An Historical Dog-Fight

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#13] / 25 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

] tx previously wrote: That Jesus IS God?
.
>>> Matthew answered: He is.
.
] Well, silly believers think that the NT teaches this,
.
>>> No, it is not 'silly believers'. Rather, those who understand the many modes of symbolic expression
>>> of Scripture, these are the ones who realize that the NT teaches that Christ is consubstantial to
>>> the Father. We also realize He is consubstantial with us,
.
>> textman replied: There's that gross, awful, and highly *unbiblical* word again!
.
> On Feb6 Matthew Johnson say: There's that gross, awful, and silly _complaint_ again. There is no
> biblical justification for insisting on using only biblical words to discuss the Bible. So you have no
> grounds for complaint. Not that I expect that will keep you from venting your peevishness. [snip]
.
 tx say: Well I don't know about venting, but I can complain on the grounds that the use of the term 'consubstantial' doesn't really improve our understanding of scripture in any truly significant way. I can also complain on the grounds that the word / concept has long since been discredited philosophically; since the use of it more or less commits everyone to remain within the archaic boundaries of Aristotelian thinking and categories. I can also complain on the grounds that this word 'consubstantial' is a thoroughly *artificial* word that is never used in the post-modern world; except by conservative minds locked into ancient and obsolete patterns of thought. Now don't get me wrong here; I don't mind using old ideas, as long as they are sensible and productive. But this word does NOT fall into *that* category. Hence let us by all means discard it at once!
.
>> tx: So we have here an early 4C emperor-begotten creed
.
> MJ: How long will you persist in posting lies?
.
 Kind of a loaded question here, folks. Rather difficult to answer, since my e-ministry does not consist of posting lies.
.
> How long will you persist in spreading a counterfeit version of the history of Christianity?
.
 You mean a version of the history of the Faith that respects the sacred texts *and* reality *and* history *and* the truth of things? As opposed to the highly popular version from the scribes and pharisees, which respects *none* of those things? How long, you ask? ... As long as it takes for believers to wake up and smell the god-awful stench that emanates from the common view of NT-history, bud!
.
> MJ: The Nicene Creed was NOT an 'emperor-begotten creed'. Why, with that ridiculous claim you have
> made clear for all to see that you know NOTHING about the history of fourth-century Christianity.
.
 You make this rather sweeping judgment on the basis of one small epistle? Isn't that somewhat premature? Slightly? Maybe?
.
> If anyone 'begot' the Nicene Creed, it would have to be Eusebius of Caesarea, who used a very similar
> creed in his diocese. Then again, St. Cyril of Jerusalem used _another_ very similar creed. So it is hard
> to say who 'begot' it; but it certainly was _not_ the Emperor. [snip]
.
 Say, is this the same Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260+), the "moderately capable" historian, who wrote that impressive and influential book commonly called 'The History of the Church', wherein he sayeth thus about Emperor Constantine:
.
 "But perhaps there is one other for whom, alone among equals, it is possible to take the second place after Him [ie. JC]. I mean the commander at the head of this army, whom the first and great High Priest Himself has honored with second place in the priestly offices here performed, the shepherd of your spiritual flock, who by the allotment and judgment of the Father was set over your people, as if He had Himself appointed him His votary and interpreter, the new Aaron or Melchizedek, made like the Son of God ... This one [ie. Constantine] looks to the First [ie. JC] as to a teacher, with the pure eyes of the mind, and whatever he sees Him doing, that he takes as an archetype and pattern, and like an artist he has molded its image, to the best of his ability, into the closest likeness ... In the same way this man, having the whole Christ, the Word, the Wisdom, the Light, impressed upon his soul ... [ETC!]" -- from 'The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine' by Eusebius; Book Ten, 'Peace and Recovery of the Church: Victory of Constantine'; Chapter Four, 'Festival Oration On The Building of the Churches, Addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre'; Penguin Edition, 1965, page 388-9.
.
 So I didn't mean to give the impression that Constantine *himself* wrote the creed, but only that that the Big-Man was the prime mover - with an assist from Providence, no doubt - behind the events, peoples, and conditions leading up to the creation and proclamation of the creed in question. I dare say that even Matthew here would not want to deny that the new "Christian" Emperor had a *profound* influence upon the mind and person of our good bishop Eusebius. However, since the Reader may not yet appreciate the Big-Man's *indirect* influence upon the promulgation and adoption of the creed, let us turn now to a few choice words of Constantine's (from the same source, pages 404-5) to get a better view of the royal mindset:
.
 "Constantinus Augustus to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, and Mark ... I feel it to be a very serious matter that in those provinces which divine providence has freely entrusted to My Dedicatedness, and where the population is very large, the general public should be found persisting in the wrong course, as if it were splitting in two, and the bishops divided among themselves ... for, as Your Diligence is well aware, such is the regard I pay to the lawful Catholic Church that I desire you to leave no schism or division of any kind anywhere."
.
