Textual Corruptions

/ Forum > theologyonline > Religion > Exclusively Christian Theology / Date > 2 Feb 2012 / Topic > Re: T C - John 1:18 /
.
] Lighthouse asks: In John 1:1 who was the Logos that was God?
.
tx say: Jn 1:1 is another example of a corrupted text, Lighthouse. John did not say that "the Logos was God". He
said "and divine was the Logos", which was later changed by "orthodox" redactors to bring John's theology in line
with the popular trinitarian theology. They called it 'harmonization'. I call it spitting in John face, and despising
the spirit of truth.

] The Berean asks: Just curious, how do you know this?
.
tx say: I suppose that just asking you to trust in my judgment is out of the question? ... Well, trust does have to be earned the
hard way, I guess. So anyway, the thing is that I understand John. I know how he thinks, and why. I know what is consistent
with his theology, and what isn't. And more importantly (perhaps), I have the rare ability to recognize a lie when I see one. It's
a gift from the spirit of truth, obviously. Moreover, I also know how the ancient scribes and redactors used to think. They felt
themselves to be perfectly justified in changing the text to suit their various theological imperatives. Accordingly, they
"improved" the text of Jn again and again, and again, until the third gospel became the textual nightmare that is now enshrined
in the canon. Others may reject my teachings about John (and the NT) for one silly reason or another, but a wise believer will do
well indeed to take my teachings seriously.

] Lighthouse asks: So who was the Word that was divine?
.
I will answer your question shortly, Lighthouse; but first let me ask another question of some relevance to yours: What is it that most christians think
of when they hear the phrase "the Word of God"? It's the scriptures, right? Holy Bible = Word of God. And is this what the prophet John means when he
speaks of the divine Logos? ... Obviously not. So clearly there is a major disconnect between John's theology and the thinking of most ordinary believers.
.
But I do not blame believers for their total lack of understanding as regards John's theology. I put the blame squarely where it belongs: with the
translators and bible-makers. They are the ones who refuse to treat the third gospel with the respect it deserves. They are the ones who refuse to
remove even the most obvious corruptions within the texts. And they are the ones who persist in using "Word" as the english equivalent of "Logos", when
it *ought* to be plain to all that this rendition is *grossly* inadequate! This 'Word' is not at all what John means by 'Logos'.
.
A far better rendition is this: the divine Logos = the Way of Love & Reason. Now that's a translation that believers can sink their spiritual teeth into! And
this is a translation that actually makes sense within the context of John's theology; whereas 'Word' is just a meaningless noise. Take a look at Jn 1:9 >
"He was the Light (the true one) which enlightens every man coming into the world." And does every man, woman, and child speak the Word? Does
every one know the Word? Well, if that word is "me, me, me" then maybe so. Otherwise such questions are pure nonsense.
.
But every human being understands love and reason. They may reject them. They may turn their back on them to chase after meaningless and worthless
idols (eg. money), but deep deep down they still know what love and reason are, for these are the things that enlighten us, and make us into the kind of
persons that we are (or could be). And who was/is the Way of Love & Reason? Well, that would be the Christos, the Messiah, the Anointed One, aka
Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos "made flesh" (as the prophet puts it).

] Ezekel say: This is the internet if you have not noticed.
.
tx say: I have noticed actually, but I appreciate the reminder anyway. btw: Did you notice that the sky is blue? How weird is that?
.
] Trying to claim that you are trust worthy and have a rare gift for spotting lies and have the spirit of truth means absolutely nothing.
.
It means nothing to an unbeliever, for sure. But it certainly ought to mean something to believers who actually care about the truth
of things.
.
] Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims, such as copies of John that existed before they were "altered"
.
There is actually a piece of John's original autograph that has somehow survived the trials of the centuries. It's named P52, and it
is very interesting in many ways. Alas, it is only a very small fragment (just a few verses on each side), and it does not show the
unaltered verse 1:1. There might be some old fragments that do show 1:1, but I am not aware of them. No doubt they are securely
locked away so that no one will be scandalized by the truth. So no, I don't actually have any physical evidence to back up my claims.
. . . Hence the importance of faith and trust ...

.
] or is it all based on your magic gut feeling about it being a lie, or your superior
] intelligence, or the conversations you are having with John in your head.
.
Well, my dialogues with the prophet John at least have the merit of producing good fruits. My dialogues with Ezekel,
however, are of far more dubious value. :)
.
] And before you claim that I am a liar
.
Oh, I would never do that, zeke. I used to be rather nasty, like you, but I've mellowed a great deal over the years.
And now I'm just a big 'ol pussycat

.
] I should tell you that I have a PHD in everything, am an Olympic class athlete and just finished rescuing
] a box of kittens that were abandoned in the middle of a highway.
.
You must be very proud of yourself. I'm certainly very impressed. And I'd be even more impressed if you could see your
way to some small acceptance of the prophets whom the Lord chooses to send among the cyber-saints.

