Goto GodTalk #4&5
textman
*
+
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT / 30Jan03 /
/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
> On Jan27 EgwEimi ([email protected]) wrote: God spoke directly
> at Jesus' baptism, at the transfiguration, at Jn 12:28 (when
> asked to glorify his name); and at other occasions "off
> camera." Also, God directly provided signs or wonders on
> numerous occasions, including Acts 2.
.
textman sayeth: Uh oh, looks like friend EgwEimi here wants
us to think of Acts2 after the manner of a straightforward
(ie. objective) historical account! :(
.
"Now when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all
together in one place. Suddenly a sound like a violent wind
blowing came from heaven and filled the entire house where
they were sitting. And tongues spreading out like a fire
appeared to them and came to rest on each one of them. All
of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began
to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them."
-- Acts 2:1-4 / NETbible
.
Yes, yes, very dramatic indeed. However, I dare say that
in real life the Spirit is not nearly so ... ummm ...
Shakespearean? Historical value of these verses? ---> Zero!
All in all, I'd have to say that "Acts 2" is not much of an
answer that would be useful to friend Edgar's question.
Therefore:
.
> <snip a whole bunch!> And one might argue reasonably
> that every instance of the "holy breath" was God speaking,
.
I'm not quite happy with this statement either, since the
Holy Spirit (or "holy breath") is not generally confused with
God the Father in the NT, who, we may say, "speaks" through
the universal Logos (who in turn speaks through Jesus and
his prophets). What this means is that every rational human
creature (literacy is not a requirement) has/contains/is this
tiny puny spark of divine reason (aka: the tao, the atman, the
buddha nature, the inner light, etc), and this unknowable and
unpredictable "logos-spark" is the spiritual source of the
inspiration that inspires ALL the authors of sacred scripture.
.
What I mean by "sacred scripture" here is obviously not just
those documents within the Holy Bible itself. This is because
the Logos, being universal, must necessarily express itself
in every language, every culture, every society; somehow.
Therefore there are saints and prophets and teachers and
artists, and visionaries of all shape and size - along with
their sacred writings and utterances - in many strange lands
and times. Believe it or not, true believers, but this really
is *a very good thing*!
.
> as he provided signs for the other people that God
> was active among his people.
.
God was and IS active among his people in many ways, surely.
Including, I should hope, these doubtful inspirations of
abundant writings. After all, signs of Providence extend far
beyond the boundaries of the bible. They can be found through-
out history and prehistory, even in the darkest of times.
.
"In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. And the
Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never
overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it,
and is unreceptive to it]" (John 1:4-5/AMP).
.
> Since most of the NT writings are not "prophecy" but
> "writings," we would not expect to read prophecies in them.
.
huh? Very curious statement here. EgwEimi seems to equate
'prophecy' directly with 'fortune-telling' and *NO* deviation
therefrom shall ever be allowed. He thus makes the error of
mistaking one aspect of the thing for the whole. As if the sum
total of a man can be found within the answer to the question
'Occupation?' As if the prophets must forever remain locked
into their Bronze Age mode while the rest of humankind
struggles to push ahead just a little bit more ...
.
In other words, the phrases 'prophetic literature' or
'prophetic writings' or 'prophetic utterances' can have no
meaningful or significant content since 'prophecy' can ONLY
be the 'act of fortune-telling'. But prophecy is much more
than precognition. It is more forth-telling than fortune-
telling. Therefore the book of Revelation is NOT the only
prophetic book in the NT. Indeed, anything that an apostle or
prophet writes is prophetic literature (as orange juice comes
from oranges), whether it be gospel or epistle or history or
poetry or fiction or philosophy or *whatever*!
.
The Word is no more limited in forms of expression than Truth
and Beauty are. Therefore most of the NT writings are indeed
first-class examples of prophetic literature. The fact that
EgwEimi (along with many other believers, alas) is unable
to appreciate this most basic and fundamental nature of the
sacred texts speaks volumes as to the fitness of his judgments
regarding the Word of God ...
