/ Topic > Re: Thessalonians1 / Date > 13 Oct 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> textman wrote: Dear cyber-saints, the New Testament is in dire need of some serious editing.
.
> bobe replies: "And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" - Acts 19:15
.
textman answers: Something new: an honest Christian.
.
> No my friend, no editing needed, the New Testament is just as perfect as it was when the Apostle John
> finished it around AD 100. It hasn't changed and it doesn't need changing.
.
The NT didn't even exist in 100CE, booby. All there was then were various collections of Pauline letters and a few odd gospels. Luke-Acts had yet to be written, and none of the post-100CE books were yet written. Only a baboon would think that all the NT books had to be finished before the magical mystical year 100 (which in those days they had no conception of). Yes, those poor ignorant Christians of yesteryear didn't know that they had to finish everything and have it wrapped up nice and neat for the benefit of stupid people 1900 years hence. Oh, and btw, the Bible has changed, and has been changing for the last 3000 years, and never for a moment did it ever stop changing. This is because the Word of God is a dynamic spiritual reality, not a static page of dead letters. So do you think that your claim of perfection demonstrates a worthy respect for the Scriptures? ... It does NOT! On the contrary, it demonstrates a profound disrespect for the Truth of things; and there's nothing I despise more than Christians who piss on the Bible by denying its history and imperfections.
.
> "Whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him
> away, his blood shall be upon his own head." -- Ezek. 33:4
.
No shit? And what, pray tell, has this to do with my translation of the four Thessalonian epistles?
/ Topic > Re: Thessalonians1 / Date > 14 Oct 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>>> textman wrote: Dear cyber-saints, the New Testament is in dire need of some serious editing.
.
>> bobe replied: "And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?"
>> Acts 19:15 No my friend, no editing needed, the New Testament is just as perfect as it was when the
>> Apostle John finished it around AD 100. It hasn't changed and it doesn't need changing.
.
> David Chariot answers: Oh! That's comforting, we can back up Paul with Paul's disciple's word.
.
textman say: Dear David, if Luke was Paul's disciple, don't you think that he would have done his master a good service by making some mention of the fact that Paul wrote some letters to Christians once upon a time? Yes, Luke was very much into spinning grand legends about 'Paul the great hero' but he certainly wasn't Paul's disciple. Indeed, he was still sucking on his momma's tit when Paul was breathing his last breath.
.
>> bobe: "Whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come,
>> and take him away his blood shall be upon his own head." -- Ezek. 33:4
.
> DC: bobe, we are blowing the trumpet, Paul is FALSE, he is misinterpreted.
.
tx: Boy, you can say that again!!! (That last little bit, I mean.)
.
> DC: If you refuse to hear, take the advise that you yourself have revealed, for it is in your hand to
> cut what offends off and enter, or remain in darkness. -- the charioteer
.
tx: Many Christians much prefer the warm and cozy Darkness to the harsh and cold light of Truth. By refusing to even consider any possibilities that fall outside their cherished doctrines and dogmas, they confuse truth with opinion, and thus do a great service to the Evil One who enjoys immensely the confusion and ignorance of the People of God.
/ Re: Authors of the Bible / 25 July 1998 / Ngz: alt.christnet.bible-thumpers.c.c.c, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> Sorry@NOspam.com wrote: Textman: I'd be interrested in knowing:
> To whom do you attribute each of the books in the Bible ?
.
Dear Rev. Paul, as I'm sure you're well aware, the authors of the majority of the biblical books are not known. Therefore, I can in no way provide a list of authors for each and every biblical book. ... However, I will provide the following exceptions: The Gospel of Mark was written and composed by Peter and Mark (would that the RCC would take its own traditions seriously!). And the first three of the four Thessalonian letters were composed by both Paul and Silvanus. The point I am trying to make here is that the scriptures are a collaborative effort: human authors working together WITH the Holy Spirit. That is why the Bible IS divine revelation!
.
> I mean, we all know the Bible was written by several authors, but often times don't agree on WHO wrote WHICH.