 A rather tall order there, I'd say. No schism or division *of any kind* anywhere? I doubt that this "king of kings" would be much impressed with the current confused condition of this once-his Christendom! But anyway, his letter to Chrestus, the bishop of Syracuse, is even more revealing: "when on an earlier occasion base and perverted motives led certain persons to begin creating divisions regarding the worship of the holy and heavenly Power and the Catholic Religion, I determined to cut short such quarrels among them" (p.405)
.
>> Yet the phrase 'god the son' never made it into the earliest creeds! Interesting historical datum, yes?
.
> MJ: Interesting, yes. But not very. And _certainly_ not for your fanciful reason.
.
 It is typical of the self-serving methodologies of the scribes and pharisees that they should dismiss relevant facts and objective historical and/or literary evidence without even so much as a 'by your leave'! ... Grrrrrr
.
>> tx: Could it be because they knew better than to do something like that?
.
> MJ: No. At that time the word 'consubstantial (really, homoousios)' did not have the required meaning;
> it _could_ not. If you knew enough about the history to justify your sweeping assertions, you would
> _know_ why 'homoousios' could not be used in Biblical times.
.
 So let me get this straight. You're saying that the phrase 'God the Son' could not be used (presumably you mean in a creed) by the early believers because it was lacking for intelligible content?! Because the meaning of these words (ie. consubstantial / homoousios) had not yet been worked out by the episcopal theologians? Are you not aware that this utterly ridiculous position you hold necessarily implies that the inspired authors were incompetent to know and speak the truth about Jesus Christ?
.
 Do you not also realize how incredibly arrogant are all these scribes and pharisees who think that they can make up for the (unstated) deficiencies of the written Word of God by simply inventing fantasies from out of their own deluded and feverish brains? Need I point out the rather obvious fact that 'God the Son' DID have meaning and content BEFORE, and independently of, 'consubstantial' and 'homoousios', else it would not be in the Epistle of the Apostles in the first place? Sheesh! And then you have the nerve to criticize MY historical sensibility?
.
>> tx: Yes.
.
> MJ: Wrong. It is because the word 'homousios' had not yet even been coined. Nor could it be.
> That had to wait until 'ousia' meant more than mere 'property' in Koine.
.
 Ha! [note: This laugh is 50% merriment and 50% scoffething]
.
>> Which would certainly explain why there's no such phrase or idea in the Apostles Creed!
.
> It would 'explain' it, but with a WRONG explanation. Is that why you like this explanation so much?
.
 nope
.
>> So I guess what I'm saying by all this is that the Nicene Creed is not really much of an improvement
>> on the Apostles Creed.
.
> But you say this groundlessly. The Apostle's Creed did not encourage people to stay away from
> Arian and Apollinarian heresies; for that, the Nicene Creed was needed.
.
 This sounds to me like a poor argument for theological intolerance. One man's heresy is another man's freedom of thought. It makes no difference to the Lord what people think about during their recreational speculations, as long as they do God's will, abstain from idolatry, and respect the teachings of the Word. Yes, freedom of thought is a Christian *virtue*!
.
>> tx: Not from the perspective of a slightly more biblical theology, I mean.
.
> MJ: You have not _shown_ any expertise in 'slightly more biblical theology'. You have shown
> 'expertise' only in a _revisionist_ distortion of 'biblical theology'.
.
 How about a revisionist *clarification* of biblical theology?
.
>> tx: That is to say that prophetic literature is generally more authoritative than the stuff that the
>> scribes and pharisees get up to when they're all in an uproar about some silly thing or another.
.
> MJ: That is quite irrelevant. Yes, it is more 'authoritative', but even in Christ's time, nobody could
> agree on what it _meant_. Was the Messiah to be a King who would defeat the Romans,
.
 A Jewish Alexander. That's what the great majority of the people were hankering after, no doubt.
That's why Jesus wasn't too keen on the disciples using the Messiah title too freely.
.
> or a 'suffering servant'? Or would there be _both_ a conquering Messiah-King _and_ a suffering
> servant? Or is the suffering servant Israel, as _modern_ Jews insist?
.
 So then you recognize that controversy is inevitable?
.
> It amazes me that you pretend to know so much about early church history yet show
> _no_ knowledge of these issues. [snip]
.
 Well, these things take *much* time and patience, and *MUCH* explaining of things. Sadly, one must attend to the cyber-prophets obscure teachings for *many* great lengths of time before all the disparate pieces gradually begin to merge into a unified pattern. Order out of chaos? Or just chaos upon MORE chaos? Only the most determined cyber-saint can decide!
.
>> tx: So anyway, the authority of the Nicene Creed appears to reside more in its popularity
>> than in its supposed inspiration.
.
> MJ: What 'popularity'? You really _don't_ know the history, do you? Why, you don't even seem
> to know your own words. You just complained that it was 'emperor-begotten'. Now you whine
> that it is/was 'popular'. But how could it be _both_?
.
 It starts off small and then sprouts into something big as the centuries pass by. What is so confusing about that?
.
> Usually, what the Emperor 'begot' was _not_ popular,
.
 Compared to most of the previous emperors, Constantine must have seemed a "god-send" to a good many Christians, I expect. Difficult to understand Eusebius' excessive zeal for the man in some other context ... ?
.
> as the dock-riots at Alexandria showed all too well. [snip]
.
 I was referring to its *current* popularity, of course.

