/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#6] / Date > 6 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).
.
> although, those letters printed in red are at some places the very questionable opinions of men.
.
 So then you acknowledge that the "absolute perfection" of "GOD's Word" was/is compromised by the feeble weaknesses of human nature? Such as ignorance and arrogance in the bible-makers treatment of the sacred texts? ... wow
.
> 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.
.
 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. But then:
.
> It's GOD's Words, just as much, in either case. That may sound strange, to us, today; but we
> too often forget, "No Man ever spoke as This Man speaks."
.
 So Jesus Christ was a man? Are you *sure* that the New Testament teaches this? ... I certainly am.
.
> A fatal blunder so often occurring in the "science of textual criticism," which analyzes Scripture as if It
> were the word of man. -- Bob
.
 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! Therefore, if there is any "fatal blunder" around here, it is the Fundy denial of any connection between the texts and their authors, *and* the world around them (as if the NT were some holy nugget that fell directly from heaven, and into the KJV).
.
> Christ Died to Save You
.
 Christ Lives to Save All!

>> On Jan27 John McComb wrote: So I don't have any problem with Jesus speaking of future
>> events like they have already happened.
.
> On Jan27 rmeyers5 replied: Nor do I; nor does any Believer have "any problem" with it, since
> as you say, it is common for God thus to speak.
.
 So now you're denying that Jesus is a man? One minute Jesus is a man, and the next he's God. How convenient this is for Trinitarians! They bounce back and forth between biblical teaching and idolatry (without even blinking an eye), in the smug assurance that the utter lack of all logic and reason in their thinking is in full harmony with the Mind of God! :(
.
> Another view of vs 13 is that it is a striking claim to the full Deity of the Son of Man:
.
  "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and you are right in doing so, for that is what I am." (John 13:13).
.
 Are you seeing the same words that I am? How do you get "full Deity" out of this? Oh right, I keep forgetting. 'Teacher' *really* means 'God'. And 'Lord' *really* means 'God the Son'. I guess if you can arbitrarily redefine words to make them mean whatever you want them to, then of course it's easy to say that this or that verse teaches the full deity of Christ (even when they *obviously* don't)!
.
> rmeyers5: <snip> In fact I believe what I said fully, when I challenged two different hermeneutics
> professors regarding a statement both of them had made in their lectures, as a foundational axiom
> of "hermeneutics": "Every Scripture has one, and ONLY one, correct interpretation." I pointed out
> that that is simply and obviously not true: Matt. 1:23 is a very famous refutation of that statement;
> and so is Matt. 2:15, and, in fact, the majority of quotations of the OT in the NT. Paul's quotations, like
> Matthew's, probably NEVER strictly "respect the context" of the OT passages from which they are quoted.
.
 Right. And this shows that even inspired authors are *NOT* above the limitations of their day. A sloppy or erroneous use of scripture cannot be transformed into its opposite by simply applying a good dose of bibliolatry! Once again we see that fundies are simply unable to appreciate that the texts are historically conditioned documents.
.
> GOD IS OFTEN PRESENTING MULTIPLE TRUTHS IN ONE STATEMENT;
.
 I agree that the scriptures have various levels of meaning, but I don't agree that God is the direct Author/Writer/Editor of the sacred texts. That's NOT what inspiration means! God is the Father, not the Writer. The idea that 'God wrote the Bible' is just another means for fundies to justify their gross and unbiblical bibliolatry!
.
> rmeyers5: and that accounts for the "strange" wordings of so many Scriptures. This phenomenon,
> of Paul's and Matthew's quoting "out of context," is one of the strong pointers to the Inspiration
> of their Scriptures. Because we mere men are forbidden to handle Scripture in that way; only God
> has the right to do so; and the Scriptures of Matthew and Paul are thus shown to be the Word of
> God, and NOT merely their own words.
.
 Are you hearing this? Here Matthew and Paul are thought to be written by God BECAUSE they are sloppy and erroneous in their treatment of the scriptures! BECAUSE only God can rightly break all the rules we use to guide us to a proper and sensible understanding of the Word! This is perhaps the most idiotic fundy argument I have ever heard. Instead of respecting the fact that Paulos and the author of Mt were mere men prone to errors and limitations (as all men are) which are reflected in their texts, the fundies prefer to twist the truth of things into a lie so as to serve an even bigger lie: the infallible and inerrant LORDGODHOLYBIBLE!
.
> Another strong indicator of Inspiration is that the Gospel writers usually refer to the Lord as "Jesus."
> Those men would never even think of referring to Him in such disrespect, as is so common today
> (John 13:13), if those Gospels were their own words. As Sir Robert Anderson remarked, "when in the
> palace, you hear someone referring to the king as 'George,' you know that the speaker can be none
> other than the queen." "When a speaker habitually refers to the Lord of Glory, before Whose Judgment
> Seat we shall all stand, as "Jesus," I care not what is his creed: he is a Socinian in his heart."
> --- loosely quoted SRA
.
 So then it's okay for the inspired authors to refer to him as 'Jesus', but not us because (1) we are so VASTLY *inferior* to the early apostles and prophets and teachers, and (2) Jesus is *really* 'God the Son' and therefore we have no right to imagine that he is a "mere" man, or to treat him as if he were a "mere" human being. Once again we see that fundy idolatry has run away with absurdity, despised all reason and common sense, and thus makes a mockery of the Faith!
.
> The Scriptures of the Apostle Paul are just as much the Word of God as are the words of Christ
> spoken to His audiences on earth.
.
 Once again I must dissent in the name of sanity (as well as logic, reason, common sense, history, reality, truth, etc, etc). Thus there IS a distinction to be made between the teachings of Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and John. They are most certainly *NOT* all the same!
.
> (1 Cor. 14:37).
.
 "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command" (1Cor.14:37).
.
 This just means that the prophet's authority comes directly from the Lord, rather than from Christian traditions and institutions. It is certainly not a claim that Paul's teachings are the same as the Messiah's, or even that they have the same authority. Obviously the Messiah's teachings come first, last, and always, *because* they come directly from the Word of God incarnate; whereas the teachings of the Christian prophets and saints are indirect and secondary. It's like the difference between sunlight and moonlight; they have the same source, but no one (except fundies, of course) could possibly confuse them.
.
> Yet I don't see Romans printed in red letters. Of course, I know that that's not because the men who
> select which letters are to be printed in red are denying that Romans is part of the Word of God; they
> certainly believe, as I do, that it is. <snip>
.
 Right. But they are not so confused as to suppose that Paul's teachings are really someone else's (eg. God's).
.
> And I have "no problem" with the fact that those men, and their red letters, sometimes are in
> error, which was the point of my reply to your post. -- Bob.
.
 So then you admit that the scriptures are errant but nevertheless equally authoritative in all its parts? That is, these errors are just as inspired as every other part, and therefore must be equally true by virtue of the fact that the scriptures were not really written by men? This sort of sloppy thinking doesn't quite work for me, I'm afraid. You may think that a good theology is one that is as irrational and ridiculous as possible, but, in fact, you are doing a gross disservice unto the Lord by making the Faith utterly unacceptable to every rational creature. Therefore your teachings are very FAR from being anything like the Lord's command.
.
 Yes, fundies are like a man given a gold coin and told to make the most of it. A year later he returns having exchanged the gold coin for a silver one, and claiming that he has done well. That he has made a profit and advanced the cause; when in reality they have accomplished just the opposite! That's why fundies are such a great stench unto the Lord. They think that they are doing the will of God, when in reality they are only destroying the Faith for those who need it most!
.
 But that's okay because fundies have "no problem" with that!