.
No; but then it does not always matter WHO the human author was. 4X: we don't know who wrote the book of Jonah, but this in no way impedes its authority or the wisdom therein. Neither does the fact that it is a short story (ie. NOT history) affect its power or relevance to our faith.
.
> I'm still trying to figure who wrote what myself. What's your opinion? Respectfully - Rev. Paul
.
My opinion is that sometimes it IS very important to know who the human author was. 4X: many scholars claim that 2Thess is very post-pauline. This is a gross error that seriously impedes our understanding of how Paul came to develop the epistle as a vehicle for the Word of God. In this case, therefore, the question of authorship is frightfully
important. For most of the books, however, this simply does not matter.
.
> The Church of Life was founded in 1973 in Seattle, and is recognised by the Universal Life Church,
> but is NOT associated or affiliated with any other Church, Organization or Group.
.
I'm somewhat mystified by your claim elsewhere that the Bible is not the Word of God or the Voice of our Lord. If you do not believe that the scriptures are divine revelation, then on what, pray tell, is the faith of your newbie church based on? Is it based on the unsurpassable wisdom of Rev. Paul? Why then do you even bother with the Bible at all?
Isn't your church based on the dictates of reason? Perhaps you ought to rename your church: 'The Church that Reason Built'?
/ Re: Authors of the Bible / 26 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> Christopher Rothbauer wrote: Here is a list where known:
> <snip> Hebrews--Probably Paul
> James--Probably James, the brother of our Lord
> I Peter--Peter II Peter--Peter
> Jude--Probably Jude, brother of James and our Lord
> The following are by Paul: <snip>
> I Thesolonians II Thesolonians <snip>
> Hope this helps. -- Christopher A. Rothbauer
> Called to be a prophet of Jesus Christ in these last days
.
Dear Christopher, actually no, it doesn't help at all! The reason why is that every one of the unsnipped items above contain errors. Thus Peter did not write 1&2Peter because he was well dead at the time they were written in his name. The same applies to James and Jude, which were written in the second century. As for Hebrews, there couldn't be a less pauline book in the entire bible! There's no way in Hades that Paul could have written that theological meditation. As for 1&2Thess, the fact that you mispelled Thessalonians twice clearly shows that carelessness in spelling easily translates into careless scholarship.
.
In the same way, if you were at all familiar with the secondary literature on these two books, you would know that most scholars today do not consider 2Thess to be by Paul. There are various reasons for this conclusion, which I won't burden you with (4X: very unpauline eschatology). In any case, I am not one of them (ie. I explain the discrepancies in other ways). The point of all this is that you have no right to come online pretending to know the scriptures when it is perfectly apparent that you don't! Therefore, if you wish to be a prophet, I strongly suggest you get thee hence to the little prophets college, and take a few courses in scripture so that you can at least convince others that you do know something, rather than nothing ... Will you do that for me? Thx very much indeed!
/ Re: "Scripture reading sinful?" / 9 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>>> Kevin Beach wrote: Sometimes, I wonder if the prelates were right in trying to keep the
>>> Bible away from the people! Look at the mess we've all got ourselves into on this NG
>>> trying to make sense of it!
.
>> Christopher Beattie replies: "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." (I'll leave
>> it as an exercise for the reader to figure out which early church father said that.
.
> Lane Core Jr. answers: It is not true that "prelates" tried "to keep the Bible away from the people".
.
textman say: LOL ... rrrright, MISTER Core. Tell us all another Cat fantasy.
.
> LC: Sometimes, in some places and temporarily, certain translations were suppressed or banned.
.
Sure they were. And translators were also hunted and hounded and imprisoned and tortured and killed for their efforts to bring the Word of God to the people of God. The Church never did want these two things to come together (the pre-Constantine period excepted); and little has changed in that regard!
.
> LC: Not because they were translations, but because they were BAD translations
> -- and often deliberately so.
.
Thus speaketh the liar!
.