P.S. "No one remembers the former events, nor will anyone remember the future events that are yet to happen;
they will not be remembered by the future generations" (Ecc.1:11/NET).

On Scribes and Fundies

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#14] / 27 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

] On Jan25 John McComb answered Edgar thusly: All of the verses that are printed in
] red in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation to John.
.
>>> On Jan26 rmeyers5 replied: A very simple, clever, and neat answer;
.
>> textman comments: Right. The very kind that are so beloved of the fundies (who love to reduce the
>> Faith to snappy and absurd slogans just like this). The reason seems to be that simplicity and absurdity
>> together constitute divine-wisdom (ie. in the pious Fundy eye, of course).
.
> On Feb8 rmeyers5 wrote: I'm not sure that I know exactly who these straw men you call "fundies,"
> and insult with "(ie. in the pious Fundy eye, of course)" are. I feel confident in assuming that you
> are referring to us Believers.
.
 textman replies: Well, you're about half-right there, friend Robert. That is to say that more than half of the current generation of Christians fall under the big "Fundy" category. Basically there are two sorts of Christian in the world today. There are those who follow the ways of the scribes, and those who follow the ways of the pharisees. The scribal way is to over-emphasize the nature and authority of the scriptures. The pharisee way is to over-emphasize the authority and practice of priestcraft. Both ways lead to idolatry. Both types of believers have many common roots and shared assumptions and values and so on. Both groups recognize the errors and idolatry of the other guys, while at the same time denying that they are more or less joined at the hip! This is why Catholic and Protestant bible-scholars can work together without allowing trivial differences to stall their labors: because they share many of the same opinions and assumptions about the scriptures, and also have similar visions regarding the shape and course of the early history of the Faith & NT.
.
 This is why I emphasize the fact that the common Christian hermeneutical-paradigm surrounding the scriptures is a product of many scribes *and* pharisees. But what really sets the fundies (fundamentalists) apart from the rest of their idolatrous kin-folk is that fundy-thinking tends to be *more* irrational, *more* anti-historical, *more* pre-critical, *more* contemptuous of (and ignorant of) philosophy, and *more* likely to be permanently frozen in pre-Enlightenment modes and models. In other words, fundies are just generally more primitive and backwards and childish! Thus fundies refuse to admit the possibility that advances in science, philosophy, history, biblical scholarship, etc etc, have any real meaning or significance to the important matter of how we should read the written Word of God. This blanket rejection is not explicitly made, of course, but reveals itself in their eternal reliance upon tradition-based theologies, rather than upon common sense, rational methods, and historical realities. Needless to say, all of this has no absolute or necessary connection to specific individuals or particular churches as such. Some evangelicals can outgrow theologies based upon emotional responses to the sacred texts, just as some Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox can hold fast to ideas and ideologies worked out in the distant Byzantine era. 4X: Hi, Matthew!
.
> rmeyers5: But that leaves us with the conclusion that you have no idea what you are talking about.
.
 I trust that my detailed description given above will show believers that I do indeed know whereof I speak.
.
> The fact that a person is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, and therefore believes in both His Deity and
> Humanity (Son of God and Son of Man), salvation by His Grace alone, paid by His life and death for
> us, in the Holy Scriptures which cannot be broken, etc, in no way concludes his proneness to "accept
> snappy and absurd slogans, just like this."
.
 So the mere fact that a Christian equates 'son of man' with 'god the son' (thus denying any relevant distinctions between these two concepts) *proves* that person to be in possession of the Spirit of Christ?! Because that belief comes from the Spirit?! ... You see what I mean about pre-critical and anti-historical modes of thought? On the other hand, my allegiance is not to pious creeds and snappy slogans, but revolves around the Spirit of Truth --> who guides us into *ALL* truth!
.
 For that is one of the chief functions of the Spirit: to guide, assist, and encourage the prophets (and through them, all believers). You see the difference here? I do not equate or confuse the Spirit with predetermined conclusions and theological imperatives, whereas Bob obviously does; not realizing (I presume) that theological imperatives and the Spirit of Truth are two very *very* different things!
.
> You simply cannot have ever really read and understood their writings.
.
 Whose writings? Are you referring to the writings of the scribes and pharisees? Or maybe to the writings of the inspired NT authors? Either way, I generally have little trouble reading the texts. Although the book of Revelation *is* often obscure in its intended meaning, I'd have to say. Fortunately, it is the least important of the prophetic materials found within the New Testament.
.
>>> rmeyers5: although, those letters printed in red are at some places the very questionable
>>> opinions of men.
.
>> tx: So then you acknowledge that the "absolute perfection" of "GOD's Word" was/is compromised
>> by the feeble weaknesses of human nature?
.
> rmeyers5: NO. Here is a plain bald example of what I said above. We do not assert that the red letter
> "bibles" that we have today are the "absolute perfection of GOD's Word" (barring a few "KJV only"
> people (and even most of those would halt far short of that absurdity)).
.
 Okay, I'll grant you all that, but are not the ideas of inerrancy and infallibility (as commonly applied to the scriptures) equally absurd? Perfection, inerrancy, and infallibility are all part of the same fundy package. You can't have one without the others!
.
> rmeyers5: Again and again and again and again and again, the writings of "fundies" teach that
> we do not have any of the original Scriptures, but only copies, quotations, and translations.
.