/ Newsgroups > alt.bible , alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / Date > 2 Feb 2012 / Topic > Re: T C - John 1:18 /
.

"For our knowledge is imperfect, and our prophecy is imperfect." -- Paulos in 1Cor 13:9

.
> cybrwurm previously wrote: <snip> Obviously John would never say something so absurd as 'god the son'
.
] vince garcia replies: Sure he would
.
wurm say: If that's what you really think, Vince, then you do not understand John's thinking at all.
.
> (ie. because John is a monotheist),
.
] Meaning to be Trinitarian is polytheism so far as you're concerned?
.
I mean that trinitarian theology is a non-biblical, episcopal fantasy that John did not know, and would not have approved
of (even if he had known about it).
.
> wurm: ... and any translation that does this clearly despises John and his theology. All such versions make John
> look like an idiot, and should be avoided like the plague.
.
] vg: I'd say the same of YOU
.
Why? I am only trying to do what is best for all the people of god. Do you doubt my honesty and sincerity, vince? Do you think
I am a liar and a fraud out to deceive believers? Do you suppose that I might actually want to corrupt and destroy the Faith?
... If not, then what is stopping you from putting your trust in me as a good and reliable teacher of the scriptures?
.
> wurm: <snip> From all these versions we
.
] vg: who's "we"? You mean YOU?
.
I mean me AND the spirit of truth, AND the spirit of wisdom, AND the spirit of prophecy, AND the divine Logos. 'We' are
a team, friend vince, and I could nothing at all without their constant help, encouragement, and support ...
.
] vg: Who the hell are YOU?
.
An honest question deserves an honest answer: I am a prophet of the Logos; which is a type of prophet that the world has
not seen for many many centuries.
.
] vg: Your word doesn't mean anything to me.
.
"... prophecy is not for unbelievers, but for believers" (1Cor.14:22).
.
> are finally able to reconstruct the verse into a rendition that is consistent with John's theology and diction: "No one has
> ever seen the God; but the only begotten one (who is in the bosom of the Father) has explained Him." -- Prophet Version
.
] vg: And what are your qualifications in textual criticism to make an indictment against the NIV or any other Bible
] and claim YOU know "John's theology and diction" better?
.
Who can better understand the teachings of one prophet than another prophet? Do you seriously imagine that a priest can
properly understand a prophet? Do you seriously suppose that a scribe can properly understand a prophet? Of course they cannot.
This is why they nullify John's teachings through bad translations, and by burying them under a mountain of pious additions that
twist and distort the true meaning of John's teachings. If you truly want to understand what the gospel of John is really saying,
you have to first of all separate it from all the additions and distortions that the text has collected on its long journey toward the
canonical format.
.
] vg: What degrees do you have, and when/where did you get them?
.
I have no such degrees, vince; nor do I need such useless pieces of paper to justify my teachings. Look at all the scribes and bible
scholars who have copious degrees and diplomas, and still have sh*t for brains. Degrees mean nothing. Only the truth matters.
And the ability to see the truth is not something that can be taught. Either you have it, or you don't. That's just the way it is, vince.
Either you accept it, or you step aside and continue in the sin of willful ignorance.
.
] vg: Just what is YOUR Christ? Yet another created being?
.
My christos is exactly the same as John's christos; namely, the divine Logos. The christos of the trinitarians, on the other hand, is
something else again; something that is NOT witnessed to in the inspired (and uncorrupted) texts of the NT. *That* christos is
'God the Son', an invention of the bishops and their theological stooges. So who are you going to believe, vince? The uninspired
testimony of ignorant and arrogant episcopal muffinheads, or the inspired testimony of the NT prophets? You can't have it both
ways, vince. It's one or the other. The Truth or the Lie?
.
We suggest you choose wisely ...
.
] vg: Are you just another self-taught antichrist who likes to hear himself talk?
.
No; as I said above, I am a prophet of the Logos, taught by the spirit of truth, and the spirit of wisdom, and the spirit of prophecy,
and by the divine Logos. Therefore I have no great need for *other* teachers; although I can (and do) also learn from the scribes
and bible scholars (ie. those rare few who do not have sh*t for brains).
.
] vg: And what the heck is the "Prophet version"?
.
It is the best translation of *some* of the NT texts that you're ever likely to see, friend vince. It's a translation of prophetic literature
made by an authentic prophet (ie. the much maligned and despised textman). If only we could translate (and edit) the entire NT for
all these spiritually hungry believers out there ... Alas, we can only do a few verses at a time. So make the most of them, people.
And please don't make me think that I'm casting my pearls *only* to the swine.
.

