+
/ Topic >  Re: More Big Picture - 7 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 28Feb2002 /
/ Forum >  TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
> On 27Feb Evangelion wrote: Hey textman,
> just what is the story with you anyway?
.
 textman answers: Hi, Evangelion. I dunno  . . .
Don't believe everything you read, maybe? :)
.
> I'd be interested to know your background.
.
 I read a lot. I write a lot. I don't get out much. ...
That's about it.
.
> How does one become a "cyber-prophet"?
.
 Well, in my case it happened very gradually, and without
my even being aware of it really. One day I got to writing
articles and things for the college newsletter, and lo, the
labor was both fun and easy. So I kept on scribbling, and
even designing newsletters, until everyone was right peeved
with my less restrained articles. But shortly after I was
fired as editor (and student too :), I stumbled upon the
WWWeb, and the prophetic postings began to flow in earnest.
And, sure enough, the offensive one was now distasteful to
thousands, instead of just dozens (as was formerly the case).
Thus was a cyber-legend born. And cyberspace was never the
same thereafter!
.
 ... ooooooo, scary :)
.
> And Happy 44th Birthday!!!
.
 Thx, bud. ... Same time next year?
.
- the almost confessional one - textman ;>
.
P.S. In order to expand on the explanation above (IF thou
be-est so curious) I have included just below a copy of one
of my earlier postings dealing with this particular topic:
.
             STRANGE ENCOUNTER AT THE OFFICE
.
 So there I was, working away at a rebuttal for Paddy, when
all of a sudden I hear this voice behind me: "Jonah!" ...
"Huh?" I turns and looks, but there's no one there! "Whozzat?"
 "It is I, your Lord & Master."
 "Jesus? ... Is it really you?"
 "Yes", says the disembodied but authoritative voice.
 "What do you want of me, Lord?"
 "My People have forgotten themselves. They no longer know
who they are. Who they should be. They have given themselves
over to weird idols and false doctrines."
 "Yes, Lord. I'm just beginning to appreciate that."
 "You must tell them that I am not pleased with this."
 "Tell them? ... But Lord, they will not listen to me. They
will not believe me. They think me a bad joke."
 "Never mind that. Only do as I say."
 "But Lord ---"
 "Jonah!"
 "Why do you call me that? You know that is not my name."
 "You are just like your silly brother. He bitched and moaned
and complained too. He also resisted me. Will you now turn
and run in the other direction as he did?"
 "No, Lord!"
 "Then do as I say. Tell them the truth about my wayward
people in Canada. Tell them of the madness that has possessed
them and driven them into the arms of the Evil One."
 "They will laugh at me!"
 "Let them laugh then."
 "They will hate me, and despise me, and throw stones at me!"
 "Many will; but not all. Some few will even listen."
 "But Lord ---"
 "Jonah!"
 "Stop calling me that!"
 "Have you no faith in me?"
 "Of course I do!"
 "Then fear not. Just tell them. And keep telling them.
Let nothing prevent you from speaking plainly and honestly ...
That all may understand."
 "I am not worthy of this impossible mission. I am not fit
to carry it out. Surely there are others better situated to
succeed in this task?"
 "There are others, of course. People with greater power,
talent and resourses. Like you, they are all unworthy. I
called out to them; but they could not hear my Voice. Their
hearts are filled with other things."
 "Is there no one else then?"
 "No one."
[textman wails in despair]
 "Then we are doomed; and all is lost!"
 "Jonah!"
 "DOOMED, I say!"
 "Jonah!"
 "Sorry, Lord. But it seems that the Evil One has taken
everything! Oh what shall become of us?"
 "It is not yet too late. There are still some few who believe
in me, and have the courage to obey my commands. And there are
many more who want to believe. Many who try to believe, but
cannot, for they see the double-mindedness in those who are
called by my name. You must encourage them. You must convince
them that their faith in me is not in vain."
 "I don't know that I can."
 "Do not doubt yourself. Do not doubt the necessity of this.
Remember always that I am with you."
 "Yes, Lord."
 "Listen to me. Listen to my Voice."
 "Yes, Lord."
 "Fare thee well, Jonah."