 And yet they refuse to accept the consequences of these literary and historical facts; namely that the canonical format is corrupt in many places and requires cleaning up!
.
> <snipsome> Again, exactly who are these "fundies" you are insulting?
.
 Fundies are basically all those believers who refuse to accept that the scriptures (and the world) are (by nature) inherently complex entities that cannot be correctly understood by means of simplistic reductionism. To fully comprehend and appreciate the extreme depth and richness of the Word, we require both rational exegesis and historical criticism, AND "sympathetic immersion".
.
>> <snipsome> Such as ignorance and arrogance in the bible-makers treatment of the sacred texts? wow
.
> rmeyers5: In view of Who the "Bible Maker" really is, I have to hand it to you: you've got real guts;
> your courage is phenomenal.
.
 Not at all. The only bible-makers I'm concerned about are those who print and publish those bibles that end up in the hands of believers. They are the only ones who are in any position to release bible versions that correct the errors and oversights of the canonical format. But if the bible-buyers don't want these new and improved (ie. carefully edited) versions, then the bible-makers have no motivation to make the necessary changes that we (and progress) require.
.
> <snipsome> In God's time, both the tares of the Bible, and the tares of the Church, will be forever
> separated, as the chaff from the wheat. The tares of both are there, because "an enemy hath done this."
.
 Right. Therefore it is up to bible-loving believers to stand up and set things straight. To say that God will take care of all this is to ignore our responsibilities to the Body of Christ. God wants us to fix the Word, now that we able to do so. To deny the call is to do exactly what the enemy wants!
.
> rmeyers5: "We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies ..."
> And that is ALL the explanation ANYONE should need to account for their existence. Which ANYONE ought
> to very well know and understand. Including you.
.
 I'm wrestling against the spiritual wickedness of ignorance and apathy by shedding new light upon the ancient texts ... New wine for new wineskins! Hai
.
>>> rmeyers5: One example is John 3:13-21. <snip> It may be a mix of both Christ's words to
>>> Nicodemus AND John's commentary afterward.
.
>> tx: Good call. Here again you seem to be on the verge of acknowledging the significance of the
>> fact that the NT documents arise out of human history.
.
> rmeyers5: Now, what in the heck are you supposed to mean by that statement?
.
 It means that John's Gospel could only have been written by that particular author, in that particular place (Egypt), and at that particular time (c.90-95CE). If the author had not been there and then, there would be no Gospel of John!
.
> Of course, anything in our realm of existence "arose out of human history" (See Romans 9:5, for
> striking example). But BOTH "CHRIST'S WORDS TO NICODEMUS _AND_  JOHN'S COMMENTARY
> AFTERWARD" ARE FROM GOD!!!
.
 You mean God "inspired" (ie. forced) the secretary who wrote the original autograph of John's Gospel to write just these particular words and none other? In that case, the writing-down of the gospel certainly took place in history, but since the actual composition was done by God (this is what you're saying when you say that these words are "from God"), presumably outside of space-time, it is difficult to see how they can be related to human history in *any* way! That is, since these words do not arise from within the world, they can have no necessary connection with the world.
.
> That is the point; and it is what you appear to be denying. And ridiculing "fundies" for believing.
.
 Right. God doesn't write books. Human beings write books. Therefore God is the Father, not the Writer!
.
> <snipsome> If you deny that He is God, you do not know Him, and you are not one of His.
.
 But Bob, where in the scriptures does it say this? Where does it say that if I deny that Jesus is God, I don't know him? Where does it say I am not one of his if I don't worship Him as 'God the Son'?
.
> "If ye believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins" -- John 8:24.
.
 If this statement means 'If ye believe not that I am God' then you have a good case. But such an interpretation is surely artificial and contrary to the powerfully monotheistic spirit of John's Gospel. In other words, the 'I AM' can be adequately understood as the divine Logos. Trinitarian definitions are neither required nor justified by the text!
.
> "Whosever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is a liar and the Truth is not in him."
.
 This verse has no relevance to the God-or-not controversy, since both sides agree that Jesus *did* come in the flesh.
.
> <snipsome> "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed,
> as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
.
 If you truly believed in the "word of prophecy" you would take heed of my prophetic teachings. But you dismiss the truth because you don't believe in the word of prophecy! How can today's Christians believe in the word of prophecy when they *don't* believe in the reality of the prophets? And what does this colossal lack of belief say about the quality of their faith, eh? They don't believe in the prophets, no, but they *DO* believe the lies and illusions of the scribes and pharisees! Yes, the light shines in a dark place, but these Christians prefer the darkness ...
.
> "Knowing this first, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF ANY PRIVATE RELEASE (HUMAN ORIGIN).
> For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were
> moved by the Holy Ghost." 2P.1:16-21.
.
 Does being "moved by the HG" mean that God puts his words into their minds such that they have only to write down what is thus given? I don't think so. I think that there is still plenty of room for human creativity and involvement in this process of inspiration. Perhaps you don't agree, but then you don't quite realize that the alternative is utterly unacceptable because it is absolutely *unrealistic*.
.
>> tx: The biblical sciences treat the scriptures as the product of human minds working within the
>> context of actual human history because that IS exactly what the scriptures are. The fact that
>> these writings are inspired *IN NO WAY* changes or nullifies these realities!
.
> rmeyers5: Again, in the face of the Scripture above, and myriads of others like it, your viciousness is
> exceeded only by your phenomenal courage. [snip remainder]
.
 ?!?!? 

