Goto Big-P #7
textman
*
+
/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 5 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 19Feb2002 /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>> tx: / Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 12Feb2002 /
.
> On 12Feb Atheist_Divine asks: What does this mean, BTW?
.
textman answers: Well, basically what it means is that a copy of this post has been re-directed to an ng on UseNet in the alternative category called alt.bible.prophecy. Newsgroups are like bulletin boards where people post messages on various topics. You can access newsgroups with dedicated newsreader programs, Outlook Express, or with any browser. To see for yourself just goto http://groups.google.com/ and do a search for alt.bible.prophecy When you get there do a search within that ng for textman and then sort by date. This will bring up my recent postings to abp. Just clik a link and away you go! :)
.
>> <snip> I agree. But old habits die hard, and it's hard
>> for the 'duly appointed shepherds' (and their preferred
>> theologians) to admit that maybe they *don't* already
>> have ALL the answers.
.
> They should have a better knowledge of church history,
> church doctrines and biblical studies - otherwise how
> are they ever going to be able to evangelize people
> properly?
.
They have seminaries, theological colleges, and bible schools for just that sort of thing. The pastors, however, know better than to try and teach anything at the Sunday services, so they set up special bible study classes for another day. Few even bother with them. Not that I blame them much, but most of the lack of interest in these subjects (that you and I are crazy about) is generated by the people themselves. They are utterly lacking for any sort of passion for the truth. Hey, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
.
> If you do not know all about your own faith, how can
> you possibly instruct others as to how good it is
> and why they should join?
.
Ha! You should invite a couple of JW's over for a chat. :)
.
> No salesman tries to sell his product without knowing as much
> as he can about it - the same should apply to Christians.
.
I agree. I think maybe the general feeling is that if you can read, then all these things are available in the Bible, and whatever isn't in there isn't important anyway. Which idea I very *don't* agree with!
.
>> <snip> Most people don't seem to realize that by supposing
>> Lk-Acts to have been written early on (ie. first generation
>> eyewitness account) they are in effect allowing NO
>> possibility of literary and theological development.
.
> Isn't Luke-Acts generally thought to have been written c70 upward?
.
It varies somewhat around that period, but any time prior to 100CE is still way too soon. The texts flow out of events as smoothly and naturally as leaves on a bush. Each in its own time, each in its own place.
.
>> But if Lk-Acts just happened to appear out of thin air,
>> well that's just fine too (they say), since it's inspired
>> and all, you know. So I guess that the Holy Ghost was in
>> such an all-fired up hurry to get every little thing down
>> on papyrus before the future-determined cut-off point of
>> 100AD (so as to satisfy the exacting specifications of
>> fundyfied believers twenty centuries down the road yet)
>> that He couldn't wait a few generations in order to get
>> the job done right! ... HA!
.
> I've never really understood some of the objections the
> "fundyfied believers" use. Why is it not possible for them
> to believe that God did not override the personalities of
> the authors when the Bible was being written?
.
Because that would logically allow for the possibility of errors being introduced into the texts. BUT since the SACRED text is PERFECT because it is God's WORD direct from God's MOUTH (to the fundy ear) then *of course* the Bible is INFALLIBLE and all . . .
.
> Why could it not be that the books of the bible can be
> inspired and reflect the time of writing, the level
> of education of the author, the general direction of
> Christian thought at that time, and the personality
> of the (human) author?
.
These are the basic assumptions that I, and most bible scholars and students (and even most scribes and pharisees perhaps), operate under while studying the texts. Alas, many believers see no value in such an approach, and may even consider it sinful, or worse, an act of unfaith. It's very difficult to convince such people of the need to be sensible about church history and how the scriptures fit therein.
.
>> The biggest problem is that most people simply refuse to
>> accept that it is a secondary source on the first century,
>> and a primary witness to the early second century.
.
> You go for a later dating than c70+?
.
Very. I put it in the 105-115CE range. It took time for all the necessary source documents to get written (they didn't all appear at once). It took more time for all these books to be edited, collected, and gathered from distant lands. It took more time to study all the sources and work out a considered proposal. And it took several years to get it all down just so. And most likely there was more than one person involved in the actual writing and editing; which would explain a lot regarding those pesky little mysteries and inconsistencies about Lk-Acts that scholars so love to ponder.
.
> Luke's memory could have gone a bit fuzzy after all that time,
.
The text doesn't say who the author is, AD. Nor does it give any hints in that direction (which in itself is unusual for early Christian literature); and therefore constitutes (I think) evidence for collaboration in composition. The idea that 'Dr Luke wrote it' is sheer fabrication based on the flimsiest evidence. But since the scribes just HAD TO put a name on it (ie. the gospel half), they plucked out a handy one from Paul's writings!
