper literary, theological, and historical context, then there's no real hope of ever determining the correct date, place, and author, let alone reading it well and wisely.
.
>> tx: <snip> That's news to me. I won't ask what kind of evidence leads to this conclusion,
>> since I doubt there even is any
.
> AD: Came out of my feminist theology class, which probably means there isn't any.
> They think logic/reason/proof are "male" and women/feminists should not use them!
.
 Ha! I've heard this idea too. But it sounds to me more like an excuse for fuzzy thinking and sloppy methodology.
.
>> tx: <snip> He was a killer of gods, but I think he merely fired the priests, rather than
>> eliminate them outright. A strategic error on his part maybe?
.
> AD: In societies in the ancient world, had he wanted to retain power and be secure, he should have
> slaughtered them all.
.
 That's the spirit! :)
.
>> tx: <snip> Archons, you say? Hmmm, I've never read that one. Sounds rather too gnostic though.
>> Doesn't mix well with a more pragmatically oriented version of the Faith (ie. the authentic prophetic-
>> apostolic version as expressed in the NT).
.
> AD: Very much a gnostic text. www.gnosis.org will probably have some of it online. I like the
> gnostics, you see. Yes, the gnostics weren't all that practical, but then, more mystically-
> orientated faiths generally aren't.
.
 Generally, yes. I think that the early Quakers might be a good example of a mystical faith that is nevertheless quite practical in its approach to daily life.
.
>> tx: <snip> This is not so much 'reforming' as it is 'deforming'.
.
> AD: Feminist theology, and queer theology, in their milder forms, are ok - but they move quickly into
> madness, and have become religions in their own right due to their being unfalsifiable. Liberation
> theology, on the other hand, seems to have its feet set more firmly on the ground. The idea of Jesus
> as a companero (sp) is interesting, and the fusion with socialism/marxist ideas has gone quite well.
> It's a rather more practical application of the faith in third world countries, and is certainly a lot better
> than the gospel of health and wealth which is presently being exported to those same countries.
.
 Thus the Faith appears to be inherently plastic as it is everywhere adapted where it is adopted. A lot of changes have come and gone in the last two thousand years. I guess a major concern today should be the question of authenticity: Given that our faith is unique to our age, and unlike that of previous generations, how can we still a maintain a vital contact with the faith of the earliest Christians without compromising the good things we have gained since?
.
>> <snip> No, as in 'Catholic'; as in: What do you call the Sunday Eucharist? ... A gathering of Cats!
.
> AD: Mostly called left-footers over here.
.
 Yeah? Why is that?
.
> When called anything at all. The catholics have a lot to offer in terms of the traditions and scholarship.
> Some of which you have quoted - like the excellent Thomas, for example. My favourite Biblical scholar
> was a catholic - Raymond E Brown - don't know whether you've heard of him?
.
 Oh of course I have. He was, and remains, a first class bible-scholar.
I even have a book or two of his around here somewhere.
.
>>> AD: St Cuthbert, for example, was a rather strange man...
.
>> tx: How so?
.
> AD: He saw devils riding black goats around the island of Lindisfarne, and cast them out. He was
> also apparently extremely misogynistic and didn't wash much. (Which also seems to be a trait of
> mystics and the like). He's now famed for having a tomb which you're not supposed to open
> because he put a curse on it or something.
.
 Ha. I like him already. :) Course he wouldn't get away with any of that today.
These days the Cats would be the first to toss him in a rubber room!
.
>> tx: <snip> Don't be believing everything you read, AD. I don't think he did anything like that.
>> Being passionate about the Faith is one thing; being downright stupid is quite something else.
.
> AD: I thought thats why the church disapproved of him originally? Because self-made
> eunuchs are not allowed to be priests?
.
 The bishop of Alexandria wouldn't allow him to be ordained (because of his unorthodox teachings, I think), but another bishop ordained him anyway. Needless to say, the first bishop was right pissed about it when he found out, because you just can't reverse an ordination, you know.