 "Bye, Lord." The Presence departs, and textman is left numb
and staring at his screen-saver which displays the truth
according to the Church of Canada: 'No greater love exists
than she who lays down her body for her sisters.'
 "Oy vey!"
x

+
/ Topic >  Re: More Big Picture - 8 /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / 1April2002 /
/ Forum >  TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Religion /
.
>> tx previously wrote: <snip> 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!
.
> On 19Feb Atheist_Divine replied: Christianity has become
> apathetic, in the main. People who post on bulletin boards
> are not really representative. Most people are nominally
> members of a church - even I am, good old CofE - but don't
> actually attend except for weddings, funerals and baptisms.
> It seems a bit more vibrant in America though.
.
 I suppose so. There are still plenty of churches in the Yellow Pages.
.
>> <snip> 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.
.
> If the events are c50 and Luke wrote 70-90 at the most
> (which seems to be the general dating) then surely he would
> have had time to edit and form a coherent and free-flowing
> narrative? Especially as he seems to have been a well-
> educated man, unlike, say Mark.
.
 I already have any number of problems with this suggestion; although I agree that the author was well-read. While it seems that forty years is plenty of time to write even a big two-part book, this in itself does nothing by way of establishing the date. In fact, you are already pointed in the wrong direction because of your prior assumption that Lk-Acts was written as a more-or-less eyewitness account by someone called Luke. BUT the text itself does not support this pious, traditional, and o so comfortable mis-interpretation of the scriptures. Indeed the author does not identify himself, and the text plainly states (in the opening of Acts) that it's *not* an eyewitness account; that it IS based on a long and careful study of MANY texts (and these would include eg certain books by Josephus). This in itself rules out even the nineties as too early, as some of the nameless author's sources had yet to be written, or yet to arrive in Rome.
.
 You know what, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that our good Roman scholar-believer could not have accomplished his masterpiece alone. I'd say that he had considerable support from his local church, and from the Spirit as well. But there was no rush to get it all down quickly. There was also no real concern for historical accuracy either; the story is far more important than the facts. Most readers forget this little detail when reading Lk-Acts, and tend to treat it as history rather than historical fiction (which is an offense to their piety). Far better to remember that, for the author, the main thing was to get the big picture right (or rather, semi-right).
.
>> <snip> 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.
.
> Yes, these are the people who scream "scholarsh*t" at you
> when you mention scholars ... and who say that education =
> evil. The people behind Chick tracts seem to operate under
> such assumptions, in fact most KJVOs seem to.
.
 Scary stuff alright. But there have always been such people. They're timeless. Why just the other century they burned the library at Alexandria for the very same reason! But although scholarsh*t is important, the only *real* requirement for anyone seeking to study the sacred scriptures is an open mind and an open heart combined with an unshakable willingness to learn. Seek out strange new ideas, I say! The centuries-forged chains of pious traditions and fanciful legends bind the minds of post-modern believers as firmly now as ever they did before. Fogging the eyes and clouding the mind with carefully crafted illusions built upon lies and delusions of their own devising; these are the assumptions and preconceptions that most Christian readers bring to the text and place therein, thinking that the Word of God thinks just exactly as they do, when in fact they cannot read the text rationally at all (for want of the necessity to pay attention to the text itself)! Yet the most authentic and faithful traditions witnessed to in the Bible are those stemming from the forgotten and ignored (or grossly misunderstood and/or misconceived) heroes of Faith; faithful and committed *tradition breakers* ...
.
>> <snip> 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);
.
> Aren't there reams of literature going on and on about the
> medical knowledge displayed in Luke? Most of the gospels
> seem to have been given authorships based on Papias, but
> then he isn't the greatest of sources.
.
 You know what, AD? If you want to get *really* serious about bible-study, the best way to proceed is to discard ALL the secondary sources (including even the titles and canonical formats of the NT documents) as necessarily unreliable in assigning dates and authors to the various NT documents. Now this is hard to do, but it has the good effect of focusing attention on the evidence within the primary sources: only Lk-Acts can say who and when it was written (ie. any other source is already far removed from the answers). Once you get used to this, you will find that it's no big loss anyway, since the bulk of the early Christian (secondary) literature (eg. Eusebius) is composed of guesswork and sheer speculation (mostly unfounded).