.
> but while the Gospel is a secondary source (as admitted in
> its pages), Acts is generally considered to be a primary
> source, albeit one remembered a few years after the event.
.
Right. And I'm saying that this is *very* impossible because it doesn't allow for enough time for social, theological, and literary development. People who don't care about early church history don't see this as any problem to their beliefs since inspiration provides an easy answer to any and all such problems. But truth demands knowledge, not pious theology.
.
> (Paul died in the 60's sometime, didn't he?
.
It is supposed he perished in the mid-sixties. He says he's off to Jerusalem with a bag of gold for the poor believers, and then *poof* he just vanishes. I rather suspect that he met a violent death along the way; perhaps killed for his loot. It's not as glorious a fate as a fancy public execution in mighty Rome, but its more true to the measly and mundane laws of history.
.
> Which would put Luke as remembering the events of the 50's or
> so....20 years is plenty of time to forget little details and
> polish it a bit.)
.
Or not.
.
>> <snip> Alas not. Today the Sophists have taken charge,
>> and they demand their payments up front first please!
.
> In a sense, the internet, and its networks of newsgroups
> and bulletin boards (and chat) is the new Parthenon.
> Terrifying thought!
.
For the first time in the history of the world we have an
almost free medium for the free exchange of ideas unbounded
by the limiting forces of space and time, and censors . . .
It's not terrifying, it's liberating! :)
.
>> <snip> It all depends on how you look at it. I see the
>> gospel of John as the "prophetic" gospel (ie. as an
>> example of Christian prophetic literature); eg. compare
>> the number of times that the word 'prophet' appears in
>> the various NT books.
.
> In what sense prophetic? You mean that in the Gospel there
> are prophecies, or that it concentrates on prophecy and
> the gifts of the Spirit? The latter I agree with, but I'm
> not so sure about the former.
.
Quite right, AD. Christian prophecy is far more than mere
fortune-telling. It also involves, teaching, exhortation,
interpretation, criticism, and wisdom in general. In other
words, Christian prophecy and *true* Christian gnosticism
are one and the same thing.
.
>> What I'm trying to get at is that John's Gospel (along
>> with 1,2,3John) is a part of a larger prophetic tradition
>> that includes people like Paul and Silvanus (ie. the
>> author of 1Peter),
.
> You think Silvanus wrote 1 Peter?
.
Yup. Exhibit A: the original and authentic signature verse of the text -> "Through Silvanus (your faithful brother, as I consider) I wrote briefly encouraging you, and testifying that this [letter] is the true grace of God in which you stand" (1P.5:12). Of course, this interpretation requires us to understand the two I's as referring to Silvanus (the writer of the letter), rather than to an unamed someone else. People resist this understanding because it seems to them a very odd way of identifying yourself, but you have to understand that Silvanus was not over-eager to assert his apostolic authority after the manner of his former associate Paulos. On the contrary, he was a rather quiet and humble man, more than content to be thought of as a 'faithful brother' and 'elder'.
.
>> and also the author of Hebrews, and even the later
>> egyptian prophets (who wrote James, Jude, and 2Peter).
.
> I heard today that Prisca is thought of as a possible
> candidate for the author of Hebrews.
.
That's news to me. I won't ask what kind of evidence leads
to this conclusion, since I doubt there even is any :)
.
> Which Egyptian prophets do you reckon wrote James, Jude
> and 2 Peter?
.
The prophet Jacob wrote James, as he clearly states in the opening: "Jacob, a slave of God". Jude was written some years latter by a student-disciple of Jacob's: "Judas, a slave of Jesus Christ, and brother of Jacob". And 2Peter was written some years after that as an expanded revision of Jude, wherein the anonymous author writes under the name and authority of Simon Peter: "Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ".
.
> (I've never liked Jude he seems weird)
.
Yeah, but he was writing at a time when the egyptian church was being undermined from within by believers who preferred their own gnostic theologies to the truth, and who engaged in practices and behaviors that the prophet deemed perverse. In the same way, today's enlightened and progressive churches are more than tolerant and welcoming to these very same 'Ones of Old', and so gladly ignore Judas' warning, or dismiss it as referring to "something else".
.
- one who resists the prophet-killers -- textman ;>
x
+
/ Topic > Re: More Big Picture - 6 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 19Feb2002 /
/ Forum > TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>> tx: <snip> There are signs that this is changing too. Many
>> people recognize that there is some value and truth in most
>> of the world's best religious literature. I personally find
>> the sheer variety and abundance of Buddhist scriptures to
>> be endlessly fascinating. 4X: There is even one document in
>> The Buddhist Bible (by D.Goddard) called Awakening of Faith.
