*
+
An Historical Dog-Fight
.
/ Subject >
Re: God talking in NT [#13] / 25Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup
> soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>>> tx previously wrote:
That Jesus IS God?
.
>>> Matthew answered:
He is.
.
>>>> Well, silly believers
think that the NT teaches this,
.
>>> No, it is not 'silly
believers'. Rather, those who under-
>>> stand the many modes
of symbolic expression of Scripture,
>>> these are the ones
who realize that the NT teaches that
>>> Christ is consubstantial
to the Father. We also realize
>>> He is consubstantial
with us,
.
>> textman replies: There's
that gross, awful, and
>> highly *unbiblical*
word again!
.
> On Feb6 Matthew Johnson
<[email protected]>
> say: There's that gross,
awful, and silly _complaint_ again.
> There is no biblical
justification for insisting on using
> only biblical words
to discuss the Bible. So you have no
> grounds for complaint.
Not that I expect that will keep
> you from venting your
peevishness. [snip]
.
tx: Well I don't
know about venting, but I can complain on
the grounds that the
use of the term 'consubstantial' doesn't
really improve our understanding
of scripture in any truly
significant way. I can
also complain on the grounds that the
word/concept has long
since been discredited philosophically;
since the use of it more
or less commits everyone to remain
within the archaic boundaries
of Aristotelian thinking and
categories. I can also
complain on the grounds that this word
'consubstantial' is a
thoroughly *artificial* word that is
never used in the post-modern
world; except by conservative
minds locked into ancient
and obsolete patterns of thought.
Now don't get me wrong
here; I don't mind using old ideas, as
long as they are sensible
and productive. But this word does
NOT fall into *that*
category. Hence let us by all means
discard it at once!
.
>> So we have here an
early 4C emperor-begotten creed
.
> How long will you persist
in posting lies?
.
Kind of a loaded
question here, folks. Rather difficult to
answer, since my e-ministry
does not consist of posting lies.
.
> How long will you persist
in spreading a counterfeit
> version of the history
of Christianity?
.
You mean a version
of the history of the Faith that respects
the sacred texts *and*
reality *and* history *and* the truth
of things? As opposed
to the highly popular version from the
scribes and pharisees,
which respects *none* of those things?
How long, you ask? ...
As long as it takes for believers to
wake up and smell the
god-awful stench that emanates from
the common view of NT-history,
bud!
.
> The Nicene Creed was
NOT an 'emperor-begotten creed'.
> Why, with that ridiculous
claim you have made clear for
> all to see that you
know NOTHING about the history of
> fourth-century Christianity.
.
You make this rather
sweeping judgment on the basis of one
small epistle? Isn't
that somewhat premature? Slightly? Maybe?
.
> If anyone 'begot' the
Nicene Creed, it would have to be
> Eusebius of Caesarea,
who used a very similar creed in his
> diocese. Then again,
St. Cyril of Jerusalem used _another_
> very similar creed.
So it is hard to say who 'begot' it;
> but it certainly was
_not_ the Emperor. [snip]
.
Say, is this the
same Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (c.260+),
the "moderately capable"
historian, who wrote that impressive
and influential book
commonly called 'The History of the
Church', wherein he sayeth
thus about Emperor Constantine:
.
"But perhaps there
is one other for whom, alone among equals,
it is possible to take
the second place after Him [ie. JC]. I
mean the commander at
the head of this army, whom the first and
great High Priest Himself
has honored with second place in the
priestly offices here
performed, the shepherd of your spiritual
flock, who by the allotment
and judgment of the Father was set
over your people, as
if He had Himself appointed him His votary
and interpreter, the
new Aaron or Melchizedek, made like the
Son of God ... This one
[ie. Constantine] looks to the First
[ie. JC] as to a teacher,
with the pure eyes of the mind, and
whatever he sees Him
doing, that he takes as an archetype and
pattern, and like an
artist he has molded its image, to the
best of his ability,
into the closest likeness ... In the same
way this man, having
the whole Christ, the Word, the Wisdom,
the Light, impressed
upon his soul ... [ETC!]" -- from 'The
History of the Church
from Christ to Constantine' by Eusebius;
Book Ten, 'Peace and
Recovery of the Church: Victory of
Constantine'; Chapter
Four, 'Festival Oration On The Building
of the Churches, Addressed
to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre';
Penguin Edition, 1965,
page 388-9.