P.S. "When a man has finally reached the point where he does not think he knows it better than others, that is when he has become indifferent to what they have done badly, and he is interested only in what they have done right, then peace and affirmation have come to him." -- GWF Hegel

On Not Equating Logos with Logic
[or: Is Mathematics Relevant to Philosophy?]

/ Re: God talking in NT [#15] / 1 March 2003 / Newsgroups > alt.philosophy, soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

> On Feb24 Bart Goddard didst write: <snip> ... the probability is 30% that we deists are correct.
> But, the plain fact is, there is only ONE creation, and God is above it, and we don't do probabilities
> when the random variable can't vary. "Likely." Jesus is God or He isn't.
.
 textman asketh: So Jesus can't be a "divine-man" without also being God?
Because this is a logical necessity, you say?
.
> <snip> God said what He would do and He did it. Hundreds of lines of redefining "is" and "logos"
> and "divine" and "lord"
.
 And don't forget the ever-elusive 'I AM'!
.
> and all that fol-de-rol
.
 And 'Son of God' and 'Son of Man' and 'Messiah' and 'apostle' and 'slave' and 'brother' and 'freedom' and 'prophecy' *AND* most especially 'Spirit'. Holy Lexicons, Batman! It seems that we are all in very desperate need of a new revised edition of Thayer's 'Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament' that makes the non-trinitarian nature of the NT's language even MORE apparent (eg. theologically), and even MORE significant and meaningful (eg. philosophically).
.
> won't change the plain promise given in the OT and announced in the NT. The word games
> are just a trap. God said that _He_ would save us. Trust Him or not.
.
 So you're saying that God can't save us unless Jesus is *also* God? So if Jesus was "merely" a divine-man (ie. not a half-man, half-god hybrid) then the eternal and almighty God would be utterly helpless and powerless to save us? Are you *sure* you're getting all this from the scriptures? I trust God and the Word, but I think maybe you're getting this 'Jesus is God' dogma from *other* sources. Check it out.
.
>>> Bart: Um ... "divine" means "God".
.
>> tx: Not exactly. Which is to say that the correspondence is not as absolute and straightforward
>> as you suggest.
.
> Bart: Yadda  yadda  yadda. It had better be, unless you want to convert to Hinduism.
.
 Maybe in the next life you'll come back as one of the sacred rats in the holy temple of the rat-god. Probability suggests it's a fitting end for most Christian-mathematicians!
.
>>> BG: So now you're basing your doctrine on a wild _guess_ about what might have happened. A
>>> guess based solely upon the presuppose "rightness" of the doctrine that you already hold. There
>>> is no credibility in that.
.
>> tx: Certainly not. Fortunately, you are wrong to dismiss this "historical probability" by calling it a wild
>> guess. There is nothing at all "wild" about it, since identifying additions and changes to the texts in
>> just this way is a long accepted procedure among the biblical sciences ... Provided, that is, that the
>> method is true to the texts, and NOT to some external theological imperatives.
.
> BG: It most certainly is "wild", since you have absolutely no basis for assigning a "probability" to
> the scheme. It is nothing but intuition. And there is NO WAY that your intuition is not completely
> governed by your theological imperatives.
.
 Here indeed is a key point where our thinking diverges. A major fork in the road, if you will. Bart holds the ludicrous view that my "nothing but intuition" (as he puts it) is entirely determined by my theology. This opinion demonstrates how little friend Bart knows about the offensive one; for long-time prophet-phans know very well that theology in general dwells way down in my list of priorities. Exegesis before theology. Critical evaluation before exegesis. Comprehension before criticism. etc
.
>> tx: Yet you judge what is or is not true or possible on the basis of preconceived notions and doctrines,
>> do you not? Is that not *how* you derived the judgment that my textual analysis is nothing more than
>> "a wild _guess_ about what might have happened"? ... Be honest now.
.
> BG: Easily enough. I judged your analysis because I'm a mathematician and your logic is horrible. Honestly.
.
 Well now, friend Bart, I can't say I like the sound of that very much. In fact, eye like it not at all! Now thou hast raised up the fearsome wrath of the cyber-prophet, and the world doth tremble as the painful fyr is poured out upon thy thrice silly head:
.
 "The evidentness of this defective kind of knowledge upon which mathematics prides itself ... results from the poverty of its purpose and the defectiveness of its material; it is therefore of a kind which philosophy must reject. The purpose or concept of mathematics is quantity. This is precisely the non-essential, non-conceptual relationship. The activity of this kind of knowledge occurs on the surface, does not touch the thing itself, nor the essence nor the concept, and therefore it gives no comprehension. The material about which mathematics offers a nice treasure of truths is space and unity ... But the actually real is not something spatial as considered in mathematics; with such unreality as the entities of mathematics neither the concrete sensuous intuition nor philosophy is concerned." - - from 'The Phenomenology of the Spirit' (1807) by GWF Hegel
.
 How do you likes them apples, Herr Mathematician?
.
 But anyway, in philosophy everything depends upon *HOW* we think, rather than on WHAT we think about. That is, how we deal with the subject matter (ie. whatever topic is there) determines the strength and persuasiveness of whatever position or attitude we happen to take, *and* the conclusions that are reached. Thus an attractive writing style (if present in any given philosopher's writings) is always secondary to the logical movement within any given line of reasoning. But for some extremist-type philosophers (pharisee-philosophers? Descartes' grandchildren?) logic is the only REAL philosophy; for it is the only real language of certainty. Or, to put it another way, logic is the only certain foundation of *all* Science & Reason & Philosophy!
.
 Needless to say, I do NOT take such an exalted view of "pure logic". And perhaps I can clarify for the reader somewhat my general orientation regarding this ticklish matter --> On a recent episode of the 'Survivor' show, they had the two tribes split along gender lines, and thus did the tribes face the various tests and challenges put to them. So okay. At one point the challenge involved a puzzle of the jig-saw variety, and it was two ladies facing off against (I think?) a computer-analyst and an engineer. Yes, the girls beat these hyper-rational types on the puzzle challenge; and they beat them very decisively. In fact, the women-folk made the macho team look like a bunch of boobs. Ha!
.
 But I find this puzzle-challenge business *very* most-curious from a more philosophical vantage point. Please answer the following question: Why did the supposedly smarter guys fail the puzzle-test? Was it kimmitt? Sorry; I mean: Was it kismet? Or karma maybe? The work of a vengeance-demon perhaps? No, dear reader! It was because the aggressive logic-driven approach of "hard-science" is *functionally inferior* to the more receptive, unitive, and gestalt-driven approach of the ladies. Yes, logic has its place, and its uses, but it is NOT the only *right* way of doing things . . .
.
>> tx: I don't "deconstruct its language". Rather, I analyze and clarify and explain and so on and so forth.
>> It's all one big happy package. The cyber-prophet's first duty is to show forth the written Word as it truly
>> is. Thus I dissect and examine and analyze and interpret and expound and etc. What I don't do is force
>> the facts into some predetermined mold that already has all the answers and all the angles covered.
>> That is what the scribes and pharisees love to do!
.
> BG: Oh great, another self-styled "cyber-prophet". A pseudo-intellectual
.
 That's a "disenfranchised pseudo-intellectual" to you, sir!
.
> who "dissects and examines". Too bad that after you dissect the frog, you can't put it together again.
.
 The written Word is made of a spiritual stuff, not of living flesh. Never thought of the bible as a frog before.
Wut? Does it eat flies too?
.
> After you spread the word "logos" all over the table, the word becomes useless. -- Bart
.
 Well Bart, I don't think we're quite to *that* far point just yet . . .
The old Logos still has a spark or two left, I'd say.