> (Witness [no pun intended] in our own times the Jehovah's Witnesses sacrilegious
> abuse in their "translation".)
.
And don't forget to witness also William Tyndale's magnificent translation of the Sacred Scriptures. His efforts earned him the wrath of a corrupt and hateful Church, and an early violent death at the hands of same. Was his a bad translation, Lane? If so, how do you explain the fact that the RCC of Canada uses the NRSV as its official liturgical text? Do you not know that this 'new & improved' version of the ol'RSV is the granddaughter and direct offspring of Tyndale's work. Yet that good man of God was dubbed a heretic in his day (16 cent). Does the Church still consider him such, even while proclaiming his words every day?
.
> LC: But Protestantism itself is the clearest evidence we have that the authority of the
> Catholic Church is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Scriptures.
.
This is yet another lie from the master of lies and deception. The plain truth is that without Protestantism there would be no biblical scholarship worthy of the name. There would be no such thing as the integrity of the Scriptures. Indeed, without the life-threatening efforts of 'heretics' like Tyndale, we would each and every one of us be still reading the Latin Vulgate (which the Church, in her absolute wisdom, didst declare to be perfect and eternal)!
.
> <snip stupid quote by> Henry G.Graham, _Where We Got the Bible_, chapterV
.
Obviously this H.G.Graham character is a baboon with a capital 'B'!
.
> On 10Aug98 BAM1106016 wrote: eof says:
.
<kirnercorp@connect.ab.ca> answers: Actually, 'eof' means 'end of file'.
I just use it as a marker for the convenience of the reader.
.
>> kirnercorp said: <snip> And translators were also hunted and hounded and imprisoned
>> and tortured and killed for their efforts to bring the Word of God to the people of God
.
> bam: You have nothing to back this up.
.
No, that's true. Provided you exclude any and all bits of church history that disagree with how you suppose history should be.
.
> bam: Your beliefs are your desires.
.
"My beliefs are my desires"? ... Huh??? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Could you perhaps clarify for us?
.
>> tx: And don't forget to witness also William Tyndale's magnificent translation of the Sacred Scriptures.
.
> HAHAHAH!!! Thomas Moore said that finding errors in Tyndale's Bible was like finding fish
> in the sea. And if his translation was so magnificent, why are Protestants too embarrassed
> to put out reproductions?
.
His words are prayed and preached all across Canada, each and every day, BAM. In the RCC, yet. Perhaps you ought to reflect on this fact for a while ...
.
>> tx: Was his a bad translation, Lane?
.
> bam: No. It was horrendous. WHat you also fail to undertstand is that anyone in
> Tyndale's day who could read English could read Latin as well.
.
Yeah? So what?
.
> Tyndale brought heresy to the people and used the Bible as subterfuge.
.
Are you referring to his notes and annotations?
.
>> tx: Yet that good man of God was dubbed a heretic in his day (16 cent).
.
> bam: Your beliefs are your desires.
.
tx: Huh? ... (again)
.
>> tx: The plain truth is that without Protestantism there would be no biblical scholarship
>> worthy of the name.
.
> bam: HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
I'm glad you find the history of biblical scholarship so amusing.
.
>> There would be no such thing as the integrity of the Scriptures.
.
> HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!
.
Please don't hurt yourself there, BAM. I wouldn't want you to bust a gut on my account.
.
>> tx: Indeed, without the life-threatening efforts of 'heretics' like Tyndale, we would each and
>> every one of us be still reading the Latin Vulgate (which the Church, in her absolute wisdom,
>> didst declare to be perfect and eternal)!
.
> HORRORS!!!!!! -- BAM
.
So says the medieval mind.
ON ORTHODOX DATING.
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Date > 30 June 1998 /
.
textman say: So Padraic42 posted some article by some guy called something Taylor, and entitled something or other. Now this is actually quite an interesting essay. However, I would like to draw the Reader's attention to the following bits in particular:
.
> <snip> The Second Vatican Council itself came down resoundingly against Modernist theories.