.
So I didn't mean
to give the impression that Constantine
*himself* wrote the creed,
but only that that the Big-Man was
the prime mover - with
an assist from Providence, no doubt -
behind the events, peoples,
and conditions leading up to the
creation and proclamation
of the creed in question. I dare say
that even Matthew here
would not want to deny that the new
Christian Emperor had
a *profound* influence upon the mind and
person of our good bishop
Eusebius. However, since the Reader
may not yet appreciate
the Big-Man's *indirect* influence upon
the promulgation and
adoption of the creed, let us turn now
to a few choice words
of Constantine's (from the same source,
pages 404-5) to get a
better view of the royal mindset:
.
"Constantinus Augustus
to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome, and
Mark ... I feel it to
be a very serious matter that in those
provinces which divine
providence has freely entrusted to My
Dedicatedness, and where
the population is very large, the
general public should
be found persisting in the wrong course,
as if it were splitting
in two, and the bishops divided among
themselves ... for, as
Your Diligence is well aware, such is
the regard I pay to the
lawful Catholic Church that I desire
you to leave no schism
or division of any kind anywhere."
.
A rather tall order
there, I'd say. No schism or division *of
any kind* anywhere? I
doubt that this "king of kings" would
be much impressed with
the current confused condition of this
once-his Christendom!
But anyway, his letter to Chrestus,
the bishop of Syracuse,
is even more revealing: "when on
an earlier occasion base
and perverted motives led certain
persons to begin creating
divisions regarding the worship
of the holy and heavenly
Power and the Catholic Religion, I
determined to cut short
such quarrels among them" (p.405)
.
>> Yet the phrase 'god
the son' never made it into the
>> earliest creeds! Interesting
historical datum, yes?
.
> Interesting, yes. But
not very. And _certainly_ not
> for your fanciful reason.
.
It is typical of
the self-serving methodologies of the scribes
and pharisees that they
should dismiss relevant facts and
objective historical
and/or literary evidence without even
so much as a 'by your
leave'! . . . Grrrrrr 
.
>> Could it be because
they knew better than to do
>> something like that?
.
> No. At that time the
word 'consubstantial (really,
> homoousios)' did not
have the required meaning; it _could_
> not. If you knew enough
about the history to justify your
> sweeping assertions,
you would _know_ why 'homoousios'
> could not be used in
Biblical times.
.
So let me get this
straight. You're saying that the phrase
'God the Son' could not
be used (presumably you mean in a
creed) by the early believers
because it was lacking for
intelligible content?!
Because the meaning of these words (ie.
consubstantial and homoousios)
had not yet been worked out by
the episcopal theologians?
Are you not aware that this utterly
ridiculous position you
hold necessarily implies that the
inspired authors were
incompetent to know and speak the truth
about Jesus Christ?
.
Do you not also
realize how incredibly arrogant are all these
scribes and pharisees
who think that they can make up for the
(unstated) deficiencies
of the written Word of God by simply
inventing fantasies from
out of their own deluded and feverish
brains? Need I point
out the rather obvious fact that 'God the
Son' DID have meaning
and content BEFORE, and independently
of, 'consubstantial'
and 'homoousios', else it would not be in the
Epistle of the Apostles
in the first place? Sheesh! And then
you have the nerve to
criticize MY historical sensibility? 
.
>> Yes.
.
> Wrong. It is because
the word 'homousios' had not yet even
> been coined. Nor could
it be. That had to wait until 'ousia'
> meant more than mere
'property' in Koine.
.
Ha! [note: This
laugh is 50% merriment and 50% scoffething]
.
