+
+
/ Topic ->
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/1 / 16Nov2001 /
/ Forum: TheologyOnLine
- Philosophy & Theology /
.
> On 13Nov2001 Carl
Smuda wrote: Textman, you do the work, I'll listen.
.
textman replies:
Hi Carl; deal!
.
> Sounds like you're
involved in "lower criticism". <snip some>
.
Actually,
I dabble in most of the biblical sciences; although I still prefer the
supposed solid soundness (theoretically speaking, of course) of historical-criticism.
Textual criticism is tough going at times, I'll admit, but ya gotta love
it anyway ... :)
.
> So something was
added to the beginning of Peter's letters?
> <snip some>
.
Actually,
Peter didn't write any letters, or anything else for that matter (he was
illiterate), but yes, there were many additions made to the early NT documents.
Most of them date from the second and third centuries, before standardization
set in; and most of these encrustations are unfortunate and misleading
at best, and totally uninspired at worst.
.
> From Paul: Philemon,
Rom, Gal, 1&2Cor, Philippians, 1Thes
> Pauline School:
2Thess, Ephesians, Colossians, 1&2Timothy
> What do you make
of that? <snip some>
.
I tend to
agree with the bible-scholars here, with one significant exception. I'd
place 2Thes in the authentic category (where it rightly belongs). As I
understand it, most scholars consider 2Thes pauline because it contains
some non-Paul flavored theological and doctrinal elements. From this observation
the scribes automatically conclude that it must be a document from post-Paul
times (ie. after 70CE). Their reasoning fails to take into account the
collaborative nature of the earliest Christian epistles (ie. the original
four letters now edited into canonical 1&2Thessalonians) whereby the
non-Paul
flavor comes via the prophet Silvanus (who contributed as much as Paul
did to the creation of the Christian epistle as a vehicle for the Good
News).
.
For those
who may be interested in how the first Greek scriptures came about, there
is a detailed exposition available to the cyber-saints at the following
URL: http://cybrwurm.tripod.com/bs/thes/t-link.htm
.
> In fact, just
reading this section of this dictionary gives one
> the impression
that the way they treated the Apostolic writings
> is chaos compared
to the way the Hebrew scriptures were treated.
.
Well, I wouldn't
say 'chaos' is the right word exactly, but I would agree that the Jews
in general have a healthy respect for the scriptures that expresses itself
even in the way that they handle and transmit the sacred texts.
.
> High criticism
is the big questions. Low criticism is essential.
> German High criticism
is built on sand IF NOT for the hard work
> done by Low criticism.
.
It's true
that the more speculative branches of the biblical sciences depend on the
more rigorously scientific endeavors of textual-criticism and historical-criticism,
but even these supposedly more rational scribes and pharisees often ignore
or bypass sound methodological procedure in the interests of pious or theological
concerns. Faith is necessary to any proper study of the scriptures, to
be sure, but it should never be allowed to overrule any rational investigation
simply because we don't like the theological taste of its conclusions.
Truth is truth, and no truth (even a measly historical fact) can ultimately
be in conflict with the Logos of God.
.
> that must be true
cause I read it in a book. sincerely, Carl
.
Ha ha, very
funny there Carl. Actually, out of the mountains of secondary literature
relating to the scriptures, only a very small percentage is of exceptional
quality (and so well worth studying). The rest is just so much trash that
we would all be much better off without. Burn it all, I say! ...
:)
.
- the one who would save the good stuff first - textman ;>
.
P.S. There
are three religious truths:
1. Jews do not recognize
Jesus as the Messiah.
2. Protestants do
not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Faith.
3. Baptists do not
recognize each other at Hooters.
x
+
/ Topic -> Re: PoMo
Hermeneutics/3 /
/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy
& Theology / 23Nov2001 /
.
> On 21Nov01 Carl
Smuda wrote: charismental
> Textman, what does
our PoMo Hermeneutics think
> of the manifestations
of holy spirit? <snip some>
.
Hi Carl. Well, we're
not too crazy about "tongues" - chiefly
because it appears
to be inherently irrational - but we very
much approve and
support the other life-giving qualities
on your impressive
list. I especially like interpretation
(of scripture, not
tongues), discernment (of scripture,
not people), word-of-knowledge,
word-of-wisdom, and (of
course) prophecy;
but then I'm biased that way - being
an exegete and cyber-prophet,
and what all :)
.