P.S. "And this is eternal life: [it means] to know (to perceive, recognize, become acquainted with, and understand) You, the only true and real God, and [likewise] to know Him, Jesus [as the] Christ (the Anointed One, the Messiah), Whom You have sent." -- John 17:3 / Amplified Bible (AMP)
.
... Hmmm, not even a HINT of Trinitarianism here. How very odd!

More Absurd Logos-Theology

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#7] / Date > 8 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

"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 Jan31 Matthew Johnson wrote: I am going to let Frank answer the details of your post, since it is,
> after all, response to his ideas. But there are a few odd ideas of yours, 'textman', that I cannot resist
> commenting on. See below. <snip *much* gratuitous insulting type behaviors> You cannot possibly
> understand the NT as long as you blindly pretend that being 'very dramatic indeed' implies it is
> 'Shakespearean'. But even this fallacy is not as bad as your denying the historicity:
.
>> tx: Historical value of these verses? ---> Zero!
.
> Don't expect many to be fooled into agreeing with you here.
.
 textman replies: Hi, Matthew. Great article there. I laughed myself silly more than once, and so decided (very reluctantly) to say a few words in return. Firstly, I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything. What I *am* trying to do is to get believers to adopt a far more critical stance toward the Christian biblical-paradigm in general. So I don't expect many to agree with my sometimes extreme declarations and odd notions, but this is because believers (such as yourself, 4X) refuse to take the NT documents seriously (by which I mean realistically and historically). Taking *everything* that the scriptures say at face value is NOT my idea of showing respect and reverence for the multi-dimensional Word of God. But no doubt you'll disagree with all this?
.
>> <snip> who, we may say, "speaks" through the universal Logos (who in turn speaks through Jesus
>> and his prophets). What this means is that every rational human creature (literacy is not a requirement)
>> has/contains/is this tiny puny spark of divine reason (aka: the tao, the atman, the buddha nature, the
>> inner light, etc), and this unknowable and unpredictable "logos-spark" is the spiritual source of the
>> inspiration that inspires ALL the authors of sacred scripture.
.
> MJ: "Logos-spark"? Where _do_ you get your mumbo-jumbo?
.
 Much of my philosophical and theological substructure comes from the ancients actually. From the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, of course, from early Christian writers, and from the early Greek, later Graeco-Roman and Hellenistic-Jewish thinkers (eg. Philo). So, for example, a spiritual-giant such as Heraclitus carries as much authority with me as the Hebrew prophets do. 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; 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.
.
> MJ: 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;
.
'Transcendence within immanence' is a good definition of the gracious and providential activities of the Spirit.
.
> but He is present again in a more 'intimate' way in all who follow the Divine Law, whether Mosaic or
> Christ's. And again, He is present in a yet more intimate manner in all Christians. Finally, He is present
> in the most intimate manner in all those Christians who have fully laid down their lives for Christ and
> pick up their cross _daily_.
.
 I agree that the Holy Spirit is both an objective and subjective reality, and that *SHE* enlivens some believers more than others (especially the prophets), but I think you fail to appreciate the essential and fundamental nature of the inner-essence of all human being. 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? No. The image and likeness does not consist in our material or animal natures, and so instinct and emotion are not what is intended here. The thing that makes humans different from all other creatures is our capacity to generate ideas, to communicate, to think, to be aware of the reality of things which we cannot immediately see.
.
 In a nutshell, the image and likeness refers to our ability to *reason*. Hence the divinely infused logos-spark is that which makes us different, makes us more than mere animals, makes us human and spiritual creatures. Christians have no major advantage over the rest of the human race in this regard. In fact, judging from the current sad condition of the Faith, it would appear that Christians (especially fundies) are much LESS able to reason *rightly* and *fruitfully* than almost everybody else! This is the shame of Christianity today.
.
> So no, there is not a 'logos-spark' present in Buddhists, Taoists and Christians.
> The belief that there is is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.
.
 It is incompatible with a narrow and exclusionary vision of the Faith, to be sure. And I agree that some verses are quite strong to that end. Even John's gospel is clear about drawing the line just so. John certainly had a nasty bug in his ear about something, but I suppose he had his reasons. However, these reasons are no longer available or justified today; just as the exclusionary approach has long since proved to be bloody and counter-productive. And even, I dare say, fundamentally incompatible with the essentially universal and expansive spirit of the Faith; ie. since the Father of Lights would rather that all men and women should be saved than not.
.
 Salvation, redemption, liberty, etc, are available to all (more or less), just as faith, hope, and love are within the grasp of all *rational* men and women. 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. And why not, eh? The Golden Rule is as sensible and compelling to believers as to unbelievers. Not all have heard and believed the outer Word (which is often distorted during the imperfect process of transmission), but the Inner Light is there in everyone just the same (to some degree) else we could not all be capable of being-there. Pity the fool who is not all there! :)
.
>> What I mean by "sacred scripture" here is obviously not just those documents within the Holy Bible itself.
.
> That's too bad.
.
 No, actually, it's very good.
.
>> This is because the Logos, being universal, must necessarily express itself in every language, every
>> culture, every society; somehow.
.
> No, that does not follow. Why on earth would anyone think that it would?
.
 Duh. Because we are *all* brothers and sisters in both flesh and spirit! You think that the human race falls into two main categories: those people who say 'Lord, Lord' with their lips, and those who don't. But I am not impressed by the fancy things that people may say, and neither is the Lord; for the truth of things often lies concealed beneath pleasing words and happy smiles: "All of a person’s ways seem right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart" (Proverbs 21:2).
.
 And how could the Logos "weigh" a living heart unless he is already somehow here inside with us all along? Did not the Lord promise that he would go along with believers? That wherever two or three gathered in his name he would be there? Clearly the Lord's presence among believers is spiritual; which is to say, NOT an external imposed reality (as with priestcraft, and witchcraft), but an internal supersensible subjective reality which is potentially available to everyone by way of this mysterious, but universal, logos-spark. You may say that this term is not biblical, but it does not strike me as any radical departure from the best biblical teachings. Isn't that right, Matthew?
.
>> tx: Therefore there are saints and prophets and teachers and artists, and visionaries of all shape
>> and size - along with their sacred writings and utterances - in many strange lands and times. Believe
>> it or not, true believers, but this really is *a very good thing*!
.
> MJ: Well, if all these people really are 'saints and prophets' etc., why do they differ
> so _sharply_ in their message?
.
 Perhaps you exaggerate the differences overmuch? 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), Confucius (who formulated a social rule very like unto the Golden Rule), and the good lord Buddha (who also practiced compassion, gentleness, forgiveness, self-forgetfulness, etc). 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. All in all, I am more impressed by the similarities ...
.
> Why can't they even agree on what God is
.
 Because our Big Daddy is *slightly* more complex and unknowable than, say, an orange. I guess ...
.
> or what Man is, or what Man's mission in this life is?
.
 Because the answers to these difficult questions are not at all obvious maybe?
.
> Seems to me that if they are all 'true believers', then the 'god' they all believe in delights in
> confusion and weakness. Not like the Christian God at all!
.
 The confusion and weakness are on this end of things, sport.
.
>> tx: Indeed, anything that an apostle or prophet writes is prophetic literature (as orange juice
>> comes from oranges), whether it be gospel or epistle or history or poetry or fiction or philosophy
>> or *whatever*!
.
> MJ: Again, where _do_ you get this mumbo jumbo? Or are you really unaware of why the rest
> of the world does _not_ follow your bizarre definition of 'prophetic literature'? [snip]
.
 Well gee-wiz Matthew, I have always assumed that it was because the *vast* majority of believers have been thoroughly hoodwinked by the collective efforts of countless generations of busy little scribes and pharisees working ever so carefully to blot all thoughts of the prophets out of the tender and feeble minds of Christians who haven't got the first clue as to what the heck is going on around here anyway!
.
>> <snip> Are you suggesting, then, that the "Preacher/Philosopher" was in no way inspired?
.
> That is not what Frank said at all. Nobody else in this thread misread him as saying this, so why do you?
.
 It's a plausible conclusion given the premises of his arguments: "And one might argue reasonably that every instance of the 'holy breath' was God speaking".
.
> MJ: Perhaps because you delight in 'straw-man' arguments?
.
 Nein!
.
>> In no way in contact with spiritual realities?
.
> Again, he didn't say that.
.
 No, but he *might* have implied it, yes?
.
>> ... Wutz it doin in the bible, bud? Did it just "slip by" the Divine-Editor? :)
.
> MJ: Now you proceed from scornful 'straw-man' arguments to outright scoffing. But _some_ of us know
> what Solomon said about the scoffer: "For every scoffer is an abomination before the Lord. And His
> secret conversation is with the upright" (Prv 3:32). You have made it too obvious which hemistich
> best describes you, textman. [snip]
.
 Sheesh! I was just gnawing on his virtual legbone a bit is all. Friend EgwEimi here is just the sort of believer who desperately requires the occasional dog-bite from a vicious and fearsome creature: Grrrrr! Give the mutt a break, I say. But then I'm partial ... I guess ... ???