.
> On 12Feb Atheist_Divine wrote:
> I've never read Buddhist stuff...I've read Hermetic things,
> and the Book of the Dead, and a few new agey things, but not
> Buddhist. We live in a peculiar time - with the morass of
> new and ancient religions all fighting for worshippers, and
> all claiming to have truth. It is entirely possible that they
> will settle down to some sort of amalgam of faiths, but then
> again, it may remain as it is for centuries to come.
.
The changes will be slow, gradual, and no doubt painful to many.
.
>> <snip> This is one reason why Martin Luther later burned
>> a bunch of books by Thomas. I guess he wasn't as impressed
>> by Aristotle as Aquinas was.
.
> Martin Luther was a boor. The language he used to people
> can be quite an eye-opener!
.
He was totally retro, no doubt; but Luther can also be considered
a true Christian prophet. The fact that he made mistakes of
various sorts doesn't alter that fact. Indeed, the use of strong
language is a peculiarly prophetic characteristic, one of the
features that marks out a prophet.
.
>> <snip> The people weren't ready for a bloodless religion,
>> AD. That's a plain historical fact. The failed religious
>> reform of the black pharaoh Akhenaton in the fourteenth
>> century BCE demonstrated that. These things need lots
>> of time to ferment.
.
> Akhenaten's religion wasn't really bloodless - didn't he
> kill off the old priests and remove the names of their gods?
.
He was a killer of gods, but I think he merely fired the
priests, rather than eliminate them outright. A strategic
error on his part maybe?
.
> BTW a black pharaoh? Weren't they all?
.
O no. Akhenaton was unique in having a Nubian mother, from
whom he inherited his 'black is beautiful, baby' qualities.
.
>> <snip> Revelation will continue because the Faith is also
>> in process, and will continue as such until we all attain
>> to the perfection of Christ: <snip>
.
> That seems to be indicated by the texts of the Bible -
> particularly John - but is usually denied by many/most
> churches today. Mystics, prophets and dreamers cannot be
> controlled by a church hierarchy, they are dangerous to
> the men with power at the top.
.
Tell me about it! :( Things are especially difficult today,
because everyone (and their dog even) wants to claim total
and absolute ownership of the Word of God.
.
>> The Holy Bible is in desperate need of an editorial over-
>> haul all round. It's long overdue, in my opinion; but then
>> again I seriously doubt that there are more than a small
>> handful of people on the entire planet who are competent
>> enough to do a good job of *that*!
.
> You mean, the inclusion of more books? Just out of
> interest, what sort of books would you include, were
> you making this choice?
.
Here's two right off the top: The Wisdom of Solomon, and
the letter to Corinth mistakenly called 'First Clement'.
.
> I think they should have put more of the Gnostic scriptures
> in - particularly Thomas, but the Apocryphon of John and
> the Hypostasis of the Archons, too.
.
Archons, you say? Hmmm, I've never read that one. Sounds
rather too gnostic though. Doesn't mix well with a more
practically oriented version of the Faith (ie. the authentic
prophetic-apostolic version as expressed in the NT).
.
>> Christianity will continue to change and evolve as it has
>> always done since day one. The Faith will continue to go
>> through cycles of spiritual decay and corruption (such as
>> the present evil age of faithlessness) followed by lively
>> periods of spiritual growth and renewal. Out of the long
>> history of the Faith we see these patterns repeated over
>> and over again.
.
> Similar problems have beset the church for many years. The
> RCC had gone through periods of gross corruption, before
> eventually reforming itself, with Luther that period of
> corruption was marked by a split - but then the Counter-
> Reformation showed the RCC reforming itself again. In
> a sense, all the corrupted eras could be counted as
> "faithless", for if they had greater faith, surely they
> would not have become corrupt? When and if the revival/
> reformation of the Church comes in our era (if we are
> alive to see it) I hope it is not fundy Christianity
> which is revived.
.
Ah but that's the thing, you see. In this post-modern age people
are sick to death of complexity and unknowing. They want their
religion at least to be simple and straight-forward, with no BS
about it. This means that the majority of believers will continue
to come in two main flavors: 1. The priestly varieties (that know
all). And 2. the fundyfied sort (who *also* have all the answers)
... Not much to choose from there, in my opinion.
.
> Most people could live with a less violent (in attitude,
> but sometimes also in actions) faith, and while humans
> may be violent in nature,
.
What do you mean "may"? Surely you're not suggesting that
this fact is subject to debate? I should think that the events
of the last century constitute more than sufficient evidence
to settle that score!
.
