*

+
      On Faith & Philosophy Joined at the Hip
.
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#11] / 22Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup >  soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
 "For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he
deceives himself. Let each one examine his own work. Then he
can take pride in himself and not compare himself with some-
one else. For each one will carry his own load. Now the one
who receives instruction in the word must share all good
things with the one who teaches it." -- Gal.6:3-6/NETbible
.
>> textman previously say: More Anti-Prophetic Ranting <snip>
.
> On Feb21 Bart Goddard ([email protected]) didst write:
> I'll say.
.
 wut? . . .  I don't mean from me, silly.
.
>>>> ICL: Jesus says in Matt 22:32 "I am the God of
>>>> Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"
.
>> Whatever. At this point in the discourse Jesus is just
>> quoting from the scriptures. As was his habit and custom
>> and intention.
.
> Not quite. He is, in fact, quoting from Scripture, but He's
> not "just" doing that. Just think for a minute. What does
> this quote from Scripture have to do with the context from
> which, you complain, it was ripped?
.
 textman sayeth: Hi Bart. Darn good question there.
.
> Namely, the question of whether the resurrection will
> happen? This is the phrase God uses when He's physically
> _present_, e.g., burning bush in Exodus 3:6. So when Jesus
> uses it here, it's certainly not as a "proof text" (because
> it makes no sense that way) of the resurrection, but as an
> authority text.
.
 I'm with you so far.
.
> He is, in fact, saying, God is present, here, today,
> burning-bush fashion, in My person, and the resurrection
> will, indeed happen because of Me.
.
 I don't believe your interpretation is quite valid here,
friend Bart. Let us now try and follow this line of reasoning
that attempts to mix John's theology with Matthew's as if no
distinctions were necessary. Let us begin here:
.
  God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM" [Related to the name of
God, YHWH, rendered LORD, which is derived from the verb
HAYAH, 'to be']; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons
of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" -- Exodus 3:14/NASB
.
 Now when Jesus says "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham was born, I am" (Jn8:58/NASB) it is easy to conclude
that John is identifying Jesus with YHWH, the Living God. In
other words, the Logos and the God of the OT are one and the
same divine being now manifesting in this human person, this
Jesus of Nazareth! All of this is perfectly acceptable, but
when we apply this Johannine insight to the text of Matthew's
Gospel strange things begin to happen:
.
 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not
read the thing spoken to you by the God saying, 'I am the
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
The God is not of the dead ones, but of the living ones."
-- Matthew 22:31-32 / Prophet Version
.
 If the 'I am' is here taken as a self-reference then it seems
that Jesus is really talking about himself when he refers to
'the God'. But is Jesus really claiming to be the Living God?
Is it not more likely that when Jesus refers to 'the God' he
is referring to his Father and ours? Is not Jesus more likely
to emphasize God's unique status not just with a consistent,
exclusive, and unconfused usage of the term 'God', but also
with an exclusive usage for the term 'father'?
.
 "And call no one your 'father' on earth, for you have one
Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,'
for you have one teacher, the Anointed One." -- Mt23:9-10 /PV
.
 Far from claiming to be God, Matthew's Jesus defines himself
as the promised Messiah, which he understands as consisting
chiefly of the role of teacher! And this outrageous idea IS in
harmony with John's Jesus, as 4X in his reply to Pilate: Then
Pilate said, "So you are a king!" Jesus replied, "You say that
I am a king. I have been born and have come into the world for
this reason: to testify to the truth." -- John 18:37/NETbible
.
> You're the one complaining of context. Keep looking at the
> context. Jesus continues to hammer home the issue. The next
> challenge is the Pharisees, and Jesus takes on the very 10
> Commandments. Who would dare?
.
 Only a true prophet of God.
.
> Finally, Jesus puts the question directly to the Disciples:
> What do you make of Me? Specifically: "How can I be David's
> son and yet David's Lord?"
.
 Actually, Jesus puts this poser to the Pharisees:
.
 While the Pharisees were assembled Jesus asked them a
question: "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is
he?" They said, "The son of David." He said to them, "How then
does David by the Spirit call him 'Lord,' saying, 'The Lord
said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand, until I put your
enemies under your feet"'? If then David calls him 'Lord,' how
can he be his son?" No one was able to answer him a word, and
from that day on no one dared to question him any longer.
-- Matthew 22:41-46 / NETbible
.
> Game, set and match. He was telling them Who He is.
> Not only did He say so plainly,
.
 Or rather not so plainly.