P.S. "Men have no comprehension of the Logos, as I've described it, just as much after they hear about it as they did before they heard about it. Even though all things occur according to the Logos, men seem to have no experience whatsoever, even when they experience the words and deeds which I use to explain physis, of how the Logos applies to each thing, and what it is. The rest of mankind are just as unconscious of what they do while awake as they are of what they do while they sleep." -- Heraclitus

More Hermeneutical Presuppositions

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#8] / Date > 13 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
] tx said: On the Meaning of Creeds/1 [snip'a'byte'] The only way to derive such a conclusion
] from this passage is by deliberately forcing it into the texts!
.
>>> Matthew objects: No, that is not true. On the contrary: the only way to _avoid_ the conclusion
>>> is by deliberately forcing the text. See below.
.
>> tx asks: See below the text?
.
> On Feb5 Matthew Johnson didst verily scoffeth: What part of 'see below' did you fail to understand?
.
 textman answers: It was just a *joke*, MATTHEW!
.
] tx: A very NOT valid interpretation here.
.
>>> On the contrary: it is the only valid interpretation.
.
>> Because of the "_uncreated_ light that flows from God Himself"?
>> Your own statement suggests that the light flows *from* God *to* JC.
.
> MJ: The key word is 'suggests'.
.
 I see. So the Word and I are in agreement about this, but *you* suggest otherwise! How very nice indeed.
.
>> tx: I do not see any equality of divinity here, but rather distinction and uniqueness of identity.
.
> MJ: That, of course, is because you are confused ;) In reality the distinction is not between Father
> and Son but between the uncreated light, which is equally of the Father and of the Son, and the
> human nature of Jesus Christ, which only now (i.e. at the time of the Transfiguration) is shown to
> be capable of being transfigured in this uncreated light.
.
 Has it not yet occurred to you that this irrational emphasis upon this uncreated-light thingy of yours is utterly irrelevant to a sensible reading of this passage? And in fact serves only to obscure a right reading by deflecting attention away from the text and onto the path of futile-fundy-fabrications? ... I'm not so confused as to mistake the logos-light of the Transfiguration for an external, imposed reality, when it is, in fact, an inner and spiritual reality. Yet you, Matthew, mistake the symbolic and suggestive language of the scriptures (which you perversely recognize *IS* indeed symbolic and suggestive) for external, objective *things*, rather than as poetic and imaginative language referring to universal and spiritual realities. Obviously then, it is you, sir, that art confused, not eye.
.
>> tx: The New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, which is then interpreted as 'Lord' and
>> 'Son of God' for the ignorant Gentiles who did not know the meaning of phrases like 'son of man'
>> and 'the anointed one'. None of the inspired authors ever thought that 'Messiah' *really* means
>> 'God the Son'!
.
> MJ: So you love to assert. But you have offered no convincing proof.
.
 Here is a believer who is not convinced by the testimony of the scriptures because these are not sufficiently substantial so as to act as convincing proof. Thus the fact that 'God the Son' is nowhere to be found in the NT is deemed inconclusive. In the same way, the fact that 'God the Son' *does* appear in the 2C 'Epistle of the Apostles' is deemed irrelevant because its semi-inspired author had not the concepts of 'consubstantial' and 'homoousios' at his disposal. But there's nothing irrelevant about it! The idea that the 'Son of God' is the exact equivalent of 'God the Son' had to come from somewhere. It didn't just magically appear to everyone at the same time; although perhaps the fundies may like to think otherwise.
.
> You have offered none because none is possible.
.
 I cannot show you the truth if you refuse to accept it. Moreover, in Socratic dialogues (such as this one) offering up irrefutable and absolute "proofs" that demand immediate universal assent is NOT the point. And it's not the point because such a demand made on any side of any dialogue is highly unrealistic (and perhaps even absurd). No. The whole point of apologetic discourse and/or rational debates and controversies is 'influence to the end of persuasion'. That is, the Reader (Matthew excepted) can be expected to be influenced in their personal thinking about these particular matters under discussion to *some* extent (more or less depending on the unique nature and abilities of each individual reader).
.
 So then the strengths and weaknesses of the various arguments used on both sides of the dialogue will figure prominently in this matter of influencing the Reader's own set of opinions, assumptions, and absolute-conclusions. But these arguments cannot compel anyone (eg. by logical necessity) to change their thinking against their will (as it were). Rather, all arguments must be willingly accepted by the Reader during the course of the debate. Opinions will sometimes change owing to various factors (such as validity, plausibility, rhetorical or logical finesse, the X-factor, etc), but strict proof is not normally required in general discourse (as opposed to more scientific discourse). And when concrete proof is demanded from one side, this usually suggests a weakness on the other side. It's an attempt to make points with the Reader by asking the other guy to do the impossible!
.
 But estimates of overall validity depend on credibility, plausibility, logic, philosophical and literary astuteness, and the level of general rationality visible on one side or the other. Now I would ask the Reader to compare all this against the frightful and irrational logiks employed by Matthew in his most recent outburst of theological sophistry:
.
> Matthew say: "In reality the distinction is not between Father and Son but between the uncreated light,
> which is equally of the Father and of the Son, and the human nature of Jesus Christ, which only now (i.e.
> at the time of the Transfiguration) is shown to be capable of being transfigured in this uncreated light."
.
 I mean really! What kind of talk is that? Obviously human nature is capable of being transformed and improved by the spiritual light of the inner logos-spark. We do not require any fancy Transfiguration episode to teach us these things that all the great saints and teachers and religions are well aware of. Therefore a dispassionate and scientific evaluation shows Matthew's biblical interpretations and exegesis to be approximately 90% theological hot air, and 10% pure nonsense!
.
> MJ: The inspired authors _did_ know that the Messiah who actually came was revealed to be far
> greater than expected (at least by the major schools of thought at the time). For the Messiah
> proved to be the consubstantial Son to the Father.
.
 And yet what you say cannot be true because the scriptures do not support your reasoning. They witness to Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. They do *not* witness to "God the Son", nor to "consubstantiality", nor to "the Trinity", nor to etc etc. All this nonsense the fundies *add* to the sacred-text AS IF it had every right to be there, when, in fact, ALL such extra-biblical notions ARE extra-biblical, and THEREFORE ought not to be treated as if they were inspired. They are NOT! If Jesus the Son is really consubstantial to the Father, I'm sure that the NT authors could have found a way to say so (for example, by using the phrase 'God the Son', just like the author of the Epistle of the Apostles did). Thus the plain historical fact that the EA did not make it into the canon constitutes positive evidence against any notion that the Nicene Creed does not contradict the Word.