> The only thing
that looks sure to me is the churches
> utter inability
to articulate their functions with
> specific application
today.
.
Ha! The only thing
that looks sure to me is that the
churches remain as
convinced as they ever were that
they can get along
just fine without recourse to the
ministry of the prophets
thank you very much indeed. I
can understand their
reluctance to admit the reality and
necessity of the
prophets (for these slaves of Christ
are a threat to their
well-established authority over the
faithful), but (to
my mind) denying the prophets (past or
present) is functionally
equivalent to an outright denial
of the ongoing ministry
of the Holy Spirit. Remember that
the Encourager was
promised to us (as believers) in part
to lead us into *ALL*
truth. But what kind of "truth" is
being served up to
the People of God every week during
"worship services",
eh? Certainly nothing offensive to
the delicate ears
of the average Christian! Introduce a
prophet (whose job
it is, in part, to offend) among the
post-modern churches,
and outrage and scandal are
sure to follow.
.
> I am a thinking
charismatic, which, in my experience,
> seems to be an
oxymoron to mainstream Christianity.
> sincerely, Carl
.
I tend to agree.
It's unfortunate that so many believers
who love the Faith
and the scriptures are so resistant to
study, criticism,
and analysis of same. It's like if you give
an inch, they'll
take a mile. If 1&2Peter weren't written
(or 'talked', as
the current trend has it (thus conveniently
disposing of the
bothersome illiteracy problem)) by the
Apostle Simon Peter
himself in person, *then* we just have
to TOSS the entire
Bible as fundamentally untrustworthy yet!
.
I don't agree with
such "reasoning", of course. I think that
the Faith and the
Word of God are essentially (ie. spiritually)
solid and sound;
and despite all errors and imperfections
can take all the
analysis and criticism we can dish out
.
... and then some!
.
- one who teaches
the impassible imperfection of
- the sacred and
inspired scriptures - textman ;>
.
P.S. If Fed Ex and
UPS were to merge,
would they call it
Fed UP?
x
+
/ Topic ->
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/3 /
/ Forum: TOL
- Philosophy & Theology / 29Nov2001 /
.
> On 26Nov01
Carl Smuda wrote: <snipabit> I enjoyed
> reading Enoch
this weekend and some of "Adam & Eve"
> from "the
LOST books". they are pseudepigraphic, yes?
.
textman
answers: Oh yes, and sometimes it's easy to
see why these
secondary scriptures were once considered
sacred texts.
Some of that literature is quite good,
and much can
be learned from reading them. Enoch is
especially relevant
for those interested in the
contemporary
sources of early Christian thought.
.
> <snipabit>
Their prophet DID predict a war eight
> months before
Saddam invaded Kuwait. I found
> that to be
impressive. -- shalom, Carl
.
Not me.
Predicting a war is sortta like predicting that your
teeth will fall
out one day. Difficult to avoid, given enough
time, if you
know what I mean. As for myself, I'm not much
into fortune-telling
and sooth-saying. That sort of thing
really has very
little to do with true Christian prophecy
(ie. as it was
practiced by the prophet-writers of the NT).
Anyway, I find
all the melodrama we need in the Word of
God, and in
the interpretation thereof ... :)
.
- just
another one surviving the end-times - textman ;>
.
P.S. Here's
another little blast from the past that has
somehow managed
to survive the forgetful centuries:
.
"God has granted
two ways to the sons of men, two mind-
sets, two lines
of action, two models, and two goals.
Accordingly,
everything is in pairs, the one over against
the other. The
two ways are good and evil; concerning
them are two
dispositions within our breasts that choose
between them.
If the soul wants to follow the good way,
all of its deeds
are done in righteousness and every sin
is immediately
repented. Contemplating just deeds and
rejecting wickedness,
the soul overcomes evil and uproots
sin. But if
the mind is disposed toward evil, all of its deeds
are wicked;
driving out the good, it accepts the evil and
is overmastered
by Beliar, who, even when good is under-
taken, presses
the struggle so as to make the aim of his
action into
evil, since the devil's storehouse is filled
with the venom
of the evil spirit." [From 'The Testament
of Asher, the
tenth son of Jacob and Zilpah.']
x
+
> On 3Dec01 Carl Smuda wrote:
Textman,
> You're doing a fine job
of deconstructing.