.
> but He showed them from their own thought processes that
> it must be so.
.
 He showed them that the Messiah is David's Lord, who is
with, but distinct from, the Lord-God.
.
>> <snip> Well now I don't normally go around
>> accusing people of 'deceitful handling' <snip>
.
> But you caved in to temptation in this case?
.
 Not at all. 
.
>>>> <snip> John called Him God.
.
>> No, actually the modern English translations call him
>> God. But the Greek of John's autograph undoubtedly read:
>> "... and divine was the Logos" (John 1:1).
.
> Um ... "divine" means "God".
.
 Not exactly. Which is to say that the correspondence is not
as absolute and straightforward as you suggest. 'divine' is
closer to 'god-like' than to 'only-pure-god'. Thus something
or someone can be divine, or have divine qualities and/or
attributes, without necessarily being confused with God. It's
a subtle distinction, I'll grant you, but a necessary one if
we wish to avoid slipping into unnecessary idolatry.
.
> The deconstruction of language might salve your conscience,
> but it doesn't change the truth. Listen to what God says,
.
 I'm listening ... "The autonomous truth of Spirit must be
arrived at by passing through the historical forms in which
it appears" (from 'Modern German Philosophy' by Rudiger
Bubner, Cambridge, 1981, p.159; on Hegel).
.
> don't try to cram the universe into your own worldview.
.
 I'm not really trying to cram the whole universe into my
(necessarily limited) field of vision, only the New Testament.
That is, to clarify somewhat the interactions of thought and
history in the New Testament period (c.50-150CE).
.
>> <snip> What happened here is not too difficult to discern.
>> During the process of transmission some over-eager scribe
>> added a few choice words in order to liven things up a bit.
.
> So now you're basing your doctrine on a wild _guess_ about
> what might have happened. A guess based solely upon the
> presuppose "rightness" of the doctrine that you already
> hold. There is no credibility in that.
.
 Certainly not. Fortunately, you are wrong to dismiss this
"historical probability" by calling it a wild guess. There is
nothing at all "wild" about it, since identifying additions
and changes to the texts in just this way is a long accepted
procedure among the biblical sciences ... Provided, that is,
that the method is true to the texts, and NOT to some external
theological imperatives.
.
 If I'm reading you right, you're saying that the phrase "God
over all" is authentically pauline, and was there from the
beginning? Seems to me that this *guess* is even wilder than
mine! Ancient history is at times a game of probabilities, and
what makes for a good historian is a right-minded person who
can weigh the conflicting possibilities with some reasonable
measure of correspondence to actual historical events,
persons, and/or processes and developments.
.
 Yet you judge what is or is not true or possible on the basis
of preconceived notions and doctrines, do you not? Is that not
*how* you derived the judgment that my textual analysis is
nothing more than "a wild _guess_ about what might have
happened"? ... Be honest now.
.
> At least before you were looking at Scripture itself.
.
 "Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!
You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the
righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our
forefathers, we would not have participated with them in
shedding the blood of the prophets.' By saying this you testify
against yourselves that you are descendants of those who
murdered the prophets. Fill up then the measure of your fore-
fathers! You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you
escape being condemned to hell? For this reason I am sending
you prophets ..." -- Matthew 23:29-34 / NETbible
.
>> <snip> I'll stack up my love for the Word against anyone's
>> for comparison, anywhere, anytime. I ain't scared.
.
> Then why do you deconstruct it's language
.
 I don't "deconstruct its language". Rather, I analyze and
clarify and explain and so on and so forth. It's all one big
happy package. The cyber-prophet's first duty is to show forth
the written Word as it truly is. Thus I dissect and examine
and analyze and interpret and expound and etc. What I don't
do is force the facts into some predetermined mold that
already has all the answers and all the angles covered.
That's what the scribes and pharisees love to do!
.
> and throw out the parts of Paul you don't like?
.
 I throw out the parts that are not authentic so that we can
better appreciate the true nature of Paul's genuine teachings.
The need for this kind of labor is by no means at an end, Bart.
By no means! Respect for the sacred texts cannot be gained by
pretending that some late addition is actually original and
therefore just as inspired (when, in fact, it is not).
.
> You just lost the comparison test.
.
 Yours is not an entirely fair comparison maybe. Check the
above epistle carefully, and see for yourself who is handling
and treating the written Word of God with something less than
the utmost care and attention. This should give a clue or two.
.
> Maybe you should have been scared. -- Bart
.
 O' I yam I yam ... 