P.S. "I'm lazy; you know it. I'm ready for the second show. Amazing thing growing; Just waiting for the juice to flow. You're so very picturesque. You're so very cold. Taste's like roses on your breath; But graveyards on your soul." -- lyrics from 'Blue Turk' on 'School's Out' by Alice Cooper

The Obscure Philosopher-1

/ Re: God talking in NT [#16] / 14 March 2003 / Newsgroups > soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.philosophy /

"Among them Heraclitus the mocker, the reviler of the mob, the riddler, rose up." -- Timon

>> On Feb8 textman wrote: More Absurd Logos-Theology. "Listening to the Logos rather than to me,
>> it is wise to agree that all things are in reality one thing and one thing only." -- Heraclitus
.
> On Feb8 Matthew Johnson replied: That was a mildly interesting quote. But only a complete
> ignoramus would think that Heraclitus meant the same thing with 'logos' as Christians do.
.
 textman sayeth: This criticism doesn't really carry much weight with me, alas. This is because what the pre (and post)-Socratic Greeks made of Heraclitus (c.540-480BCE) is not nearly as important as what we make of him today. Hegel says that "the beginning is the least formed, determinate, and developed, and is the poorest and most abstract, and the first philosophy is the wholly general, indeterminate thought, and the simplest, while the newest philosophy is the most concrete and profound. One must know this lest one seek for more behind the old philosophies than they contain" (from the 'History of Philosophy').
.
 So, for example, when we turn to the surviving fragments (ie. about one-hundred *sayings* commonly classified as 'wisdom literature'; which, in our view, falls under the more comprehensive category of 'prophetic literature'), we find "the obscure philosopher" speaking rather plainly about things like 'spirit', 'spark', 'logos', etc. In other words, all the chief elements of a functional and post-modern Christian philosophical-anthropology are to be found already (in seed form, as it were) in one man, Heraclitus, as philosophy was just breaking into the world. So if Christians fail to be impressed by a philosopher with such astonishing depth of vision, it is far more likely to be due to their own short-sightedness than to any supposed faults in the philosopher himself.
.
>> tx: <snip> I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything.
.
> MJ: So you say. But that _is_ what deceivers say. So you fail to be convincing.
.
 Well golly, I can't really convince anyone of *anything* IF they are determined NOT to be convinced. And even if someone were willing, it is the truth itself that will convince them, Matthew, for nothing convinces like the truth of things.
.
 [snipsome rubbish]
.
>> tx: So, for example, a spiritual-giant such as Heraclitus carries as much authority with
>> me as the Hebrew prophets do.
.
> MJ: And that shows a serious failure to understand what is really basic.
.
 On the contrary, it shows that what unites the prophets and the philosophers is more basic than what distinguishes them. Consider this very Heraclitus fellow. There are very few commentators who would not agree that "the brevity and weight of his style are incomparable" (J.Barnes, 'Early Greek Philosophy', 1987, p.107).
.
 "The path up and down is one and the same" (Heraclitus).
.
 Yes, and there are two things we may observe about this very "incomparable" style. Firstly, this is not at all a common way of putting things forth in acceptable literature of a philosophical nature. No indeed, because the vast majority of philosophers do NOT talk like this!
.
 "You should quench violence more quickly than arson." -- H
.
 And secondly, this way of speaking IS common in the biblical texts. More specifically, being brief and deep (or weighty) is a characteristic of prophetic literature in general. Thus my view allows not only Heraclitus to be included among the prophets, but also some who no one would ever accuse of being a prophet. Someone like, for example, Albert Einstein; who is *also* quite partial to brevity and weight in his style.
.
 "Fire will come and judge and convict all things." -- H
.
 It should mean a lot to believers that men such as this, world-historical individuals (as Hegel says), do indeed have an important place in the Faith. Not just in the history of the Faith, but in the living spirit of our living faith!
.
 "To be temperate is the greatest excellence. And wisdom is speaking the truth, and acting with knowledge in accordance with nature" (Heraclitus).
.
 Are we getting through to anyone out there in the cold dark depths of cyber-space?
Are we ringing any bells yet? . . . We most certainly hope so!
.
>> tx: After all, the idea that the universe is in process (ie. constantly changing), and that there is an
>> underlying Logos (order or reason) to this process is still the chief unspoken assumption of all Science;
.
> MJ: And now you show your failure to understand the philosophy of science. No, this is _not_ "the chief
> unspoken assumption of all Science". On the contrary: if there is any one "chief unspoken assumption
> of all Science", it is that _despite_ the change, there is something constant and unchanging, a principle
> that remains the same despite the change, and even _governs_ that change.
.
 What you have just given us here, Matthew, is a darn good definition of the Logos as this concept was developed by the ancient Greeks (4X, by the Stoics) prior to the Common Era.
.
> That, BTW, is what Heraclitus seemed to never grasp. That is why Plato deserves the high praise as the
> founder of Western philosophy, not Heraclitus. For it was Plato who first expounded this idea, which
> Aristotle then modified to become the principle of almost all scientific advancement until Galileo refined
> the experimental method.
.
 I disagree. The only reason that Plato is praised as the father of philosophy is because his works have survived, while Heraclitus' book hasn't. Of course it helps enormously that Plato was a great writer, but his philosophical originality and genius are somewhat over-rated perhaps. Think about it. Think about Socrates. Think about *Plato's* Socrates. Then consider that all those wonderful qualities that make Socrates such a striking figure were already there in Heraclitus! Socrates the gadfly, the skeptic, the fearless investigator? NO! Heraclitus was the first gadfly, the original skeptic, the arch-investigator. Is not Socrates simply Heraclitus under another name? It may well be so. After all, the only advantage that Socrates had over anybody else was his potent awareness of the scope and power of ignorance. As for Plato himself, his philosophical contributions (eg. the theory of ideas) can be understood as his answer to (and overcoming of) Heraclitus.
.
>> tx: as well as the essential foundation of all sound philosophy. Therefore, any theology that
>> does not recognize Heraclitus is incapable of grasping the *whole* truth. <snip>
.
> MJ: Not so.
.
So you think that theology and the Faith are better off without any contact with the history of philosophy?
.
>>> Matthew previously wrote: No, the term 'logos-spark' is completely inappropriate here. Indeed,
>>> you seem to have confused the different modes of being of the Holy Spirit in the world. For
>>> somewhere in the Psalms, the Holy Spirit is described as present in all creation;
.
>> tx: 'Transcendence within immanence' is a good definition of the gracious and providential
>> activities of the Spirit.
.
> MJ: No, as a _definition_ it is woefully inadequate; but as a _description_ it is remarkable.
.
 I bow deeply before thy greater wisdom, good sir.