.
>> <snip> Right. And I'm saying that this is *very*
>> impossible because it doesn't allow for enough time
>> for social, theological, and literary development.
.
> The trouble is, it is difficult to say that it is impossible
> for Luke to have written a relatively theologically
> sophisticated document that early on - or for any of the
> other writers - without knowing more about the author. He
> could have been exceptionally clever, had a touch of the
> mystic about him, all sorts of things which might make his
> work appear more sophisticated than otherwise.
.
 Yes, but you have to fully appreciate the way in which Lk-Acts came about. It did not just spring forth from one mind independently of the world around the author. Lk-Acts is everywhere tied to the world around it. There are links to the gospels of Mk, Mt, and John, links to Paul's epistles, links to the early Greek apologists. Even the two-part-history format is borrowed directly from Josephus. Thus while Lk-Acts is indeed a unique and timeless element in the scriptures, it is also very much influenced by the prior literary traditions. These traditions take time to appear and spread and become established. In order to correctly date Lk-Acts you have to fully understand *all* the streams and rivers that flow into it. If you can't place the book into its proper literary, theological, and historical context, then there's no real hope of ever determining the correct date, place, and author, let alone reading it well and wisely.
.
>> <snip> That's news to me. I won't ask what kind of evidence
>> leads to this conclusion, since I doubt there even is any
.
> Came out of my feminist theology class, which probably
> means there isn't any. They think logic/reason/proof are
> "male" and women/feminists should not use them!
.
 Ha! I've heard this idea too. But it sounds to me more
like an excuse for fuzzy thinking and sloppy methodology.
.
>> <snip> 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?
.
> In societies in the ancient world, had he wanted to retain
> power and be secure, he should have slaughtered them all.
.
 That's the spirit! :)
.
>> <snip> Archons, you say? Hmmm, I've never read that one.
>> Sounds rather too gnostic though. Doesn't mix well with a
>> more pragmatically oriented version of the Faith (ie. the
>> authentic prophetic-apostolic version as expressed in the NT).
.
> Very much a gnostic text. www.gnosis.org will probably have
> some of it online. I like the gnostics, you see. Yes, the
> gnostics weren't all that practical, but then, more
> mystically-orientated faiths generally aren't.
.
 Generally, yes. I think that the early Quakers might be a
good example of a mystical faith that is nevertheless quite
practical in its approach to daily life.
.
>> <snip> This is not so much 'reforming' as it is 'deforming'.
.
> Feminist theology, and queer theology, in their milder
> forms, are ok - but they move quickly into madness, and
> have become religions in their own right due to their being
> unfalsifiable. Liberation theology, on the other hand,
> seems to have its feet set more firmly on the ground. The
> idea of Jesus as a companero (sp) is interesting, and the
> fusion with socialism/marxist ideas has gone quite well.
> It's a rather more practical application of the faith in
> third world countries, and is certainly a lot better than
> the gospel of health and wealth which is presently being
> exported to those same countries.
.
 Thus the Faith appears to be inherently plastic as it is everywhere adapted where it is adopted. A lot of changes have come and gone in the last two thousand years. I guess a major concern today should be the question of authenticity: Given that our faith is unique to our age, and unlike that of previous generations, how can we still a maintain a vital contact with the faith of the earliest Christians without compromising the good things we have gained since?
.
>> <snip> No, as in 'Catholic'; as in: What do you call
>> the Sunday Eucharist? ... A gathering of Cats!
.
> Mostly called left-footers over here.
.
 Yeah? Why is that?
.
> When called anything at all. The catholics have a lot to
> offer in terms of the traditions and scholarship. Some of
> which you have quoted - like the excellent Thomas, for
> example. My favourite Biblical scholar was a catholic -
> Raymond E Brown - don't know whether you've heard of him?
.
 Oh of course I have. He was, and remains, a first class bible-
scholar. I even have a book or two of his around here somewhere.
.
>>> St Cuthbert, for example, was a rather strange man...
.
>> How so?
.