.
>> tx: So why should believers today suppose that they know better about these mysteries than
>> the testimony of the scriptures?
.
> MJ: I didn't say they did. Where do you get your red herrings?
.
 You don't have to say it explicitly, Matthew . . .
It's an element that's deeply embedded in your whole approach to the scriptures.
.
>> btw: where is your validity hiding?
.
> MJ: Just as the Pharisees never saw the uncreated light, but James, John, Peter did, so you might never
> see the validity, but others will. It is not 'hiding'. It is you who hide it from your own eyes. <snipsome>
.
 Hmmmm. It's true enough that validity cannot really "hide". It can only be there, or not. In this case it's hiding from me because you're failing to manifest it through your arguments; which, I dare say, are somewhat thin. Not that I'm blaming you or anything, friend Matthew, rather it is that the theologically top-heavy paradigm you're so accustomed to using, or rather 'abusing' (in the case of the NT), is (necessarily) thin all over! :)
.
 Here's another prophetic maxim for would-be students of the Bible: Never *ever* suppose that the New Testament is or was ever intended to be primarily (or exclusively) a set of theological textbooks and/or doctrinal sourcebooks of dogmas, rituals, ideologies, and assorted Christian "laws" or "rules". Very few early Christian documents had such a use deliberately built into them. Thus there is a subtle distinction between 'proclamation' as such (being chiefly preaching and teaching) and 'doctrine' (being chiefly dogmatic and/or absolute declarations intended to define and solidify "orthodoxy"). Hence the difference between 'gospel' and 'creed'.
.
] tx: Actually the transfiguration episode is about religious *authority*;
.
>>> Matthew: It _does_ cover religious authority, true. But it is about _so much more_.
.
>> tx: Right.
.
> Matthew: Now you finally admit it. So why did you claim that the 'episode is about religious
> *authority*, as if about nothing else?
.
 Because the matter of religious authority is the *main* thing. Everything else is very secondary.
.
>> tx: The pericope functions effectively on various levels.
.
> Matthew: So why did you speak as if to deny this before? Can't you see what this does to
> your own credibility?
.
 No, because the complexity of the text does not undermine the fact that this pericope is primarily about religious authority. You're the one who seeks to deny this with your irrational over-emphasis on the "uncreated-light".
.
>> That's why I love it to pieces!
.
> A rather poor sort of 'love', especially since you show such a poor knowledge of the 'various levels'.
.
 Well sir, I never intended to give a complete and exhaustive account of the entire passage, but only a general orientation to the overall meaning of the passage as a whole.
.
>> tx: It even has considerable historical value; IF you can see your way beyond a strictly literal reading.
>> MJ here does NOT seem to understand that the transfiguration episode is a prophecy story about the
>> sources of spiritual authority within the churches after Paul (about 60CE+).
.
> MJ: The reason I do not 'see' this and you do, is because you show a greater love of hallucinations. No, it
> is not a 'prophecy story about the sources of spiritual authority' in the churches. To believe this malarkey,
> you have to seriously misunderstand the history of these churches.
.
 The effort to seriously NOT misunderstand the history of these wonderful and amazing early Greek-speaking churches is most certainly my primary concern, Matthew. Alas it is the popular and invincible Christian paradigm as a whole that diverts and impedes our progress in this direction. :(
.
> After all: by the time Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem had emerged as the 'four spiritual authorities',
.
 That's only three. The missing fourth tradition is, of course, the pauline churches in the Aegean region. If you look on a map you'll notice that these four traditions nicely cover the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea, this region being the original cradle of the Faith.
.
> the text of _all_ four canonical Gospels had been quite static for many decades, if not two centuries.
.
 "two centuries"!?!  Good Grief; talk about misunderstanding the history of these churches!
.
> But such misunderstanding seems to suit you just fine.
.
 There is no misunderstanding on this end, Matthew. The "four church traditions" were well in place even before the first Gospel (ie. Mark) was written. Obviously you have things backwards if you think that the gospels preceded the churches. Mk (c.65CE) and Mt (c.80CE) came out of the church in Antioch. This was soon followed by the Gospel of John, out of Alexandria (c.90CE), and then all three gospels were used as source materials for the first 'history of the church', Luke-Acts (c.105CE), which came out of Rome. Now Rome was the fifth major church tradition, but the fourth to make contributions to the still emergent NT, since no NT document came out of the "mother-church" in Jerusalem (ie. the reason for this being that the Aramaic believers were not much disposed to write anything, and even less disposed to write it down in Greek).
.
>> tx: Within the four major traditions as they struggled to define themselves in those turbulent
>> and apocalyptic times.
.
> And what twisted point of view did you adopt to come up with precisely 'four major traditions'?
.
 A geographical point of view, as explained above.
.
> Especially at a time early enough to explain the presence of the Transfiguration in _all_ the synoptics?
.
 The presence of the Transfiguration story in Mk, Mt, and Lk can easily be explained on the basis that it is a great story. Mark and Peter wrote it. The author of Mt expanded it. And the author of Lk borrowed it, changed it, and ended up with the most anemic and least authoritative version of the three. That is about par for the course (for Luke). The farther removed we get from the apostolic period (up to 70CE) the less authentic, and more historically confused, the accounts become.
.
 Hence the authority of Mark's account is vastly superior to that of the copy-cat versions that purport to "correct" the alleged errors and deficiencies of the original, authentic, and apostolic first-gospel. Matthew's Gospel in turn required correcting of its own (see 1Peter2). John's Gospel was written to correct *and* supplement both Mk and Mt. And Luke-Acts was quite deliberately written as the final and definitive record of the early days, meant to replace and supercede (not merely supplement) the earlier accounts:
.
 "Since many *attempted* to compile a narrative ... it seemed good to me also ... to write to you in an orderly way ... that you may know the certainty of the words about which you were taught" (Lk.1:1-4). Here already we see traces of that profound Romish arrogance that would so characterize the Latin churches for the next nineteen centuries!
.
 [snip remainder]

P.S. "My own belief is that education must be subversive if it is to be meaningful. By this I mean that it must challenge all the things we take for granted, examine all accepted assumptions, tamper with every sacred cow, and instill a desire to question and doubt. Without this, the mere instruction to memorize data is empty. The attempt to enforce conventional mediocrity on the young is criminal." -- Bertrand Russell

How to Spank a Kid Generously!
[or: On Not Sparing That Darn Rod]