.
 Fear is the normal condition for a great many people. And
fear can sometimes make people do the strangest of things. So
instead of just talking about the weather, ask your friends
instead what they fear. I fear a great many things too, but
none too much (I hope). And the truth of things not at all!
.
    - the almost moderately fearful one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "A wise man will hear and increase in learning,
 And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,
To understand a proverb and a figure,
 The words of the wise and their riddles.
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
 Fools despise wisdom and instruction." -- Prov 1:5-7/NASB
.
P.S.S. Hey! This is a real live actual word:
'presuppositionlessness'. Yes; I saw it in a book! 
x

+
       On Being More or Less
.
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT [#12] / 24Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup >  soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>> MJ sayeth: Christ is shown here as Lord of the Law and
>>> the Prophets, and Lord of both the living and the dead.
.
>> tx objects: No. It shows him as the *living* embodiment
>> of a *living* prophetic tradition!
.
> On Feb5 Matthew asketh: And how do you get _that_ out
> of the passage?
.
 textman answers: The Messiah (aka Jesus Christ) represents
the fulfillment of Israel's prophetic traditions. Thus the
pericope begins with Jesus making a prophecy: "I tell you the
truth, there are some standing here who will not taste death
until they see the kingdom of God come with power" (Mk.9:1).
This prophecy is fulfilled in the Transfiguration episode,
and likewise tells us what it means: the Transfiguration
is a powerful manifestation of the kingdom of God.
.
 Now this prophetic power of the kingdom *continues* within
the churches inasmuch as they "Listen to him!" (9:7) In other
words, the Spirit of the Lord manifests and empowers the
living prophetic traditions insofar as they attend to
the Word. The spirit of prophecy and the light of the
Transfiguration are one and the same, just as the universal
Logos and the spirit of truth are one:
.
 "I have been born and have come into the world for this
reason: to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to
the truth listens to my voice" (Jn.18:37).
.
 "I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming (and is now
here) when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God,
and those who hear will live" (Jn.5:25).
.
>> That is how the early churches saw Jesus AND themselves.
.
> Really? Do you have _any_ Patristic citations to back this
> up, or do you rely solely on the misguided speculations of
> outsiders concerning the early history? For that matter,
> even if I were to concede your claim (which I could do only
> if you modified it somewhat), what evidence do you have
> that the early churches read _this_ passage as confirming
> that claim?
.
 "For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when
that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This
is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted." When this voice was
conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with
him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic
word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay
attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky
place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your
hearts" (Second Peter 1:17-19 / NETbible).
.
>> And yet the scribes and pharisees are always out to kill
>> both. As friend Matthew here just demonstrated. Prophets
>> dead. Dead prophets. I hear you. All the prophets are all
>> dead dead dead  . . .  right
.
> No, you do not hear me. On the contrary: what you just
> demonstrated here is your incredibly poor reading skills. I
> did _not_ say 'dead prophets', I did _not_ say 'prophets
> dead'. On the contrary: I pointed out that Elijah _never_
> died. It was _Moses_ who died; yet here Moses is considered
> not as a prophet, but as the Lawgiver.
.
 And on what line of reasoning do you base this conclusion?
Are you saying that the fact that Moses is "the prophet" is
irrelevant? Where in the text does it suggest that Moses
should here be considered as the Lawgiver?
.
> So since you have misread my post so badly, I am not amazed
> that you show similarly poor reading skills when reading the
> Gospel. But I would be surprised if you expect anyone to
> take you seriously after such a gaffe.
.
 Well Matthew, you may throw your whole bag of gaffes at me,
if you think it'll help, but it'll take a lot more than that
to put even a second-rate prophet out of commission!
.
>>>> tx: But your view explains nothing at all!
 .
>>> On the contrary: my view is the _only_ one that properly
>>> takes into account the appearance of Moses and Elijah. For
>>> who else could be Lord of both the Law and the Prophets,
>>> and even of the Living and the Dead, if not the Lord God?
.
>> I see. So the fact that Jesus made a prophecy, and then
>> fulfilled it six days later ...
.
> You say that as if it discredited Christ's prophetic powers.
> But the alternative you would force on us is the one that
> does _real_ discredit to His prophecy.
.
 No, actually I'm trying to take the concept of Messiah
seriously under the category of prophecy, whereas the notion
that JC is God-the-Son makes a mockery of the idea that Jesus
is a prophet and/or the Messiah.
.