> While the Church encouraged the legitimate use of critical methods in exegesis (when freed from
> the secularizing prejudices), <Dei Verbum>, declared that the Church maintains that the "apostles
> and other men associated with the apostles . . . committed the message of salvation to writing" (7).
.
Now I have no problem with this ... unless it is taken to mean that all the NT documents were necessarily written before the Fall of Jerusalem, and/or by the person whose name is in the title. If this statement is taken to mean that NO NT document could have been written after 100CE, then it is either an unhistorical statement or is falsely interpreted (as seems to be the case here).
.
> The four Gospels these men wrote, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand
> on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught" (19).
.
However, not everything can be taken as historical fact simply because one or another of the gospels or epistles says so. The historical value of this or that document or passage must be determined by factors inherent in the text. Thus we should not be upset if someone suggests that the fourth gospel may not always be as historically based as Mark. This is just normal procedure. The four gospels are not equally historical, or equally rich in historical roots. Each document, each letter, is a unique and independent unit. Our basic respect for the text demands that we treat them as such.
.
> The Church reminded the faithful that "the task of authentically interpreting the word of God ...
> has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church" (9). <snip>
.
Yes, well, unfortunately the bishops and clergy are far more interested to demonstrate how the sacred scriptures approve and support all manner of priestcraft and theological fancy, than with actually interpreting the Word of God in anything even remotely resembling an authentic (ie. honest and passionate) manner!
.
> A 1995 survey of Catholic priests in American showed a major shift away from Modernist views.
> Contemporary research, including the recent work at Oxford University by Carsten Peter Thiede,
> a leading authority on New Testament manuscripts, places the writing of the synoptic Gospels in
> a period predating A.D. 66-70, thus establishing their prophetic content regarding the destruction
> of Jerusalem and placing them firmly within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses to the existence of Jesus. <snip>
.
Oh yes, the gospels MUST have been written by eyewitnesses ... because otherwise they will be utterly worthless! Oh yes. Sure thing. Of course, textman thinks such an assumption is gross and disgusting; but what does he know? ... So anyway, here it is in good old year 65. The news of Paul's recent death sweeps through the churches like wildfire. In response the four evangelists, in four different rooms in four different parts of the Empire, all independently hit upon the same idea. 'Hey! I know. I'll write down the historical facts about Jesus Christ so that in 2000 years the Roman Catholic Church will have lots and lots of yummy historical facts to play with.' ... And thus were the Gospels written for the bishops of the Catholic Church. ... Yes? No? Maybe? ... I'm afraid the answer is NOT! Such an absurd proposal has nothing to do with the long and complex historical process that led to the formation of the NT. It does, however, have everything to do with maintaining the power and authority of the bishops. So ask yourself this, Dear Reader, when you go to read the scriptures: is it more important that the text serves the bishops, or does the text rather serve the Spirit & the Truth? How you answer this question determines whether or not you are worthy to be a disciple of Christ!
/ Topic > Is the Bible Necessary for Salvation? / Forum > Theology OnLine - Stupid Bible Questions /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 9 Sept 2000 /
.
No, it is not. What is *necessary* for salvation is faith in the Lord, love for the Lord, and obeying the Lord's commands. However, none of these things can be effectively accomplished without constant recourse to the sacred scriptures; for the Sacred Text is the place where the Believer and Lord meet (in the Spirit) and interact in many and various ways. Thus no one can truly know the Lord without hearing his Word. Through the medium of the sacred text the will and person of God are revealed to every heart able to receive a word of light and life and truth. This is what it means to say that 'the Bible is a spring of water welling up to eternal life'. In other words, the Bible is NOT *absolutely* necessary for salvation (as such), but it IS necessary for *growth* in salvation, and for spiritual maturity in the Faith; for an ongoing and dynamic life in the Spirit as we strive to continually reorient our lives and our loves towards God and his good People ...
/ Topic > Re: Is the Bible Necessary for Salvation? / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Stupid Bible Questions /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 11 Sept 2000 /
.