>> Which would certainly
explain why there's no such phrase
>> or idea in the Apostles
Creed!
.
> It would 'explain'
it, but with a WRONG explanation.
> Is that why you like
this explanation so much?
.
nope
.
>> So I guess what I'm
saying by all this is that the
>> Nicene Creed is not
really much of an improvement
>> on the Apostles Creed.
.
> But you say this groundlessly.
The Apostle's Creed did not
> encourage people to
stay away from Arian and Apollinarian
> heresies; for that,
the Nicene Creed was needed.
.
This sounds to
me like a poor argument for theological
intolerance. One man's
heresy is another man's freedom of
thought. It makes no
difference to the Lord what people think
about during their recreational
speculations, as long as they
do God's will, abstain
from idolatry, and respect the teachings
of the Word. Yes, freedom
of thought is a Christian *virtue*!
.
>> Not from the perspective
of a slightly more
>> biblical theology,
I mean.
.
> You have not _shown_
any expertise in 'slightly more
> biblical theology'.
You have shown 'expertise' only
> in a _revisionist_
distortion of 'biblical theology'.
.
How about a revisionist
*clarification* of biblical theology?
.
>> That is to say that
prophetic literature is generally more
>> authoritative than
the stuff that the scribes and pharisees
>> get up to when they're
all in an uproar about some silly
>> thing or another.
.
> That is quite irrelevant.
Yes, it is more 'authoritative',
> but even in Christ's
time, nobody could agree on what it
> _meant_. Was the Messiah
to be a King who would defeat the
> Romans,
.
A Jewish Alexander.
That's what the great majority of the
people were hankering
after, no doubt. That's why Jesus wasn't
too keen on the disciples
using the Messiah title too freely.
.
> or a 'suffering servant'?
Or would there be _both_ a
> conquering Messiah-King
_and_ a suffering servant? Or is
> the suffering servant
Israel, as _modern_ Jews insist?
.
So then you recognize
that controversy is inevitable?
.
> It amazes me that you
pretend to know so much about early
> church history yet
show _no_ knowledge of these issues.
> [snip]
.
Well, these things
take *much* time and patience, and *MUCH*
explaining of things.
Sadly, one must attend to the cyber-
prophets obscure teachings
for *many* great lengths of time
before all the disparate
pieces gradually begin to merge into
a unified pattern. Order
out of chaos? Or just chaos upon
*MORE* chaos? Only the
most determined cyber-saint can decide!
.
.
>> So anyway, the authority
of the Nicene Creed appears
>> to reside more in
its popularity than in its supposed
>> inspiration.
.
> What 'popularity'?
You really _don't_ know the history, do
> you? Why, you don't
even seem to know your own words. You
> just complained that
it was 'emperor-begotten'. Now you
> whine that it is/was
'popular'. But how could it be _both_?
.
It starts off small
and then sprouts into something big
as the centuries pass
by. What is so confusing about that?
.
> Usually, what the Emperor
'begot' was _not_ popular,
.
Compared to most
of the previous emperors, Constantine must
have seemed a "god-send"
to a good many Christians, I expect.
Difficult to understand
Eusebius' excessive zeal for the man
in some other context
... ?
.
> as the dock-riots at
Alexandria showed all too well. [snip]
.
I was referring
to its *current* popularity, of course.
.
- one who travels through time - textmann ;>
.
P.S. "No one
remembers the former events, nor will anyone
remember the
future events that are yet to happen; they will
not be remembered
by the future generations" (Ecc.1:11/NET).
x
+
On Scribes and Fundies
.
/ Subject >
Re: God talking in NT [#14] / 27Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup
> soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>>> On Jan25 John
McComb <[email protected]> answered
>>>> Edgar thusly:
All of the verses that are printed in
>>>> red in the Gospels,
Acts and Revelation to John.
.
>>> On Jan26 [email protected]
replied:
>>> A very simple,
clever, and neat answer;
.