>> "And he said to them, 'Truly I say to you, there are some
>> standing here who will not taste death until they see the
>> kingdom of God come with power.' And after six days Jesus
>> took Peter, James, and John with him, and led them privately
>> up a high mountain. And when they were alone He was
>> transfigured before them" (Mark 9:1-2/PV) [Please note that
>> the Greek-text wants to make it very clear that NO other
>> prominent church leaders/pillars (including especially that
>> recently deceased (at the time when Mark and Peter wrote
>> all this), but still very active, Paulos) were present for
>> this particular occasion (which occurred "up above us")!]
.
> Uninspired and incompetent eisegesis.
.
 thx, Matthew. You're much too kind. 
.
> Of _course_ Paul was not present. Since He was still a Jew
> at the time of the Transfiguration; it required no special
> effort on the author's part to show _this_.
.
 So you're saying that the 'fact of Paul' has no bearing
whatsoever upon how we should read this passage? Boy, I
pity those who must learn church history from your sort!
.
>> ... means nothing?
.
> What 'means nothing'?
.
 That the pericope is a prophecy story means nothing. Which
apparently is the case since you deny that it is a prophecy
story in the first place!
.
>> Means that Jesus is not a prophet?
.
> I certainly did not say he was not a prophet.
> He was that and _much_ more.
.
 Listen to this carefully folks: Jesus was a prophet. And Jesus
was God. Jesus was a prophet *and* that prophet's God at one
and the same time! What could possibly be more absurd than
this? Is it not apparent that being a prophet means that one
is NOT God. One cannot be a god and that god's prophet both.
Being "the God" logically disallows the possibly of being a
prophet, since only real, actual, mortal men can be prophets.
Either Jesus was a prophet OR he was God. Both he cannot be!
.
>> But is far superior to all prophets,
.
> Well, that He was ...
.
 I agree. Where we differ is that I say it was a matter of
degree, whereas you say it is a matter of JC being God.
Superior in both cases, yes, but what a difference between my
view and yours! My Jesus is prophet and messiah, whereas your
Jesus is God, and therefore *cannot* be prophet or messiah!
.
>> and is therefore utterly divorced from the prophetic
>> traditions
.
> Nonsense. How could He be 'utterly divorced' from them when
> He _is_ what they prophesied?
.
 That's not nearly good enough, sir.
.
>> (new and old) by virtue of the fact that Jesus is not
>> "really" the anointed one, but *is* the Lord God? And you
>> say that this is the only *valid* reading of the text?
>> grrrrrr
.
> Yet again you misread my words badly. So you have only
> yourself to blame for your inappropriate anger, even more
> inappropriately expressed by your childish expression,
> 'grrrr'.
.
 It's NOT a "childish" expression, sir; it's a *canine*
expression! Please note the difference for future reference.
.
>>> For that matter, there are several other important themes
>>> of Mt17:1-13 that your view cannot explain, but mine does.
>>> Why, for example, is Peter rebuked for suggesting three
>>> tents?
.
>> Cause one tent would be more appropriate. Solidarity; see?
.
> Now _that_ is an unconvincing explanation. After all, after
> the Father said "hear Him", Christ said _nothing_ about
> building _any_ tents. But if, as you claim, the whole point
> was to show solidarity, then He would have had to say "Not
> three tents, but one".
.
 Nonsense. The Lord's non-response is, of course, the most
appropriate one, since Peter obviously misses the point (ie.
that tents are not required). The next best would be to tell
Peter to stop being such a dummy and get with the program. 
.
> So no, your alternative is not more appropriate. Not at all.
.
 Sure it is. You just gotta give it a chance to sink in a bit.
.
>>> Can it be just because Jesus is greater than any prophet?
>>> No. For that fails to account for the words the Father
>>> chose to rebuke Peter: He did _not_ say, "listen to Me",
>>> He said "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well-
>>> pleased; hear *Him*". The Father has given _all_
>>> authority to the Son, because there is no 'Son' with whom
>>> He is 'well-pleased' other than the Son who is the only
>>> begotten, consubstantial to the Father.
.
>> If you remove the absurd and unbiblical word
>> 'consubstantial' from all this reasoning, then you just
>> *might* have the beginnings of a coherent position. :)
.
> 'Pericope' is not at all biblical either, especially in the
> sense you must have in mind. Yet that didn't stop you from
> using it. So why am I suddenly the guilty one for using the
> word 'consubstantial'?
.
 Because a 'pericope' actually refers to something that exists
within the world, while a 'consubstantial' refers to nothing
that actually exists within the world. Big difference there,
I'd say. 