.
textman answers: Hi
Carl. Thx 4 sayso ... :)
.
> Do you offer anything
for reconstructing?
.
Well, could be.
.
> A lot of what you're saying
is probably more true
> than I'd like to admit,
but what's the solution?
.
Well, I'd maybe say: 'Pay
attention to the cyber-prophet!'
.
> I mean step-by-step plan
of attack? - sincerely, Carl
.
A good start might
be to stay tuned for the next
installment of PoMo Hermeneutics.
.
- one who looks ahead - textman ;>
.
P.S. Don't do today
what you can put off till tomorrow.
x
+
> On 9Dec geoff
wrote: textman, aka tondaar...
.
textman answers:
Oy Vey!
.
> heretic of the
highest order:
.
Oh well, I've
been called worse than that. Much worse
even. But you are
at least technically correct in that I
do maintain beliefs
and opinions that are very contrary
to the established
religious orthodoxy.
.
On the other
hand, so did our Lord.
.
> Here is textman's
statement of faith,
> before you all
get too carried away:
.
>> This web site
is brought to you by the grace of our
>> Lord, and the
providence of the Father of Lights, and
>> Theophilus Productions
Ltd. The goal of this cyber-
>> church is to
increase love and respect for the Word
>> of God among
all the Lord's cyber-saints by providing
>> articles and
discussions on the NT prophets Jacob and
>> Judas, and their
wonderful - and (alas) all-too-
>> neglected - New
Testament books. ... Nor should
>> anyone misunderstand
the purpose of this online
>> ministry: "For
our wrestling is not against flesh and
>> blood, but rather
against the rulers, authorities, and
>> powers of this
World of Darkness; and against all the
>> spiritual forces
of evil in the heavens." [Ephesians
>> 6:12 / Inclusive
Edited Version].
.
Our readers
may be curious to know that the above
quote is NOT my
statement of faith, but rather is my
mission statement
(as it clearly states on the web-page
in question). For
those who may be interested, I do
have a statement
of faith. Here it is:
.
"I can pray
this because his divine power has bestowed
on us everything
necessary for life and godliness through
the rich knowledge
of the one who called us by his own
glory and excellence.
Through these things he has
bestowed on us his
precious and most magnificent
promises, so that
by means of what was promised you
may become partakers
of the divine nature, after
escaping the worldly
corruption that is produced by evil
desire. For this
very reason, make every effort to add
to your faith excellence,
to excellence, knowledge; to
knowledge, self-control;
to self-control, perseverance;
to perseverance,
godliness; to godliness, brotherly
affection; to brotherly
affection, unselfish love. For
if these things
are really yours and are continually
increasing, they
will keep you from becoming ineffective
and unproductive
in your pursuit of knowing our Lord
Jesus Christ more
intimately." -- 2Peter 1:3-8/NETbible
.
> from his webpage:
> http://cybrwurm.tripod.com/title2.htm
>> quote: Welcome
to the
.
I like to
welcome web-surfers. Common courtesy.
.
>> First CyberChurch
of Jacob & Judas
.
That's the
name of my web-site devoted to the authors
of the NT epistles
'James' and 'Jude'; and which, btw, is
now undergoing a
major revision (chiefly by removing a
lot of articles
that have no bearing on bible-study).
Completion of this
project is still a long way off ... alas.
.
> Say no more.
.
I'm afraid
that more needs to be said . . .
.
> It is easier to
fight for one's principles than to live
> up to them. --
Alfred Adler
.
I tend to
agree with this observation; even though it
is made by a pagan
philosopher :)
.
> Any intelligent
fool can make things bigger, more
> complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius
> - and a lot of
courage - to move in the opposite
> direction.
-- E. F. Schumacher
.
It takes courage
to simplify things? I think maybe not.
Maybe all it takes
is blindness and a determination not
to let complexity
open our narrow and impoverished
minds?
.
A
simple heart is a good thing. A simple mind is not.
(cf. 1Cor.14:20)
.
- the almost simple-minded one - textmann ;>
x
textman
*