P.S. "We have reached the point where philosophy must guard religion against certain kinds of theology."
 -- from Hegel's 'Philosophy of History'.

/ Re: God talking in NT [#17] / 21 March 03 / Newsgroups > soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.philosophy /

The Obscure Philosopher-2

"The uncomprehending, when they hear, are like the deaf; the saying
applies to them: though present they are absent" (Heraclitus).

>> textman previously wrote: Hi, Matthew. Great article there. I laughed myself silly more than
>> once, and so decided (very reluctantly) to say a few words in return.
.
> On Feb8 EgwEimi wrote: Attempting to belittle your opponent is no way to win a debate.
.
 textman replies: Dear EgwEimi, if Matthew doesn't object to a little belittling now and then, why should you?
Besides, the only thing I'm out to win, is souls for Jesus! Hallelujah, brother!
.
> It doesn't succeed in making any points for you.
.
Heraclitus: "A foolish man is put in a flutter by every word."
.
> Please stay on topic.
.
 Easier said than done.
.
>> tx: <snip> but this is because believers (such as yourself, 4X) refuse to take the NT
>> documents seriously (by which I mean realistically and historically).
.
> EE: From a reading of the posts, it seems that anyone who disagrees with textman is labeled
> as "refusing to take things seriously."
.
 Then it MUST be so! 
.
> I assure you that Matthew is quite learned in his Biblical knowledge, as am I.
.
 Ah, but that's not quite the same thing. Being serious about the texts is easy for believers, and quite common; but being just as serious about a rational interpretation of these same texts is altogether a different matter, and not at all common!
.
> We often disagree, but always in rational manners that can be supported from the Biblical
> text and cultures.
.
 That's cool. The only problem is that what seems rational to the many is most likely not rational at all from a more philosophical perspective. Yes, the masses think that they can get along just fine without philosophy, but this is not so. Therefore Heraclitus asks:
.
"What sense or thought do the mob have? They follow the popular singers, and they take the crowd
as their teacher, not knowing that most men are bad, and few good."
.
>> tx: Much of my philosophical and theological substructure comes from the ancients actually.
.
> EE: Information from outside the Bible, most especially including our 21st century way of
> thinking, should not be projected onto another culture.
.
 Yet this is exactly what most Christians do when it comes down to the way they treat the texts. 4X: the prophet Jacob uses words like 'synagogue', 'dispersion', even 'Lord', in a way that suggests considerable familiarity with Jewish-Christian traditions. From all these suggestive and significant literary facts (to be found in the text of the epistle of James, btw), the scribes and pharisees conclude that it was written in Jerusalem, near the middle of the first century, by a high-ranking member of the original Aramaic church, namely "James, the brother of Jesus". And furthermore, they claim that there is no "better" or "more feasible" alternative to him! ... So this is a classic example of *projecting* modern ways of thinking "onto another culture". For the text of Jm taken as a whole does not really justify this gross and superficial interpretation of the words used by Jacob. Indeed it would not be going too far to say that the common reading of Jm is approximately 90% hot air. Or pure projection, if you like.
.
> In particular, what the many uninspired writers of the world had to say about something
> needs to be understood as representing merely their own opinions.
.
 I think it is rather presumptuous of you to assume that EVERY writer in the world who did not contribute something to the bible is THEREBY "uninspired". In fact, the scriptures themselves contradict such a notion! And rightly so, because it is not only ignorant and arrogant, but absurd as well. No believer who soaks her soul in the abundant religious literature of the world can fail to find passages that are obviously inspired by the same Spirit of Truth. In the same way, the claim that the Logos speaks *exclusively* through the bible is nothing more than a shameful denial of all reality (ie. life, universe, etc).
.
> For every correct understanding of some concept, there are hundreds of misunderstandings,
> and no amount of agreement by philosophers makes them right.
.
 So then philosophy has no value to the Faith? No role to play in sorting through and sifting the misunderstandings, so as to remove the bad from the good? Be advised that there are a great many saints and Christian writers (much bigger than you, btw) who disagree with you.
.
>> tx: So, for example, a spiritual-giant such as Heraclitus ...
.
> EE: What makes him a "spiritual giant"?
.
 How about his potent impression upon subsequent philosophers? This would include his general impact upon the pre-socratics, such seminal figures as Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, and popular movements like the Stoics. And then there is also his impact on post-classical philosophy to consider: from Philo and John right up to Hegel and Heidegger in more recent times.
.
> Your own opinion?
.
 Well, Clement of Alexandria considered him very like unto a prophet, and even a kind of pre-Christian proto-believer. Hegel regarded him very highly indeed. And Heidegger re-built philosophy from the ground floor on the basis of a truly inspired re-interpretation of Heraclitus' fragments. As for myself, I was impressed by the Riddler even before I knew of his importance to these philosophers just mentioned. Needless to say, I was *also* very impressed by how impressed these also-giant writers were with the obscure one!
.
> Maybe he was just one of many misguided people
.
 Look in the mirror when you say that, sir! And then smile 
.
> who stumbled around hoping to find God.
.
 Actually, he found many of the answers by inquiring into himself. The first man in history to reflect the light of awareness inward! Thus Descartes was merely following in Heraclitus' footsteps when he closed his eyes to the world in order to examine the contents of his own mind. But the results were vastly different, of course!
.
> I wonder what he would have said about his own spirituality.
.
 ???!
.
>> tx: Therefore, any theology that does not recognize Heraclitus is incapable of
>> grasping the *whole* truth.
.
> EE: What if we grasp him but reject anything he said that was not from God?
.
 Who's going to decide that? You maybe? A panel of fundies? ha
.
> Diogenes Laertius wrote of Heraclitus: "Finally he became misanthrope, withdrew from the world,
> and lived in the mountains feeding on grasses and plants. However, having fallen in this way into
> dropsy he came down to town and asked the doctors in a riddle if they could make a drought out
> of rainy weather. When they did not understand he buried himself in a cow-stall, expecting that
> the dropsy would be evaporated by the heat of the manure; but even so he failed to effect
> anything, and ended his life at the age of sixty."
.
 Is this hearsay evidence I'm hearing from you now, friend Frank? Deliberately derogatory propaganda even? Y, eye art shocked! Was it not you who said only just a minute ago: "Attempting to belittle your opponent is no way to win a debate"? This is NOT my idea of logical consistency. This one can't belittle anyone; but you can? How does that work? ... Not fair. Very not fair at all!
.
> Historically, Heraclitus' works exist only in fragmentary sayings. Some of these agree with what is
> found in the Biblical teachings. For example, we find, "If one does not expect the unexpected one
> will not find it out, since it is not to be searched out, and is difficult to compass." Other sayings
> clearly reject God's instruction. He said, for instance, "The things of which there is seeing and
> hearing and perception, these do I prefer." This is a rejection of spirituality, which focuses away
> from the material life.
.
 No! That's not quite right, Frank. The absolute separation of matter and spirit splits the universe in two, and thus impoverishes both sides. The ancient Hebrews, on the other hand, had a wholistic vision of the world and humankind (eg. body and soul are one). Just like Heraclitus and many others. And when we turn to the history of philosophy we see that the conceptual separation of body and mind, matter and spirit, love and duty, subject and object, etc etc, has led to endless confusion and countless errors. Pushing this dualism to its logical extremes led to the conclusion that our senses do not provide a reliable account of reality, thus leaving us stranded in a world of illusion: suspended over an empty abyss with no means of escape. But Heraclitus rejects all of this. This is not a rejection of spirituality, but rather an affirmation of unity, AND of the reliability of perception. Heraclitus puts the first things first. Without constant reference to 'sound and vision' philosophy is nothing more than a vain and pointless exercise in futility!
.
> EE: Many of the extant sayings we possess were merely attributed to him by others, and the
> majority exist without any context to explain them.
.
 In other words, they are *RIPE* for interpretation and abuse!
.
>> tx: I agree that the Holy Spirit is both an objective and subjective reality, and that SHE
>> enlivens some believers more than others ...
.
> EE: As I understand "the holy Spirit," the expression merely signifies God in communication with humans.
.
 There is no merely about the Spirit, Frank. She is everywhere, and nowhere. Active and passive. Listening as well as whispering ever so softly to whomever will incline their ear. As the scripture says:
.
 "My child, if you wish, you can be educated, and if you devote yourself to it, you can become shrewd. If you love to hear, you will receive, and if you listen, you will be wise." -- from the Wisdom of Sirach, 6:33; Chicago-bible
.
 And there is very little here that Heraclitus would not agree with.
.
>> tx: In Genesis 1:26 God says "Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness ...".
>> Does this mean that the Father and the Word are bipedal mammals?
.
> EE: In Gen 1:26, there is merely God, making humanity in his own image
.
 The text says "us", not "his" . . .
Heraclitus says that some people are without faith, "not knowing how to hear, or even how to speak."
.
> -- that is, capable of love.
.
 You are *SO* wrong! Dogs are capable of love, Frank. Some women even consider them better companions than men. Ha! This is because mammals in general are capable of love. There is nothing unique about emotions. Moreover, the text doesn't say that *anyway*.
.
To be continued in Part Three:  Coming Soon ...