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#9] / Date > 14 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 Feb9 Pat Brown wrote: You need the Spirit, textman!
.
 textman answers: Hi Pat. Good news: I have the Spirit!
I call Her: 'the Encourager'; that is, after the manner of the prophetic gospel (Jn).
.
 Isn't that just SO yummy? 
.
> Stop closing the door to Christ.
.
 My door is always open to our Savior & Teacher.
.
> I am a child
.
 Yes, Pat, I rather figured as much when you said in another post of yours: "Yes, you do DARE say, because you deny the Spirit." Only a child (spiritual or physical) would dare to say that I deny the Spirit without bothering to sample any of my many *many* previous epistles, just to see whether or not this is so. To just assume this is the case is a sure sign of a childish mind. To just leap to such a sweeping judgment without justification is a sure sign of a childish mind. To then go on and claim that this judgment is not yours, but is rather given by the Spirit is also a sure sign of a childish mind.
.
 I can forgive you all of these indiscretions - owing to my exceedingly loving and generous nature :D - but to say to a prophet of the Lord that he denies the Spirit (when in fact he doesn't) more than verges on the edge of blasphemy. Now this is a serious matter, and cannot be simply excused on the basis of rampant immaturity. So my suggestion to you, friend Pat, is that after milk and cookies tonight (and every night for the next month or so) you pray long and hard to the Lord to send you some humility. And be sure to tell Him that you desperately require a great deal of it!
.
> and all of their post made perfect sense to me!
.
 Of course it does! I have been saying for years that fundy exegesis is suitable only for children (and those unfit to feed upon the strong meat of the written Word of God). After all, how can U project if U can't also reflect?
.
> Through the spirit not mine own understanding! The helper, the comforter. Through Christ, only, Pat.
.
 Perhaps you should work on improving your own understanding, rather than relying on the Holy Spirit to do all of your thinking for you, eh? ... She could use a break maybe.

P.S. "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way." -- Proverbs 19:2 / NIV
.
P.P.S. In other words, don't assume anything, when you can investigate everything!

More Anti-Prophetic Ranting

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#10] / Date > 20 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

"There is definite truth." -- ICL / 14Feb03

>> On Feb3 ICL wrote: The position that the Mt of Transfiguration provides Jesus equality to God
>> is difficult to see
.
> On Feb3 rmeyers5 say: very much agreed.
.
 textman say: It would appear, then, that the three of us are in complete agreement!
Isn't that just amazing?
.
>> so let's put this in simple terms and deal with the scriptures. [ Snip a fancy list of disenfranchised
>> and misunderstood bible-bytes ... then ... ] Jesus says in Matt 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham,
>> the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
.
> whoops, on this one ... The Deity argument does exist in this passage,
.
 Whatever. At this point in the discourse Jesus is just quoting from the scriptures.
As was his habit and custom and intention.
.
> but far from this verse alone. Using this verse alone leaves one wide open to the accusation of
> "handling the Word of God deceitfully"  [snipsome]
.
 Well now I don't normally go around accusing people of 'deceitful handling' since I take it for granted that most bible students, scholars, and believers routinely abuse the scriptures for many and various reasons and causes. Most believers can be excused on the basis that they are too ignorant to know any better. However, that is obviously NOT the case here. In this case, ICL is quite deliberately distorting the Word by taking just these particular words out of context. In context we can see that Jesus is NOT referring to himself as God, as ICL would have us believe:
.
 "But as for the resurrection, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." When the crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching. -- Matt 22:31-33 / NETbible
.
>> ICL: <snip> Let's see Isaiah called Jesus Almighty God, Everlasting Father. Thomas called him God.
.
 Right. And *then* Jesus REBUKES him: Thomas replied to him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed." -- John 20:28-29 / NETbible
.
>> John called Him God.
.
 No, actually the modern English translations call him God. But the Greek of John's autograph undoubtedly read: "... and divine was the Logos" (John 1:1).
.
>> Paul said He was equal to God.
.
 Paul said a lot of things. Not all of them are of equal value.
.
> rmeyers5: Zechariah 13:7 calls Him the Man that is My Equal; but Paul says more than that, in
> Romans 9:5 and other Pauline Scriptures. In those passages, like Romans 9:5, "out of them
> came Christ, Who IS GOD OVER ALL ..." <snip>
.
 "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. I am telling the truth in Christ (I am not lying!), for my conscience assures me in the Holy Spirit, I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed - cut off from Christ - for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen." -- Romans 8:38-9:5 / NETbible
.
 What happened here is not too difficult to discern. During the process of transmission some over-eager scribe added a few choice words in order to liven things up a bit. The original autograph probably ran something like this: "To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Messiah, who is blessed forever." Within the context of Paul's discussion in chapters eight and nine, this reading is *by far* more consistent with Paul's intentions and theology.
.
 The "God over all" thing sticks out like a sore thumb, and is obviously a crude, disruptive, and thoughtless addition. Thus it smells far more Trinitarian than authentically Pauline. In other words, the scribal additions are NOT inspired; ie. Paul's original statement (eg. as given above) is more *authoritative* than the corrupt canonical format!
.
 Remember what I said earlier about the difference between proclamation and creed? "God over all" is clearly a trinitarian-type creedal statement, and is obviously intended as such in reference to Christ (ie. irrespective of Paul's direction and arguments). Therefore we cannot allow that Romans 9:5 constitutes genuine evidence for 'God the Son', consubstantiality, Trinity, or any of that guff. Sorry! -> 
.
> rmeyers5: John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, that is,
> Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," is the same as 1John 5:20, and absolutely required by the
> Granville Sharp rule of Grk grammar.
.
 "And we know that the son of the God has come and has given us understanding that we may know the True One. And we are in the True One, even in the son of Him: Jesus Christ. This One is the True God, and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves away from the idols." -- 1John 5:20-21 / Prophet Version
.
 "And this is the eternal life: that they may know you, the only True God; and he whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
-- John 17:3 / Prophet Version
.
 These three verses do indeed compliment each other, but it is very difficult to see how the Greek term 'kai' can be legitimately translated as "that is" as in the unknown version you just gave us. Care to explain this discrepancy?
.
> Excellent Scriptures, all, and there are at least 30 more I can and have listed. But have you
> been out of town? You REALLY think you have "settled" anything, once and for all??
.
 Sure: The rampant abuse of scripture to support theology is well *settled* in the popular customs of the people!
.
> Those who deny the Deity of Christ deny, ridicule, condescend, ignore, "interpret," and any
> other word you can think of, every Scripture under the sun we can present.
.
 Difficult to see how anyone could actually practice reading the sacred texts without, you know, interpreting the texts as you go along. Can you really read the Word without bothering to interpret it? ... How does that work exactly?
.
> rmeyers5: Just as those in the recent threads advocating salvation by human merit do, and those in
> recent threads who deny the Creation in six days (Ex. 20:11), and the Flood of Genesis 6-9, and those
> in recent threads who deny that the Lord Jesus rose on the Third Day according to the Scriptures, and
> those who deny that the thief was in Paradise in Hades with the Lord on the Crucifixion day, and those
> who deny that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and those who deny that God has a Plan of the Ages,
> etc etc etc etc.
.
 The scriptures cannot be broken. But they have been tampered with, twisted, added to, changed, altered, softened, adjusted, modified, edited, etc etc. The scriptures cannot be broken. But they can be misunderstood, abused, maltreated, perverted, and (worst of all) obscured. The scriptures cannot be broken. But they can be strangled and frozen and made like unto a dead thing by elevating the empty letters and words over the Living Spirit that speaks through them. The scriptures cannot be broken; but they ARE dominated and subjugated and idolized!
.
> The WORD OF GOD proves NOTHING, with these people.
.
 Another thing that the Word proves to me is that the prophetic teachings of the NT authors, while by no means monochromatic, are remarkably consistent and self-supporting. Yet most of the documents cannot be properly understood without bearing in mind the complex relationships that these documents have with each other. In the New Testament the Word does not speak with one voice, but with many. The New Testament is a complex dialogue of witnesses, and the failure to appreciate this literary / theological fact can indeed only lead to nowhere and to nothing.
.
> You might as well fart against the north wind, with them.
.
 hahaha ... right
.
> rmeyers5: <snip> There is NO MAJOR DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE that is not denied by anywhere from
> a few to in most cases the majority of posters to this ng, and almost every other such ng. Not one!
> They do not have LIFE (Eph 2:1-3). The Scriptures mean as much to people like these as they mean
> to that skeleton of a cow out on the Texas desert. No; I'm not talking about "everyone who disagrees
> with me on some point." I'm talking about those to who NEVER HEAR THE SCRIPTURES (Luke 16:31),
> such as those you have presented.
.
 Nice rant, Bob, but there's nothing wrong with *my* hearing. However, those who confuse the written Word with two thousand years of doctrinal and theological developments are like those trying to hear a pin drop after they have stuffed their ears full of wax! Good intentions are NOT enough to do the job.
.
> I'm talking about their hearts: their roots, not their fruits, which latter are merely the evidences
> "by which ye shall know them." It is by their fruits that ye CAN know them, of course.
.
"Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice." -- John.18:37
.
> When I hear a person contradicting one after another of the above doctrines, I am hearing fruit; and
> the accurate picture very quickly forms in my own mind that this person does not know God.
.
 Which God? You mean the God of Jesus Christ? The Heavenly Father, the Only True God? Who is also the Father of Lights, as proclaimed by the NT? OR do you mean some *other* God, the "Trinity" proclaimed by the scribes and pharisees?
.
> But it's not because of these fruits that he does not know God; it's the other way around, the fact that
> he does not know God is what is causing the fruits. Those who know God, that is, those to whom God
> has looked are those who "are poor, and of a contrite spirit, and TREMBLETH AT MY WORD" -- Isa. 66:2.
> And it is those who are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9) and it is those who therefore can
> discern the Truths of God (1 Cor. 2:14), and it is those who bring forth good fruit. -- Bob
.
 Are you claiming then that I don't bring forth good fruit? And therefore have no measure of the Promised Spirit? And that I have *less* respect for the sacred texts than the scribes and pharisees do? Not so! I'll stack up my love for the Word against anyone's for comparison, anywhere, anytime. I ain't scared. As I see it, believers have a simple choice on their hands. They can believe the testimony of the Word, rightly understood. Or they can believe the confused and erroneous testimony of the scribes and pharisees.
.
 And woe unto them that confuse the two!