.
>> tx: <snip> For example, his ideas on biblical hermeneutics (which are surprisingly sophisticated)
>> make a clear distinction between the literal and the 'spiritual' sense of the texts.
.
> AD: I thought that was someone else? With the fourfold interpretation? Wasn't it Augustine,
> or Irenaeus or someone?
.
 The fourfold meaning of the texts was an idea that got to be well traveled, but it was Origen
who really developed these ideas systematically and then applied them to scripture study.
.
>> tx: <snip> He figured that given enough time even Satan would see the error of his
>> ways and convert to the Faith. Now that's what I call optimism!
.
> AD: Its a logical enough idea.
.
 Oh sure. Unfortunately, we humans only have a few brief years in which to decide upon these big-picture things; and, as you well know, very few important decisions are actually made logically. Man is not so much a rational animal as an irrational animal. This is not because people lack the ability to act upon rational thoughts, but rather they lack the will to do so. It's very much easier to simply act from instinct and/or emotion.
.
>> tx: <snip> No problem at all really, since the majority of people surely deserve eternal
>> torment. However, I think that most will get away cheap with mere oblivion
.
> AD: Oblivion satisfies the requirements for justice and love combined,
.
 That's what I think too! :)
.
> but it is the idea of eternal torture which makes you look upon the Biblical god as a bit of a pervert, really.
.
 It was an idea more significant to ancient times and their straight-forward approach to retributive-justice
(ie. eye for an eye stuff). We can afford to be more subtle and flexible today.
.
>> tx: <snip> No surprise there since most believers have no real knowledge of early church
>> history from which to measure his meaning and stature. They are told that Origen was a
>> heretic, a self-castrater, a dirty no-good slimy gnostic, etc etc, and that's the end of it!
.
> AD: A favourite arguments of the KJVOs, that we should not use the evil Alexandrian manuscripts
> because Origen was evil!
.
 All of which appears to be a part of a greater bias against the church of Egypt, one that refuses to recognize the true significance of the place as one of the four main traditions of the early churches. Most histories of the early church give a completely distorted vision of those days precisely because of this colossal blind spot regarding Alexandria and the early church of Egypt (the birth place of many NT documents).
.
>> tx: <snip> Well, it's certainly NOT because they're perfection personified!
.
> AD: Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have
> not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
> There are rather severe penalties in place for those prophets who are not perfect in some matters.
.
 Particularly in the matter of predicting future events, I think. Of course, there are a great many false prophets today, and not one of them is anxious about being smitten according to the Law. Bronze Age categories and regulations no longer apply, apparently.
.
>> tx: <snip> I had quite a collection at one point back then (all that remains is the Batman and a
>> few assorted titles). I loved them all though: Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, DareDevil, the Incredibly
>> Big, Ugly, Dumb, & Green One, Dr Strange (the ex-surgeon turned super-warlock), Deathlok (the
>> cyborg killing machine: half-man, half-computer), and many others too numerous to mention.
>> Oh well, comics are WAY too over-priced these days. Nuff said.
.
> AD: I wasn't allowed to read comics when I was a kid. I always wanted to read the Marvel comics,
.
 Always a good choice for true believers :)
.
> but my parents wouldn't let me in case I picked up Americanisms.
.
 Ha ha. Smart folks. They're probably right.
.
> Instead I read old stories from the 1930s boys magazines, and wound up completely ignorant of
> modern slang - I had to get someone to teach me it and it was an embarrassing experience!
.
 None of those old sci-fi pocket-books were available anywhere? If it wasn't for those old Clark and Asimov novels I probably would never have switched to books at all!
.
> I looked at your website, by the way. Interesting ... I see what you mean about strong language -- ~AD~
.
 I figure it's one of the best ways of distinguishing between true and false prophets. If one speaks softly with great charm, and takes care not to offend anyone, chances are that such a person is NOT a true prophet; for the Lord cares more for truth than for not bruising delicate sensibilities.