- the one with many uncast pearls ~ cybrwurm ;>

.
P.S. "Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue
speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. On the other hand, he who prophesies
speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who
prophesies edifies the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than
he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified. Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in
tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?"
-- the prophet Paulos of Damascus in 1Cor. 14:1-6 / RSV

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible / Thread > On the Text-Pyramid of Authority / Date > 2 April 2012 /
/ Christian Forums > Theology Christians Only > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics / Topic >

more john-mysteries solved

.
] On 28March stan1953 say: Who wrote John? I think the first step should probably be to know or at least
] have a fairly good idea as to WHO wrote the Gospel of John?
.
wurm say: Dear stan1953, we tend to agree with you. And I even have a pretty good idea that the author was an
inspired prophet, living and writing round c.80-90ce, and very probably an elder in the very important early-church
at Alexandria, Egypt.
.
] s: Let me be clear and say I do NOT believe it was John.
.
Again we agree. The name given to the text is most likely different from the name of the author. This is actually a very
common problem in bible-study that stems from over-reliance upon a canonical-format that is fairly riddled with errors
and misconceptions that lead to mis-arrangements of texts and passages that in turn generates various misunderstandings
regarding the actual testimonies (within the greek-scriptures) of mr-who-&-when-he-said-it (and the meaning of same).
.
] s: I believe the key is that the writer describes himself as the "One who Jesus loved" or the "Disciple who Jesus loved".
] These terms are ONLY used in John and chapter 21:20 & 24 show this person WAS the author. So any ideas?
.
Oh yes, stan1953, we always have ideas! And the one idea you most need to consider, dwell upon, and consider some more,
and at length, is the literary and historical fact that chapter 21 is a late addition to the third-gospel, and therefore *nothing*
it says is necessarily relevant to what the inspired author is saying or proclaiming; nor does it settle the question of who he is.
This is simply some anonymous redactor's opinion about the mysterious and nameless author of the third-gospel.
.
So if you think that the author is the beloved-one, then by all means join the club! There are many good bible-scholars who
think likewise, including myself. But you, and we, will have to make our case for this very sensible proposal from out of the
gospel itself, and sadly forgo all assistance from the romish chapter 21. I'll even point you in the right direction, stan1953, so
as to get you started on the right track. Check out that footrace between Peter and B1 to the empty tomb. B1 gets there
first and looks in, but it is Peter who steps in first.
.
Now this mystery has puzzled scholars for centuries, but the solution is quite simple really. Peter enters first because he is the
main source of the first-gospel, the gospel of mark and peter. B1 sits and waits because the third-gospel comes late in the first
century. In fact, it is not even conceived until well after the writings of Paul and Peter (ie. Mk) are circulating through the major
urban-churches within the eastern-Empire. There is a reason for this that NT-students ought not to overlook. Indeed it is not
until the "parting of the ways" is well underway that the need for the third-gospel presses itself (with some urgency) upon the
mind of the inspired prophet ...
.
Now *that* is a mystery well worth pondering!
.