P.S. Then Pilate said, "So you are a king!" Jesus replied, "You say that I am a king. I have been born and have come into the world for this reason: to testify to the truth." -- the Gospel According to John 18:37 / NETbible

On Faith & Philosophy Joined at the Hip

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#11] / Date > 22 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /

 "For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
Let each one examine his own work. Then he can take pride in himself and
not compare himself with someone else. For each one will carry his own load.
Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share all good
things with the one who teaches it." -- Gal.6:3-6 / NETbible

>> textman previously say: More Anti-Prophetic Ranting <snip>
.
> On Feb21 Bart Goddard didst write: I'll say.
.
 wut? . . .  I don't mean from me, silly.
.
] ICL: Jesus says in Matt 22:32 "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
.
>> Whatever. At this point in the discourse Jesus is just quoting from the scriptures.
>> As was his habit and custom and intention.
.
> BG: Not quite. He is, in fact, quoting from Scripture, but He's not "just" doing that. Just think for a minute.
> What does this quote from Scripture have to do with the context from which, you complain, it was ripped?
.
 textman sayeth: Hi Bart. Darn good question there.
.
> Namely, the question of whether the resurrection will happen? This is the phrase God uses when He's
> physically _present_, e.g., burning bush in Exodus 3:6. So when Jesus uses it here, it's certainly not
> as a "proof text" (because it makes no sense that way) of the resurrection, but as an authority text.
.
 I'm with you so far.
.
> He is, in fact, saying, God is present, here, today, burning-bush fashion, in My person, and the
> resurrection will, indeed happen because of Me.
.
 I don't believe your interpretation is quite valid here, friend Bart. Let us now try and follow this line of reasoning that attempts to mix John's theology with Matthew's as if no distinctions were necessary. Let us begin here:
.
  God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" [Related to the name of God, YHWH, rendered LORD, which is derived from the verb HAYAH, 'to be']; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" -- Exodus 3:14 / NASB
.
 Now when Jesus says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58 / NASB) it is easy to conclude that John is identifying Jesus with YHWH, the Living God. In other words, the Logos and the God of the OT are one and the same divine being now manifesting in this human person, this Jesus of Nazareth! All of this is perfectly acceptable, but when we apply this Johannine insight to the text of Matthew's Gospel strange things begin to happen:
.
 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read the thing spoken to you by the God saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? The God is not of the dead ones, but of the living ones." -- Matthew 22:31-32 / Prophet Version
.
 If the 'I am' is here taken as a self-reference then it seems that Jesus is really talking about himself when he refers to 'the God'. But is Jesus really claiming to be the Living God? Is it not more likely that when Jesus refers to 'the God' he is referring to his Father and ours? Is not Jesus more likely to emphasize God's unique status not just with a consistent, exclusive, and unconfused usage of the term 'God', but also with an exclusive usage for the term 'father'?
.
 "And call no one your 'father' on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one teacher, the Anointed One." -- Mt 23:9-10 / PV
.
 Far from claiming to be God, Matthew's Jesus defines himself as the promised Messiah, which he understands as consisting chiefly of the role of teacher! And this outrageous idea IS in harmony with John's Jesus, as 4X in his reply to Pilate: Then Pilate said, "So you are a king!" Jesus replied, "You say that I am a king. I have been born and have come into the world for this reason: to testify to the truth." -- John 18:37 / NETbible
.
> BG: You're the one complaining of context. Keep looking at the context. Jesus continues to
> hammer home the issue. The next challenge is the Pharisees, and Jesus takes on the very
> 10 Commandments. Who would dare?
.
 Only a true prophet of the God.
.
> Finally, Jesus puts the question directly to the Disciples: What do you make of Me? Specifically:
> "How can I be David's son and yet David's Lord?"
.
 Actually, Jesus puts this poser to the Pharisees:
.
 While the Pharisees were assembled Jesus asked them a question: "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said, "The son of David." He said to them, "How then does David by the Spirit call him 'Lord,' saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet"'? If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" No one was able to answer him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question him any longer. -- Matthew 22:41-46 / NETbible
.
> Game, set and match. He was telling them Who He is. Not only did He say so plainly,
.
 Or rather not so plainly.
.
> but He showed them from their own thought processes that it must be so.
.
 He showed them that the Messiah is David's Lord, who is with, but distinct from, the Lord-God.
.
>> tx: <snip> Well now I don't normally go around accusing people of 'deceitful handling' <snip>
.
> BG: But you caved in to temptation in this case?
.
 Not at all.
.
] ICL: <snip> John called Him God.
.
>> tx: No, actually the modern English translations call him God. But the Greek of John's autograph
>> undoubtedly read: "... and divine was the Logos" (John 1:1).
.
> BG: Um ... "divine" means "God".
.
 Not exactly. Which is to say that the correspondence is not as absolute and straightforward as you suggest. 'divine' is closer to 'god-like' than to 'only-pure-god'. Thus something or someone can be divine, or have divine qualities and/or attributes, without necessarily being confused with God. It's a subtle distinction, I'll grant you, but a necessary one if we wish to avoid slipping into unnecessary idolatry.
.
> The deconstruction of language might salve your conscience, but it doesn't change the truth.
> Listen to what God says,
.
 I'm listening ... "The autonomous truth of Spirit must be arrived at by passing through the historical forms in which it appears" (from 'Modern German Philosophy' by Rudiger Bubner, Cambridge, 1981, p.159; on Hegel).
.
> don't try to cram the universe into your own worldview.
.
 I'm not really trying to cram the whole universe into my (necessarily limited) field of vision, only the New Testament. That is, to clarify somewhat the interactions of thought and history in the New Testament period (c.50-150CE).
.
>> <snip> What happened here is not too difficult to discern. During the process of transmission some
>> over-eager scribe added a few choice words in order to liven things up a bit.
.
> 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.
.
 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.
.
 If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the phrase "God over all" is authentically pauline, and was there from the beginning? Seems to me that this *guess* is even wilder than mine! Ancient history is at times a game of probabilities, and what makes for a good historian is a right-minded person who can weigh the conflicting possibilities with some reasonable measure of correspondence to actual historical events, persons, and/or processes and developments.
.
 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.
.
> At least before you were looking at Scripture itself.
.
 "Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' By saying this you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your fore-fathers! You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? For this reason I am sending you prophets ..." -- Matthew 23:29-34 / NETbible
.
>> tx: <snip> I'll stack up my love for the Word against anyone's for comparison, anywhere, anytime.
>> I ain't scared.
.
> BG: Then why do you deconstruct it's language
.
 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's what the scribes and pharisees love to do!
.
> and throw out the parts of Paul you don't like?
.
 I throw out the parts that are not authentic so that we can better appreciate the true nature of Paul's genuine teachings. The need for this kind of labor is by no means at an end, Bart. By no means! Respect for the sacred texts cannot be gained by pretending that some late addition is actually original and therefore just as inspired (when, in fact, it is not).
.
> You just lost the comparison test.
.
 Yours is not an entirely fair comparison maybe. Check the above epistle carefully, and see for yourself who is handling and treating the written Word of God with something less than the utmost care and attention. This should give a clue or two.
.
> Maybe you should have been scared. -- Bart
.
 O' I yam I yam ...
.
 Fear is the normal condition for a great many people. And fear can sometimes make people do the strangest of things. So instead of just talking about the weather, ask your friends instead what they fear. I fear a great many things too, but none too much (I hope). And the truth of things not at all!