>> textman comments:
Right. The very kind that are so beloved
>> of the fundies
(who love to reduce the Faith to snappy and
>> absurd slogans
just like this). The reason seems to be that
>> simplicity and
absurdity together constitute divine-wisdom
>> (ie. in the pious
Fundy eye, of course).
.
> On Feb8 <[email protected]>
wrote: I'm not sure that
> I know exactly who
these straw men you call "fundies," and
> insult with "(ie.
in the pious Fundy eye, of course)" are.
> I feel confident
in assuming that you are referring to us
> Believers.
.
textman replies:
Well, you're about half-right there, friend
Robert. That is to
say that more than half of the current
generation of Christians
fall under the big "Fundy" category.
Basically there are
two sorts of Christian in the world today.
There are those who
follow the ways of the scribes, and those
who follow the ways
of the pharisees. The scribal way is to
over-emphasize the
nature and authority of the scriptures.
The pharisee way is
to over-emphasize the authority and
practice of priestcraft.
Both ways lead to idolatry.
.
Both types of
believers have many common roots and shared
assumptions and values
and so on. Both groups recognize the
errors and idolatry
of the other guys, while at the same time
denying that they
are more or less joined at the hip! This is
why Catholic and Protestant
bible-scholars can work together
without allowing trivial
differences to stall their labors:
because they share
many of the same opinions and assumptions
about the scriptures,
and also have similar visions regarding
the shape and course
of the early history of the Faith & NT.
.
This is why
I emphasize the fact that the common Christian
hermeneutical-paradigm
surrounding the scriptures is a product
of many scribes *and*
pharisees. But what really sets the
fundies apart from
the rest of their idolatrous kin-folk is
that fundy-thinking
tends to be *more* irrational, *more*
anti-historical, *more*
pre-critical, *more* contemptuous
of (and ignorant of)
philosophy, and *more* likely to be
permanently frozen
in pre-Enlightenment modes and models.
.
In other words,
fundies are just generally more primitive
and backwards and
childish! Thus fundies refuse to admit
the possibility that
advances in science, philosophy, history,
biblical scholarship,
etc etc, have any real meaning or
significance to the
important matter of how we should read
the written Word of
God. This blanket rejection is not explicitly
made, of course, but
reveals itself in their eternal reliance
upon tradition-based
theologies, rather than upon common
sense, rational methods,
and historical realities.
.
Needless to
say, all of this has no absolute or necessary
connection to specific
individuals or particular churches as
such. Some evangelicals
can outgrow theologies based upon
emotional responses
to the sacred texts, just as some Cats,
Anglicans, and Orthodox
can hold fast to ideas and ideologies
worked out in the
distant Byzantine era. 4X: Hi, Matthew! 
.
> But that leaves
us with the conclusion that you have
> no idea what you
are talking about.
.
I trust that
my detailed description given above will
show believers that
I do indeed know whereof I speak.
.
> The fact that a
person is indwelt by the Spirit of Christ,
> and therefore believes
in both His Deity and Humanity (Son
> of God and Son of
Man), salvation by His Grace alone, paid
> by His life and
death for us, in the Holy Scriptures which
> cannot be broken,
etc, in no way concludes his proneness
> to "accept snappy
and absurd slogans, just like this."
.
So the mere
fact that a Christian equates 'son of man' with
'god the son' (thus
denying any relevant distinctions between
these two concepts)
*proves* that person to be in possession
of the Spirit of Christ?!
Because that belief comes from the
Spirit?! ... You see
what I mean about pre-critical and anti-
historical modes of
thought? On the other hand, my allegiance
is not to pious creeds
and snappy slogans, but revolves around
the Spirit of Truth
--> who guides us into *ALL* truth!
.
For that is
one of the chief functions of the Spirit: to
guide, assist, and
encourage the prophets (and through them,
all believers). You
see the difference here? I do not equate
or confuse the Spirit
with predetermined conclusions and
theological imperatives,
whereas Bob obviously does; not
realizing (I presume)
that theological imperatives and the
Spirit of Truth are
two very *very* different things!