> On 11Sept Eric Olson replied: After all, there were many centruries before the printing
> press and widespread literacy allowed the average Christian to read the Bible. We should
> count our blessings, however, that we can read it whenever we want. -- Eric
.
textman answers: Dear Eric, quite right. In the history of the Faith there were several important turning points that forever changed the nature and direction of Christianity. In the early centuries, one of the most significant developments took place in Athens when Paulos and Silvanus decided to write a letter to the new-born assembly in Thessalonika. Thus was the New Testament born in the great city of Athens; a fact that is conveniently ignored by Christians today (no doubt because they consider it a very scandalous thing that the NT should begin in the same place that gave the world Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and many other great pagans).
.
Another important development in the first century was the 'parting of the ways' between Judaism and Christianity; a painful process that lasted for decades, and left a deep impression on the saints and evangelists (cf. the Gospel of John). Later on, the advent of Constantine marked another great turning point in the development of Christianity: the establishment of the episcopal corruption of the faith, which made the priestly religion the dominant form of Christianity for the next thousand years. Only in the sixteenth century with the invention of the printing press did it become possible for believers to be once again exposed to the authentic faith of the apostles, prophets, and saints of the early Greek churches.
.
With Luther's ground-breaking German Bible a new form of Christianity emerged, a faith that cut through the huge mass of priestly corruption in order to base itself squarely upon the Word of God. The results exceeded even Luther's expectations, but there was no stopping the faith of the radical reformers. At this time, William Tyndale had a vision of the future of the Faith whereby even the most humble believer would have in hand the scriptures that would form and nourish the spiritual lives of all believers. His vision has now been realized (more or less), and it is indeed a blessing ...
.
But there is a problem in this that was unforeseen by Tyndale. Yes, we can all read the Bible whenever we want, but not every Reader reads the Word in quite the same way. In fact, every Reader reads the Bible differently; bringing to the text different assumptions, attitudes, and dispositions which causes different results to emerge from out of the Text. And this has led to great confusion and many conflicts about the what the Sacred Text *really* means. The plain fact is that not all Readers are created equal, and some interpretations are necessarily better than others. Thus the single greatest problem facing "Bible-Christians" today is the deceptive myth that each and every individual Reader is an absolute authority unto himself, and certainly does not require the help of those who dedicate their lives (or at least, their careers) to the diligent study of the Word of God.
.
Thus the history of the Faith since Luther's time shows one thing clearly: that the autonomous and absolute Reader (cut off from the traditions and history of the Faith) is an absolute and arrogant FOOL! Hence the current batch of 'the People of the Book' (ie. Fundies and Evangelicals) are just as ignorant and corrupt in their simple-minded faith as are the priestly Catholics (and their ilk)!
P.S. Hey! Remember this -> "Fiddle dee dum, fiddle dee dee. Eric the half a bee." ... Sorry, Eric :)
/ Topic > Re: Is the Bible Necessary for Salvation? / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Stupid Bible Questions /
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 11 Sept 2000 /
.
> On 11Sept Zakath wrote: Erasmian, The book you and I understand to be "the bible" didn't exist as
> a completed collection until sometime in the 4th century. It doesn't follow logically that YHWH
> would have left believers without some essential part of salvation for several centuries ...
.
erasmian replies: Dear Zakath, I quite agree. If the Bible as we know it today did not exist until the 4th century CE then this can only mean that the Gospel and the Word of God can in no way be imprisoned between the covers of any book. Thus the gospel exists wherever 'glad tidings of good things' are spoken or written. In the same way, the 'Word of Christ' cannot be contained in any book, for it is much to big for that. Indeed, the Logos of God exists wherever the truth is spoken and heard. If the Holy Bible did not exist before the age of Constantine, this does not mean that some essential part of salvation went missing for several centuries. On the contrary, all that is essential for salvation was there from the very beginning: faith in the Lord. Everything else - the scriptures, the churches, the rituals, and all the many and various traditions - flow out of this faith and back into it.