P.S. "Those who speak with sense must rely on what is common to all, as a city must rely on its law,
and with much greater reliance." -- Heraclitus

/ Re: God talking in NT [#18] / 23 March 2003 / Newsgroups > soc.religion.christian.bible-study, alt.philosophy /

The Obscure Philosopher-3

"All men can know themselves and be temperate." -- Heraclitus

>> textman previously wrote: In a nutshell, the image and likeness refers to our ability to *reason*.
.
> On Feb8 EgwEimi wrote: I disagree. God's nature is love; our true nature is love.
> We have the capacity for genuine love (not merely familial affection), and that is
> what sets us apart from other creations.
.
 tx: The angels above us, and the mammals around us, are also capable of love. This is not unique. What sets human love apart is the addition of awareness. We can direct our love beyond our immediate surroundings, to encompass the whole world (if need be). Even the pagans and unbelievers love their own spouses and children, so that it is no great achievement for believers to be capable of love. Human love only approaches a semblance of divine love when it goes beyond convention and the limits of family and friends. Expansive and unbounded love is other-directed love, the sort of love that goes beyond mere self-interest. Only a love tempered and driven by mind can elevate natural-love to a more God-pleasing type of spiritual-love.
.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full."  -- Gospel of Luke 6:32-34 / NETbible
.
>> tx: Better (by far) to do the will of God with Jesus in your heart, but it can be accomplished also
>> by Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and even perhaps by some agnostics and atheists.
.
> EE: What God wants, in a nutshell, is love. Not "love" as popular culture defines it, but as God himself
> explains it. If one wishes to love, one will seek God and follow his principles. To "have any gods
> besides" Yahweh is a rejection of every one of those principles. "No one is able to serve two lords."
.
 Right. Love is best expressed through service; ie. through consistently rational actions uniting heart and mind (or emotion and thought) in accord with the divine spirit.
.
>> The Golden Rule is as sensible and compelling to believers as to unbelievers.
.
> And yet they do not practice it.
.
 Who does?
.
> EE: Even many self-proclaimed Christians memorize it, neither practicing it nor even understanding
> it. The one who understands and practices will be the one who is following God. Yet it is impossible
> to follow God while rejecting him.
.
 Right. We need our reason to understand and act with love.
.
>> tx: And how could the Logos "weigh" a living heart <snip>
.
> EE: Yahweh God created humanity. He can judge the heart because he sees hidden things
> as though they were obvious. We see one another's actions only; God sees our motivations.
.
 Just so. "God sees" because the spirit is within us ...
.
>> That wherever two or three gathered in his name he would be there?
.
> Literally? No. Wherever his apostles practiced his teachings, Jesus was there, metaphorically,
> giving his assent. He was there in the sense that his faithful students were remembering him.
> He was with them in the same sense that my friends who have died are still with me.
.
 I don't think the sense is the same at all. I don't think that "remembrance" quite captures the *fullness* of Jesus' presence among those who love him. Consider the following passage. And consider that 'remembering' just doesn't do justice to what is here being proclaimed:
.
"Reside in me, and I in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it resides in the vine, so neither can you unless you reside in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who resides in me (and I in him) bears much fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. If anyone does not reside in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up, and they gather them up and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you reside in me and my words reside in you, ask whatever you want, and it will be done for you." -- John 15:4-7
.
>> tx: Centuries before Christ arrived, the Way was prepared in advance by the likes of great giants
>> such as Socrates (who confessed that our ignorance outpaces our knowledge, and later died out
>> of love for others),
.
> EE: We have absolutely no information about the actual teachings of Socrates. Most of what we have
> that relates to Socrates came from Plato, who rephrased everything in his own ideology. One of the
> few things that we can be sure,
.
 We can be sure that Socrates was a disciple of Heraclitus: "They say that Euripides gave [Socrates] a copy of Heraclitus' book and asked him what he thought of it. He replied: 'What I understand is splendid; and I think that what I don't understand is so too. But it would take a Delian diver to get to the bottom of it.'" -- Diogenes Laertius, 'Lives of the Philosophers', II:22
.
> historically, came from Socrates is the practice of the "Socratic method" of learning through debate.
> Another probably authentic saying is "Virtue is knowledge." He does not say, "Knowledge is virtue,"
> but means by this that to practice virtue what is good implies knowledge of what is good.
.
 This is exactly what I'm saying; that only the unity of heart and mind (of love, will, and awareness) can embrace the spirit and reveal the logos-spark that gives light and life. Or as Heraclitus puts it:
.
"The soul is a spark of the essential substance of the stars."
.
> Rather than stumble in darkness, we are able to find what is good in the Bible. <snipsome>
.
 And yet Socrates found what is good *without* the Bible, herr EgwEimi! How? Heraclitus puts it this way: "Man's character is his daimon." Do not confuse this with 'evil demon', for here 'daimon' derives from 'daemon', which term refers to someone with an attendant power of spirit; as, 4X, "Socrates' daemon". If we are able to find what is good in the scriptures, then we ought also to be able to find what is good in the far more abundant non-biblical literature. Why settle for a teacup of goodness when a whole tub of goodness is available to us?
.
>> tx: Confucius (who formulated a social rule very like unto the Golden Rule),
.
> EE: Confucius rejected the notion of spiritual existence,
.
 Confucius did not reject the concept of the Way. He just had his own ideas about how this
should be done in human society.
.
> indicating that the gods should not be served.
.
 Because such service is idolatry and contrary to the Way.
.
> Apart from that major fault, his teachings agree with those of the Bible in many ways.
> Of course, we already have the Bible without Confucius.
.
 Right. We do not need Confucius and his teachings; but we DO need to acknowledge that the spirit that was in him is the SAME 'spirit of truth' that works among the Hebrews and Greeks and all those others who love the truth. This is the point you reject: that inspiration can and does occur outside the bible.
.
>> tx: and the good lord Buddha (who also practiced compassion, gentleness, forgiveness,
>> self-forgetfulness, etc).
.
> EE: Buddha rejected all physical indulgences and pleasures, focusing instead on what we might call
> the spiritual. Many of the others that textman mentioned rejected what was spiritual. Who was right?
> Isn't there a standard by which these disagreements can be judged? Of course there is.
.
 Indeed. And that standard can only be the truth of things!
.
>> tx: The latter felt, I surmise, that the general practice of organized religion only tends to
>> confuse the real issues, the important concerns, and the really BIG questions.
.
> EE: In a general way, Jesus taught the same thing.
.
 This is what I'm saying, Frank. Same spirit, same logos, same truth; expressed in many and various ways.
.
> It is not the rituals that are important but our relationship with God and with one another. God
> had already told this to some of his prophets: "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," for example.
> While there have always been people out there groping in the darkness while trying to find truth,
> God has always been here, spreading the light openly to those who are willing to accept him as Lord.
.
 Except if you're a philosopher, you mean; in which case you are deemed unacceptable to the Lord?!?
.
> His teachings were made available through his prophets and other followers. Therefore, the way of
> God is most beneficial and reasonable, because it more accurately and more quickly explains truth
> and life than do the musings of those who stumble in darkness. Yet even if it seemed unreasonable,
> God's way would still be more beneficial than following human insight alone. <snip>
.
 Yet your absolute separation of philosophy and faith IS irrational, unrealistic, arbitrary, ill-conceived, very disadvantageous, extremely non-beneficial, AND totally unbiblical! If the Logos was as anti-philosophy as many Christians are, he would not have include a whole book of philosophy among the scriptures (ie. Ecclesiastes). As Heraclitus says (in accordance with scripture):
.
 "For human nature has no insights; but divine nature has."
.
>> tx: <snip> Friend EgwEimi here is just the sort of believer who desperately requires the
>> occasional dog-bite from a vicious and fearsome creature: Grrrrr!
.
> EE: Thanks, bub. Please stick to the topic.
.
"Dogs bark at every one they do not know" (Heraclitus).

> If we are really going to talk about the manner in which God speaks in the Bible, let us do it.
.
 Okay then --> God speaks in the bible mainly through the old Hebrew prophets, through the Messiah, and also through *his* prophets (ie. the Christian "slaves"). Now the real beauty of this answer is that God's speaking is NOT restricted to any supposedly closed set of documents thus deemed finished and final, but *also* through the prophets whose writings are nowhere to be found within the pages of the Bible. Therefore God speaks to us by way of the Logos, and is always looking to capture our ears for a moment or two. Whether we are willing to listen or not, *that* is the real question!
.
> This is, after all, a Bible study group.
.
 Anything that is relevant to bible study ought to be relevant to the group as well. Including philosophy!
.
> Now to make myself clear, Jesus and Paul themselves did occasionally quote non-Jewish sources -
.
 And rightly so, we may add.
.
> - when those sources were right.
.
 Can we therefore consider as inspired all non-biblical literature, whenever and wherever they are good and true?
.
> Right ideas are right wherever they are found, and regardless of who says them.
.
 Well said! I do most heartily agree.
.
> But it makes more sense to search for right ideas among truth than in a forest
> of unfounded opinions. -- Frank
.
 Truth is where you find it, Frank, as you just said. Therefore we cannot say in advance who will, and who will not, find some hitherto undiscovered aspect of the truth of things. Our ignorance STILL *vastly* exceeds our knowledge; and so we all have a long way to go before anyone can say that "the truth stops here". Or to put it another way (according to another Heraclitus-type philosopher):
.
 "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (A.Einstein).
.
 Amen!

P.S. "Let us not make aimless conjectures about the most important things" (Heraclitus).