.
> You simply cannot
have ever really read and understood
> their writings.
.
Whose writings?
Are you referring to the writings of the
scribes and pharisees?
Or maybe to the writings of the
inspired NT authors?
Either way, I generally have little
trouble reading the
texts. Although the book of Revelation
*is* often obscure
in its intended meaning, I'd have to say.
Fortunately, it is
the least important of the prophetic
materials found within
the New Testament.
.
>>> although, those
letters printed in red are at some places
>>> the very questionable
opinions of men.
.
>> So then you acknowledge
that the "absolute perfection" of
>> "GOD's Word" was/is
compromised by the feeble weaknesses
>> of human nature?
.
> NO. Here is a plain
bald example of what I said above. We do
> not assert that
the red letter "bibles" that we have today
> are the "absolute
perfection of GOD's Word" (barring a few
> "KJV only" people
(and even most of those would halt far
> short of that absurdity)).
.
Okay, I'll grant
you all that, but are not the ideas of
inerrancy and infallibility
(as commonly applied to the
scriptures) equally
absurd? Perfection, inerrancy, and
infallibility are
all part of the same package. You can't
have one without the
others!
.
> Again and again
and again and again and again, the writings
> of "fundies" teach
that we do not have any of the original
> Scriptures, but
only copies, quotations, and translations.
.
And yet they
refuse to accept the consequences of these
literary and historical
facts; namely that the canonical
format is corrupt
in many places and requires cleaning up!
.
> <snipsome> Again,
exactly who are these "fundies" you
> are insulting?
.
Fundies are
basically all those believers who refuse to
accept that the scriptures
(and the world) are (by nature)
inherently complex
entities that cannot be correctly
understood by means
of simplistic reductionism. To fully
comprehend and appreciate
the extreme depth and richness
of the Word, we require
both rational exegesis and
historical criticism,
AND "sympathetic immersion".
.
>> <snipsome> Such
as ignorance and arrogance in the
>> bible-makers treatment
of the sacred texts? ... wow
.
> In view of Who the
"Bible Maker" really is, I have to hand
> it to you: you've
got real guts; your courage is phenomenal.
.
Not at all.
The only bible-makers I'm concerned about are
those who print and
publish those bibles that end up in
the hands of believers.
They are only ones who are in any
position to release
bible versions that correct the errors
and oversights of
the canonical format. But if the bible-
buyers don't want
these new and improved (ie. carefully
edited) versions,
then the bible-makers have no motivation
to make the necessary
changes that we (and progress) require.
.
> <snipsome> In
God's time, both the tares of the Bible, and
> the tares of the
Church, will be forever separated, as the
> chaff from the wheat.
The tares of both are there, because
> "an enemy hath done
this."
.
Right. Therefore
it is up to bible-loving believers to stand
up and set things
straight. To say that God will take care
of all this is to
ignore our responsibilities to the Body of
Christ. God wants
us to fix the Word, now that we able to do
so. To deny the call
is to do exactly what the enemy wants!
.
> "We wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against
> spiritual wickedness
in the heavenlies . . ." And that is
> ALL the explanation
ANYONE should need to account for
> their existence.
Which ANYONE ought to very well know
> and understand.
Including you.
.
I'm wrestling
against the spiritual wickedness of ignorance
and apathy by shedding
new light upon the ancient texts ...
New wine for new wineskins!
Hai
.
>>> One example is
John 3:13-21. <snip> It may be a mix
>>> of both Christ's
words to Nicodemus AND John's
>>> commentary afterward.
.
>> Good call. Here
again you seem to be on the verge of
>> acknowledging the
significance of the fact that the NT
>> documents arise
out of human history.
.
> Now, what in the
heck are you supposed to mean
> by that statement?
.
It means that
John's Gospel could only have been written by
that particular author,
in that particular place (Egypt), and
at that particular
time (c.90-95CE). If the author had not
been there and then,
there would be no Gospel of John!