- the almost ponderous one ~ cybrwurm ;>

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible / Thread > On the Text-Pyramid of Authority / Date > 4 April 2012 /
/ Christian Forums > Theology Christians Only > Christian Scriptures > Bibliology & Hermeneutics / Topic > Re: more john-mysteries solved /
.
] On 2April stan1953 say: ... What is unique about John is verse 7 of chapter 20, nowhere in the other gospels
] is this mentioned. There is a very simple reason why this is included in this gospel. Verse 8 does show he
] eventually goes in, but verse 7 shows what he saw while looking in. Why do you think he would make special
] note of this?
.
wurm say: Dear stan, don't get *too* hung up on any one verse that seems to stand out (for whatever reason). It's all part
of the necessary details that make up the whole package. The whole understands the parts, while the parts are just too small
to overshadow the whole. And some verses (and words) in Jn&1Jn are very *iffy* anyway (for various reasons). But if you
remember that our prophet-author is much more concerned with the *meaning* of history than with any minor 'historical'
details, you'll be well on your way to a proper attitude toward the text.
.
Moreover, students of the third-gospel should definitely NOT take a literal (or face-value) approach towards the prophet's
writings. That approach to 'John' is much like hitting the third-gospel with an axe and expecting something valuable to just bleed
out for you. Don't be fooled! And don't be misled by clever theologians and authoritative bible-scholars. Trust only the spirit of
truth! Put your faith in the divine-Logos to guide you through. And always look at any particular verse within the context of the
surrounding text if one is having trouble understanding what any one particular verse means, or why it is there. For example:
.
] the prophet at Jn 20:6-10 (prophet version) say: Then comes also Simon Petros following him, and he entered
] into the tomb, and he sees the linen-cloths lying, and the face-cloth (which was upon the head of him) not with
] the linen-cloths lying, but apart, having been folded up in one place. Therefore entered then also the other
] disciple (the one having come first to the tomb) and he saw and believed ... [ignore import here] ... Then the
] disciples went away again to their own places.
.
Their own places being, of course, the cities of Antioch (for Petros) and Alexandria (for John). And 'pillars' don't move, you
see. The urban-based 'pillars' of the early greek-churches are 'pillars' precisely *because* they don't move. They don't move
their seat of power, the center of their authority over the nearby assemblies which contained the faith of the early "jewish"
believers. And they don't move their teachings and traditions about the contents of the Faith either. Authority is by its very
nature conservative, and therefore resists change (especially radical change); and religious authority is even more so. The
first generation of believers was more or less "jewish" in the way that they thought about the christos, the crucifixion, the
resurrection, the coming wrath of god, the imminent judgment, and so on and so forth.
.
Even Paulos, the great "Apostle to the Gentiles", didn't quite get it; could not quite grasp that even *more* dramatic changes
to the core 'good-news' would be necessary in order to make the Faith intelligible to those lacking in the traditional jewish
mentality and hebrew-flavored understanding of all things. Paul's half-way compromise simply would NOT work within the
context of the wider-world of the entire Roman-Empire. The Christos, in other words, had to be understood not just in jewish
terms, but *also* in greco-roman terms, images, and concepts. OTHERWISE the Faith would never be able to win over all the
many peoples within the wide span of Empire.
.
And John was *right* to make the revolutionary leap to a universal-theology! For thanks largely to the prophet's efforts the
Empire was indeed won over to the Faith (although I draw the line at saying that the prophet was the great "pioneer" of
trinitarian theology). And this is not the achievement of the saints and martyrs and bishops and emperors as much as it is the
achievement of "the other disciple". The same who came first to a proper understanding of the truth about the Anointed One;
and that the jewish vision of the Messiah was somehow too small a thing to hold the *full* meaning and significance of the
name Jesus Christos ...
.
Thus the set-apart head-cloth represents the handing over of the Faith to the loving and rational care of "the other disciple"
who enters, sees, and believes. Note that Petros goes home without the benefit of seeing and believing (hence the romish need
for chapter 21). For he too does NOT understand. The meaning is clear, stan. Paul and Peter do not see the divine-Logos, do
not understand the divine-Logos, and so cannot *believe* in the divine-Logos. Yes stan, the head-cloth in v7 symbolizes the
true understanding of the Christos (namely, the prophet's own divine-Logos theology), and "the other disciple" is not named
because he (that is, our nameless egyptian prophet-author) was NOT there "in person", but rather was there in spirit and in
truth, and in the name of the Way of Love & Reason!
.
So do you now want to know the best way to approach a discipleship-based understanding of the New Testament, stan? If so,
know first that it's not an easy road to walk, my friend. Most christians will not understand, and may not respond positively.
But even so, a good way to start is to focus first, last, and always upon the third-gospel (Jn&1Jn). Through the lens of these
prophetic texts and teachings you can see the growth of christian understanding as it passes through Paulos and Petros and all
the other early texts. And with this same lens you can also turn and see how all the other NT-docs relate to this core group of
ten primary 'sacred-books'. For example, you can see that the prophet's theology certainly does not (because it *cannot*;
historically speaking) precede the writing of the third-gospel (and attached letter); for that would be *really* dumb. Thus, for
example, the verses at Phil 2:6-11 do NOT belong with Paul's writings in the top-ten, but should be moved over to Ephesians
(where it rightly belongs).
.
And there are many other things like this among the greek scriptures that the diligent NT-student must tread carefully around.
Therefore, the devoted NT-student will need to be very extra-careful indeed; even when approaching the t10-canon. For there
are many textual dangers lying in wait therein; patiently waiting for unwary readers to come along and trip over ... and fall
straight into a pit of ignorance and misunderstanding! Moreover, the prophet never intended that his Logos-theology should be
at once turned over to the very-dubious "care" of those who claim ownership of (and authority over) the third-gospel. That is,
over to those scribes and pharisees who have no respect for words and names; those same who took it upon themselves to
"adjust" the texts so that they could then turn around and *supersede* the good prophet's Logos-theology with their very-own
"new and improved" trinitarian theology!

- one digging through the dross of ages ~ cybrwurm ;>

*