> He saw devils riding black goats around the island of
> Lindisfarne, and cast them out. He was also apparently
> extremely misogynistic and didn't wash much. (Which also
> seems to be a trait of mystics and the like). He's now
> famed for having a tomb which you're not supposed to
> open because he put a curse on it or something.
.
 Ha. I like him already. :) Course he wouldn't get away with
any of that today. These days the Cats would be the first to
toss him in a rubber room!
.
>> <snip> 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.
.
> I thought thats why the church disapproved of him
> originally? Because self-made eunuchs are not allowed
> to be priests?
.
 The bishop of Alexandria wouldn't allow him to be ordained
(because of his unorthodox teachings, I think), but another
bishop ordained him anyway. Needless to say, the first bishop
was right pissed about it when he found out, because you just
can't reverse an ordination, you know.
.
>> <snip> For example, his ideas on biblical hermeneutics
>> (which are surprisingly sophisticated) make a clear
>> distinction between the literal and the 'spiritual'
>> sense of the texts.
.
> I thought that was someone else? With the fourfold
> interpretation? Wasn't it Augustine, or Irenaeus or someone?
.
 The fourfold meaning of the texts was an idea that got to be
well traveled, but it was Origen who really developed these
ideas systematically and then applied them to scripture study.
.
>> <snip> 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!
.
> Its a logical enough idea.
.
 Oh sure. Unfortunately, we humans only have a few brief years
in which to decide upon these big-picture things; and, as you
well know, very few important decisions are actually made
logically. Man is not so much a rational animal as an irrational
animal. This is not because people lack the ability to act upon
rational thoughts, but rather they lack the will to do so. It's
very much easier to simply act from instinct and/or emotion.
.
>> <snip> 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
.
> Oblivion satisfies the requirements for
> justice and love combined,
.
 That's what I think too! :)
.
> but it is the idea of eternal torture which makes you look
> upon the Biblical god as a bit of a pervert, really.
.
 It was an idea more significant to ancient times and their
straight-forward approach to retributive-justice (ie. eye for
an eye stuff). We can afford to be more subtle and flexible today.
.
>> <snip> 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!
.
> A favourite arguments of the KJVOs, that we should not use
> the evil Alexandrian manuscripts because Origen was evil!
.
 All of which appears to be a part of a greater bias against
the church of Egypt, one that refuses to recognize the true
significance of the place as one of the four main traditions of
the early churches. Most histories of the early church give a
completely distorted vision of those days precisely because
of this colossal blind spot regarding Alexandria and the early
church of Egypt (the birth place of many NT documents).
.
>> <snip> Well, it's certainly NOT because they're
>> perfection personified!
.
> Deuteronomy 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to
> speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to
> speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even
> that prophet shall die.
.
> There are rather severe penalties in place for those
> prophets who are not perfect in some matters.
.
 Particularly in the matter of predicting future events, I
think. Of course, there are a great many false prophets today,
and not one of them is anxious about being smitten according
to the Law. Bronze Age categories and regulations no longer
apply, apparently.
.
>> <snip> 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, Dare-
>> Devil, 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.
.
> I wasn't allowed to read comics when I was a kid.
> I always wanted to read the Marvel comics,
.
 Always a good choice for true believers :)
.
> but my parents wouldn't let me in case I picked up Americanisms.
.
 Ha ha. Smart folks. They're probably right.
.
> Instead I read old stories from the 1930s boys magazines, and
> wound up completely ignorant of modern slang - I had to get
> someone to teach me it and it was an embarrassing experience!
.
 None of those old sci-fi pocket-books were available anywhere?
If it wasn't for those old Clark and Asimov novels I probably
would never have switched to books at all!
.
> I looked at your website, by the way. Interesting ...
> I see what you mean about strong language -- ~AD~
.
 I figure it's one of the best ways of distinguishing between true
and false prophets. If one speaks softly with great charm, and
takes care not to offend anyone, chances are that such a person
is NOT a true prophet; for the Lord cares more for truth than for
not bruising delicate sensibilities.
.
       - the only slightly less offensive one - textman ;>
x

End of Dialogue!

---

textman
*