P.S. "A wise man will hear and increase in learning, And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel. To understand a proverb and a figure, the words of the wise and their riddles. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." -- Prov. 1:5-7 / NASB
.
P.S.S. Hey! This is a real live actual word: 'presuppositionlessness'. Yes; I saw it in a book! 

On Being More or Less

/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#12] / Date > 24 Feb 2003 / Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>> MJ sayeth: Christ is shown here as Lord of the Law and the Prophets, and Lord of both the
>>> living and the dead.
.
>> tx objects: No. It shows him as the *living* embodiment of a *living* prophetic tradition!
.
> On Feb5 Matthew asketh: And how do you get _that_ out of the passage?
.
 textman answers: The Messiah (aka Jesus Christ) represents the fulfillment of Israel's prophetic traditions. Thus the pericope begins with Jesus making a prophecy: "I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mk.9:1). This prophecy is fulfilled in the Transfiguration episode, and likewise tells us what it means: the Transfiguration is a powerful manifestation of the kingdom of God. Now this prophetic power of the kingdom *continues* within the churches inasmuch as they "Listen to him!" (9:7) In other words, the Spirit of the Lord manifests and empowers the living prophetic traditions insofar as they attend to the Word. The spirit of prophecy and the light of the Transfiguration are one and the same, just as the universal Logos and the spirit of truth are one:
.
 "I have been born and have come into the world for this reason: to testify to the truth.
Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice" (Jn.18:37).
.
 "I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming (and is now here) when the dead will hear
the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live" (Jn.5:25).
.
>> That is how the early churches saw Jesus AND themselves.
.
> MJ: Really? Do you have _any_ Patristic citations to back this up, or do you rely solely on the
> misguided speculations of outsiders concerning the early history? For that matter, even if I
> were to concede your claim (which I could do only if you modified it somewhat), what evidence
> do you have that the early churches read _this_ passage as confirming that claim?
.
 "For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted." When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts" (Second Peter 1:17-19 / NETbible).
.
>> And yet the scribes and pharisees are always out to kill both. As friend Matthew here just demonstrated.
>> Prophets dead. Dead prophets. I hear you. All the prophets are all dead dead dead  . . .  right
.
> MJ: No, you do not hear me. On the contrary: what you just demonstrated here is your incredibly poor
> reading skills. I did _not_ say 'dead prophets', I did _not_ say 'prophets dead'. On the contrary: I
> pointed out that Elijah _never_ died. It was _Moses_ who died; yet here Moses is considered not as
> a prophet, but as the Lawgiver.
.
 And on what line of reasoning do you base this conclusion? Are you saying that the fact that Moses is "the prophet" is irrelevant? Where in the text does it suggest that Moses should here be considered as the Lawgiver?
.
> MJ: So since you have misread my post so badly, I am not amazed that you show similarly poor reading
> skills when reading the Gospel. But I would be surprised if you expect anyone to take you seriously
> after such a gaffe.
.
 Well Matthew, you may throw your whole bag of gaffes at me, if you think it'll help, but it'll take a lot more than that to put even a second-rate prophet out of commission!
.
] tx previously say: But your view explains nothing at all!
 .
>>> MJ: On the contrary: my view is the _only_ one that properly takes into account the appearance
>>> of Moses and Elijah. For who else could be Lord of both the Law and the Prophets, and even of
>>> the Living and the Dead, if not the Lord God?
.
>> tx: I see. So the fact that Jesus made a prophecy, and then fulfilled it six days later ...
.
> MJ: You say that as if it discredited Christ's prophetic powers. But the alternative you would force
> on us is the one that does _real_ discredit to His prophecy.
.
 No, actually I'm trying to take the concept of Messiah seriously under the category of prophecy, whereas the notion that JC is God-the-Son makes a mockery of the idea that Jesus is a prophet and/or the Messiah.
.
>> tx: "And he said to them, 'Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death
>> until they see the kingdom of God come with power.' And after six days Jesus took Peter, James,
>> and John with him, and led them privately up a high mountain. And when they were alone He was
>> transfigured before them" (Mk 9:1-2/PV) [Please note that the Greek-text wants to make it very clear
>> that NO other prominent church leaders/pillars (including especially that recently deceased (at the
>> time when Mark and Peter wrote all this), but still very active, Paulos) were present for this particular
>> occasion (which occurred "up above us")!]
.
> MJ: Uninspired and incompetent eisegesis.
.
 thx, Matthew. You're much too kind.
.
> Of _course_ Paul was not present. Since He was still a Jew at the time of the Transfiguration;
> it required no special effort on the author's part to show _this_.
.
 So you're saying that the 'fact of Paul' has no bearing whatsoever upon how we should read this passage?
Boy, I pity those who must learn church history from your sort!
.
>> ... means nothing?
.
> What 'means nothing'?
.
 That the pericope is a prophecy story means nothing. Which apparently is the case since you deny that it is a prophecy story in the first place!
.
>> tx: Means that Jesus is not a prophet?
.
> MJ: I certainly did not say he was not a prophet. He was that and _much_ more.
.
 Listen to this carefully folks: Jesus was a prophet. And Jesus was God. Jesus was a prophet *and* that prophet's God at one and the same time! What could possibly be more absurd than this? Is it not apparent that being a prophet means that one is NOT God? One cannot be a god and that god's prophet both. Being "the God" logically disallows the possibly of being a prophet, since only real, actual, mortal men can be prophets. Either Jesus was a prophet OR he was God. Both he cannot be!
.
>> But is far superior to all prophets,
.
> Well, that He was ...
.
 I agree. Where we differ is that I say it was a matter of degree, whereas you say it is a matter of JC being God. Superior in both cases, yes, but what a difference between my view and yours! My Jesus is prophet and messiah, whereas your Jesus is God, and therefore *cannot* be prophet or messiah!
.
>> tx: and is therefore utterly divorced from the prophetic traditions
.
> MJ: Nonsense. How could He be 'utterly divorced' from them when He _is_ what they prophesied?
.
 That's not nearly good enough, sir.
.
>> (new and old) by virtue of the fact that Jesus is not "really" the anointed one, but *is* the