.
> Do I detect a double standard here? No, it is not the word
> 'consubstantial' that is absurd here. It is your failure
> to grapple with the _whole_ passage, preferring to force a
> modernist interpretation on it and on early church history.
> That is what is _truly_ absurd.
.
 Actually, it's more like a post-modernist approach to early
church history than a so-called modernist interpretation, but
that's a minor distinction. In either case, you seem to be
equating advances in rationality with absurdity. It doesn't
work that way, Matthew. Rather, rational procedures show that
clinging to the traditional (ie. uninspired and incompetent)
eisegesis based on obsolete ways of thinking and speaking is
what constitutes the essence of absurdity.
.
>>> Nor is this the only theme your reading neglects: where,
>>> for example, is your understanding of how Mt 17:1-13 shows
>>> Jesus Christ as fully human as well, revealing that human
>>> nature _is_ capable of being transfigured with this
>>> special light?
.
>> Cause I make that assumption *all* the time, Matthew! 
.
> All you achieve with _that_ answer is to lead me to doubt
> that you know what 'special light' Christ really showed us
> on Tabor.
.
 Well that's the thing, MJ. Our conflicting views on the nature
and significance of this "special light" are certainly very
different. I suspect that your views go back to St Simeon,
the New Theologian, and the whole Byzantine theology-of-light
thing. It's rather odd how much ideology revolves around this
theme, especially in light of the fact that this pericope
doesn't even mention the word 'light'! All the text says
is that "his clothes became radiantly white, more than any
launderer in the world could bleach them" (Mk9:3).
.
 Strictly speaking, then, this 'Tabor light' is purely an
assumption on the part of the scribes and pharisees. None of
this light-theology is actually demanded by the text. All we
are required to do here is to understand the Lord's 'radiantly
white clothes' to a be a symbol, a visible sign, of an inner
spiritual event or reality. Thus Matthew and the Orthodox
traditions are not really plugged into the spirit of the text,
whereas my view that the light represents the universal inner
logos-spark is, at least, consistent with a more Johannine
perspective. I leave it to the reader to decide which approach
is more authentically biblical ... ???
.
> After all, what has _your_ assumption got to do with the
> passage? Perhaps it wasn't written for people who shared
> your assumption. Did you ever consider that?
.
 Sure. That's why it's so important for Christians to under-
stand the profoundly prophetic nature of the Word. Only by
seeing the NT from a more prophet-centered perspective can we
overcome the endless obscurities of the scribes and pharisees,
and so begin to share the assumptions of those believers for
whom the Gospel was written (ie. original intended audience).
.
 [snipsome]
.
>>> MJ: Now how could anyone be well-advised, if he does not
>>> harken to the wise theology of the Ecumenical Councils?
.
>> tx: Gatherings of scribes and pharisees can only generate
>> worldly wisdom, and
.
> MJ: Red herring. The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils
> were nothing at all like 'scribes and pharisees'.
.
 tx: Actually, they were (and their very non-post-modern
descendents remain) almost exactly like that. 
.
>> the sort of theology that proceeds from pride and vanity.
.
> Well, if it really was from 'pride and vanity', I am sure
> you would know it much better. After all, you have clearly
> demonstrated how much pride and vanity interest you by your
> scoffing in these posts, and by your delighting in what
> should shame you.
.
 I'm sure I have no idea what you're referring to! 
.
>> It was not these "wise and powerful" scribes and pharisees
>> that began the science of biblical study and criticism. It
>> was the efforts of prophets and teachers like Clement and
>> Origen;
.
> Actually, no. Biblical textual criticism began with the
> Scribes and Pharisees, who came up with a list of (often
> tendentious) corrections for scribal errors (tikkune
> sopherim) in the Massoretic. Coincidence?
.
 I guess not, since it is mostly scribes and pharisees (of
the Christian variety) who now practice the various arts of
biblical textual criticism. Yes, it has always been this way,
alas. They ruin the field for genuine truth-seekers, and
make substantive progress all but impossible owing to the
inordinate difficulty of introducing any new idea into an
already long-fixed and long-perfect system! 
.
 [snip remainder]
.
      - the inordinately difficult one - textman ;>
.
> Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html
> for sound interpretation of Scripture.
.
 Visit http://cybrwurm.tripod.com/ebs/mark/mark1.htm
for even *sounder* interpretation of Scripture.
x

Goto GodTalk #13

textman
*