> the trend of spirituality seems to be leaning (particularly
> with the popularity of eastern religions and neo-paganism)
> toward a gentler faith.
.
Yuucchh! Smurf-Christianity is just SOOOO gross! :<
.
> In some senses, the Church is already reforming itself, with
> such things as feminist theology (in its less mad form),
> queer theology, liberation theology and ecological theology.
.
This is not so much 'reforming' as it is 'deforming'. :)
.
> Particularly feminist theology has come up with, in certain
> areas, an increased spirituality - and they seem to have a
> good sense of humour, too - if you ever feel like buying a
> feminist/queer theology book,
.
Ha! That'll be the day.
.
> you should check out "Indecent Theology" by Marcella
> Althaus-Reid - her first chapter is called "Indecent
> Proposals for Women who Would Like to do Theology
> Without Using Underwear"!
.
Sounds real spiritual alright :D
.
>> Well, I used to be a Cat (of all things) until it was made
>> clear to me that this church, like so many others, is simply
>> a front for the Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart.
.
> Cat? As in things that go "meow"?
.
No, as in 'Catholic'; as in: What do you call the
Sunday Eucharist? ... A gathering of Cats!
.
>> This assembly of the prophets contains many different sorts
>> of people, including the likes of the teachers Clement and
>> Origen of Alexandria from the pre-Constantine days, the
>> early Anabaptists from the Radical Reformation period, the
>> early Quakers in 17C England, scholars such as Erasmus and
>> William Tyndale, many and various writers (such as Leo
>> Tolstoy), and even a few philosophers (such as Soren
>> Kierkegaard). And many others besides.
.
> Many mystics/prophets have practised in isolation - mainly
> due to some of them having rather strange habits.
.
Occupational hazard.
.
> St Cuthbert, for example, was a rather strange man...
.
How so?
.
> You've got to love Origen - he was so very sincere! Fancy
> castrating yourself out of enthusiasm like he did!
.
Don't be believing everything you read, AD. I don't think he did
anything like that. Being passionate about the Faith is one thing;
being downright stupid is quite something else. For example, his
ideas on biblical hermeneutics (which are surprisingly developed)
make a clear distinction between the literal and the spiritual
sense (4X) of the texts.
.
> Didn't he hold rather heretical views, though -
.
Oh, of course. Don't get me wrong. I don't have to agree
with everything he taught in order to appreciate his
contributions to the Faith.
.
> did he not preach that all people would be saved,
> regardless of whether they were believers or not?
.
He figured that given enough time even Satan would see the
error of his ways and convert to the Faith. Now that's what
I call optimism!
.
> Rather a neat way to get round the problem of a loving God
> condemning the majority of people to eternal torment,
.
No problem at all really, since the majority of people
surely deserve eternal torment. However, I think that
most will get away cheap with mere oblivion :)
.
> but not really looked upon with great regard by Church folk.
.
No surprise there since most believers have no real knowledge
of early church history from which to measure his meaning and
stature. They are told that Origen was a heretic, a self-castrater,
a dirty no-good slimy *gnostic*, etc etc, and that's the end of it!
.
>> The only true successors to the original apostles are
>> these authentic prophets chosen by grace to serve the
>> whole People of God. Amen!
.
> How do you know a prophet is authentic? ~AD~
.
Well, it's certainly NOT because they're perfection personified!
People figure if they're not perfect in every conceivable way,
or if they make any errors in their judgments or theology,
then they can't be true prophets. Problem is that if you make
perfection the prime measuring rod, and then fly up and down
the vast sweep of history, nowhere will you ever find anyone
even remotely qualified to merit the name of prophet. However,
this is a false and unfaithful approach, not worthy of the true
believer. In fact, there have been many prophets down through
the centuries. They all have only one thing in common: they all
fight the good fight for the Faith --> They are all Warriors for
the Lord!
.
>> On 14Feb AD wrote: Thats ok, textman :) BTW did you choose
>> your name to sound like a superhero? "Is it a bird? is it
>> a plane? No, its textman!"
.
ha ha! Heck no; it only seems that way. But actually I *was*
feeding on comic books when the other kids were still sucking
their thumbs. I had quite a collection at one point back then (all
that remains is the Batman and a few assorted titles). I loved
them all though: Fantastic Four, Spider-Man, DareDevil, the
Incredibly Big, Ugly, Dumb, & Green One, Dr Strange (the ex-
surgeon turned super-warlock), Deathlok (the cyborg killing
machine: half-man, half-computer), and many others too
numerous to mention. Oh well, comics are WAY too over-priced
these days. Nuff said.
.
- the amazing friendly neighborhood cyber-prophet - textman ;>
x
Goto Big-P #7