>> Lord God? And you say that this is the only *valid* reading of the text? grrrrrr
.
> Yet again you misread my words badly. So you have only yourself to blame for your inappropriate
> anger, even more inappropriately expressed by your childish expression, 'grrrr'.
.
 It's NOT a "childish" expression, sir; it's a *canine* expression! Please note the difference for future reference.
.
>>> MJ: For that matter, there are several other important themes of Mt17:1-13 that your view
>>> cannot explain, but mine does. Why, for example, is Peter rebuked for suggesting three tents?
.
>> tx: Cause one tent would be more appropriate. Solidarity; see?
.
> MJ: Now _that_ is an unconvincing explanation. After all, after the Father said "hear Him", Christ said
> _nothing_ about building _any_ tents. But if, as you claim, the whole point was to show solidarity, then
> He would have had to say "Not three tents, but one".
.
 Nonsense. The Lord's non-response is, of course, the most appropriate one, since Peter obviously misses the point (ie. that tents are not required). The next best would be to tell Peter to stop being such a dummy and get with the program.
.
> So no, your alternative is not more appropriate. Not at all.
.
 Sure it is. You just gotta give it a chance to sink in a bit.
.
>>> MJ: Can it be just because Jesus is greater than any prophet? No. For that fails to account for the
>>> words the Father chose to rebuke Peter: He did _not_ say, "listen to Me", He said "this is my
>>> beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased; hear *Him*". The Father has given _all_ authority to
>>> the Son, because there is no 'Son' with whom He is 'well-pleased' other than the Son who is the
>>> only begotten, consubstantial to the Father.
.
>> tx: If you remove the absurd and unbiblical word 'consubstantial' from all this reasoning, then
>> you just *might* have the beginnings of a coherent position. :)
.
> MJ: 'Pericope' is not at all biblical either, especially in the sense you must have in mind. Yet that didn't
> stop you from using it. So why am I suddenly the guilty one for using the word 'consubstantial'?
.
 Because a 'pericope' actually refers to something that exists within the world, while a 'consubstantial' refers to nothing that actually exists within the world. Big difference there, I'd say.
.
> Do I detect a double standard here? No, it is not the word 'consubstantial' that is absurd here. It is
> your failure to grapple with the _whole_ passage, preferring to force a modernist interpretation on
> it and on early church history. That is what is _truly_ absurd.
.
 Actually, it's more like a post-modernist approach to early church history than a so-called modernist interpretation, but that's a minor distinction. In either case, you seem to be equating advances in rationality with absurdity. It doesn't work that way, Matthew. Rather, rational procedures show that clinging to the traditional (ie. uninspired and incompetent) eisegesis based on obsolete ways of thinking and speaking is what constitutes the essence of absurdity.
.
>>> MJ: Nor is this the only theme your reading neglects: where, for example, is your understanding
>>> of how Mt 17:1-13 shows Jesus Christ as fully human as well, revealing that human nature _is_
>>> capable of being transfigured with this special light?
.
>> tx: Cause I make that assumption *all* the time, Matthew!
.
> MJ: All you achieve with _that_ answer is to lead me to doubt that you know what 'special light'
> Christ really showed us on Tabor.
.
 Well that's the thing, MJ. Our conflicting views on the nature and significance of this "special light" are certainly very different. I suspect that your views go back to St Simeon, the New Theologian, and the whole Byzantine theology-of-light thing. It's rather odd how much ideology revolves around this theme, especially in light of the fact that this pericope doesn't even mention the word 'light'! All the text says is that "his clothes became radiantly white, more than any launderer in the world could bleach them" (Mk9:3).
.
 Strictly speaking, then, this 'Tabor light' is purely an assumption on the part of the scribes and pharisees. None of this light-theology is actually demanded by the text. All we are required to do here is to understand the Lord's 'radiantly white clothes' to a be a symbol, a visible sign, of an inner spiritual event or reality. Thus Matthew and the Orthodox traditions are not really plugged into the spirit of the text, whereas my view that the light represents the universal inner logos-spark is, at least, consistent with a more Johannine perspective. I leave it to the reader to decide which approach is more authentically biblical ...
.
> After all, what has _your_ assumption got to do with the passage? Perhaps it wasn't written for people
> who shared your assumption. Did you ever consider that?
.
 Sure. That's why it's so important for Christians to understand the profoundly prophetic nature of the Word. Only by seeing the NT from a more prophet-centered perspective can we overcome the endless obscurities of the scribes and pharisees, and so begin to share the assumptions of those believers for whom the Gospel was written (ie. original intended audience).
.
 [snipsome]
.
>>> MJ: Now how could anyone be well-advised, if he does not harken to the wise theology
>>> of the Ecumenical Councils?
.
>> tx: Gatherings of scribes and pharisees can only generate worldly wisdom, and
.
> MJ: Red herring. The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils were nothing at all like 'scribes and pharisees'.
.
tx: Actually, they were (and their very non-post-modern descendents remain) almost exactly like that.
.
>> the sort of theology that proceeds from pride and vanity.
.
> Well, if it really was from 'pride and vanity', I am sure you would know it much better. After all,
> you have clearly demonstrated how much pride and vanity interest you by your scoffing in these
> posts, and by your delighting in what should shame you.
.
 I'm sure I have no idea what you're referring to!
.
>> tx: It was not these "wise and powerful" scribes and pharisees that began the science of biblical
>> study and criticism. It was the efforts of prophets and teachers like Clement and Origen;
.
> MJ: Actually, no. Biblical textual criticism began with the Scribes and Pharisees, who came up with a list
> of (often tendentious) corrections for scribal errors (tikkune sopherim) in the Massoretic. Coincidence?
.
 I guess not, since it is mostly scribes and pharisees (of the Christian variety) who now practice the various arts of biblical textual criticism. Yes, it has always been this way, alas. They ruin the field for genuine truth-seekers, and make substantive progress all but impossible owing to the inordinate difficulty of introducing any new idea into an already long-fixed and long-perfect system!
.
 [snip remainder]

> Visit  http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html  for sound interpretation of Scripture.
.
 Visit  https://cybrwurm.tripod.com/smap.htm  for even *sounder* interpretation of Scripture.

Goto GodTalk #13

textman
*