.
> Of course, anything
in our realm of existence "arose out of
> human history" (See
Romans 9:5, for striking example). But
> BOTH "CHRIST'S WORDS
TO NICODEMUS _AND_ JOHN'S
> COMMENTARY AFTERWARD"
ARE FROM GOD!!!
.
You mean God
"inspired" (ie. forced) the secretary who wrote
the original autograph
of John's Gospel to write just these
particular words and
none other? In that case, the writing-
down of the gospel
certainly took place in history, but since
the actual composition
was done by God (this is what you're
saying when you say
that these words are "from God"),
presumably outside
of space-time, it is difficult to see how
they can be related
to human history in *any* way! That is,
since these words
do not arise from within the world, they
can have no necessary
connection with the world.
.
> That is the point;
and it is what you appear to be
> denying. And ridiculing
"fundies" for believing.
.
Right. God doesn't
write books. Human beings write books.
Therefore God is the
Father, not the Writer!
.
> <snipsome> If
you deny that He is God, you do not know
> Him, and you are
not one of His.
.
But Bob, where
in the scriptures does it say this? Where
does it say that if
I deny that Jesus is God, I don't know
him? Where does it
say I am not one of his if I don't worship
Him as 'God the Son'?
.
> "If ye believe not
that I AM, ye shall die in your sins"
> -- John 8:24.
.
If this statement
means 'If ye believe not that I am God'
then you have a good
case. But such an interpretation is
surely artificial
and contrary to the powerfully monotheistic
spirit of John's Gospel.
In other words, the 'I AM' can be
adequately understood
as the divine Logos. Trinitarian
definitions are neither
required nor justified by the text!
.
> "Whosever confesseth
not that Jesus Christ is come in the
> flesh is a liar
and the Truth is not in him."
.
This verse has
no relevance to the God-or-not controversy,
since both sides agree
that Jesus *did* come in the flesh.
.
> <snipsome> "We
have also a more sure word of prophecy;
> whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a light
> that shineth in
a dark place, until the day dawn, and
> the day star arise
in your hearts:
.
If you truly
believed in the "word of prophecy" you would
take heed of my prophetic
teachings. But you dismiss the
truth because you
don't believe in the word of prophecy!
How can today's Christians
believe in the word of prophecy
when they *don't*
believe in the reality of the prophets?
And what does this
colossal lack of belief say about the
quality of their faith,
eh? They don't believe in the
prophets, no, but
they *DO* believe the lies and illusions
of the scribes and
pharisees! Yes, the light shines in a
dark place, but these
Christians prefer the darkness ...
.
> "Knowing this first,
that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS OF
> ANY PRIVATE RELEASE
(HUMAN ORIGIN). For the prophecy came
> not in old time
by the will of man: but holy men of God
> spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." -- 2P.1:16-21.
.
Does being "moved
by the HG" mean that God puts his words
into their minds such
that they have only to write down what
is thus given? I don't
think so. I think that there is still
plenty of room for
human creativity and involvement in this
process of inspiration.
Perhaps you don't agree, but then
you don't quite realize
that the alternative is utterly
unacceptable because
it is absolutely *unrealistic*.
.
>> The biblical sciences
treat the scriptures as the product
>> of human minds
working within the context of actual human
>> history because
that IS exactly what the scriptures are.
>> The fact that these
writings are inspired *IN NO WAY*
>> changes or nullifies
these realities!
.
> Again, in the face
of the Scripture above, and myriads of
> others like it,
your viciousness is exceeded only by your
> phenomenal courage.
[snip remainder]
.
?!?!?
.
- the almost semi-phenomenal one - textmman ;>
.
P.S. "When a man has
finally reached the point where he does
not think he knows
it better than others, that is when he
has become indifferent
to what they have done badly, and he
is interested only
in what they have done right, then peace
and affirmation have
come to him." -- GWF Hegel
x
Goto GodTalk
#15
textman
*