.
> Even so, the NT contains a surprisingly large number
> of instances of God's direct involvement.
.
Few of which should be taken literally, alas.
.
> Consider instead the newer OT writings:
> Ezra -- no prophecy. Nehemiah -- no prophecy.
.
A concern for history is obviously an important feature of
the prophetic enterprise as a whole; else there could be no
'fortune-telling' in the first place. Back to Square One we
go: Past -> Present -> Future ... hmmmm
.
> Esther - God not even mentioned in the Masoretic text and
> does not speak. Psalms - sparse on prophecy. Proverbs -<
> sections of divine wisdom personified. Ecclesiastes -
> sayings of the author only; God does not speak.
.
Are you suggesting, then, that the "Preacher/Philosopher"
was in no way inspired? In no way in contact with spiritual
realities? ... Wutz it doin in the bible, bud? Did it just
"slip by" the Divine-Editor? :)
.
> Song of Solomon -- God does not speak
.
But Woman does! Amen verily!
.
> Lamentations -- although an earlier book, God does not
> speak Daniel -- presumably a later work. Consists of
> interpretive pieces like Revelation would later.
.
And also makes mention of one like unto a son of man.
.
> Chronicles - largely repeats what was contained in Kings;
> even so, God's personal involvement is minimal. The
> author was largely concerned with specific matters.
.
That is, with life, with history, with making some sense
of 'these days' in relation to 'those days'. History is
the only way we can say that things happen for a reason.
.
Again, all this is not much helpful, since the Wisdom
tradition as a whole can be considered to be a form of
prophetic literature by virtue of the fact that Reason and
Knowledge are a necessary part of Wisdom. Just as they are
a necessary part of philosophy. Philosophy and Wisdom are
BOTH expressions of the *same* prophetic spirit at work
(ie. of the Logos-in-Process).
.
> When Jesus taught his core teachings, he was
> teaching as a prophet.
.
You see that? Even a fundy can recognize the truth
of things when he puts his mind to it! :D
.
> Although God's speech to him was often "off camera"; that
> is, Jesus relayed that God had spoken to him, but the
> authors had not been present, this is also the case in
> the OT. Most of the time, the authors did not witness
> God's discourse but instead heard what the prophet
> told them about what God had said.
.
That is VERY correct, Frank. Listening, understanding, and
interpreting are *all* prior to the act of writing. We might
even say that "inspiration" is spread evenly throughout this
entire process, rather than being confined to the relatively
brief act of writing itself. As if the prophet were nothing
more than a semi-convenient spongebob squarepants!
.
> If you count the occasional appearances by divine
> messengers ("angels")
.
Angels can also be understood as divine interpreters
of God's will.
.
> and the spontaneous resurrection of various good
> dead people at Jesus' crucifixion,
.
Who?
.
> God was quite active in the NT -- at least as active as he
> was in the majority of OT Writings. Did he speak as many
> words "on camera" as he spoke in the Torah? No, but part of
> that may be attributed to changing writing styles.
.
Ah-ha! I think we're on to something here now.
.
> And so, if anything, God's communication with his people was
> more frequent during the 40 years that comprise the NT period
> than it had been since the compiling of the Torah. -- Frank
.
*40* years! That's not even close. It took at least 100 years
(c.50-150CE) for all the NT documents to get written, because
it took at least that long for all the events and peoples
*behind* the writing of the texts to occur. The Greek
scriptures are NOT some magical entity utterly divorced from
all history and reality (as Frank here seems to think). No
indeed. The documents are authentic because they come from
real prophets and teachers in actual concrete circumstances
dealing with the actual Real-World around them. They are
certainly NOT concerned for the tender minds of fundies living
two thousand years in the future! Get with the program already.
.
- one considering sending a pox - textmaan ;>
.
P.S. "Most of what is divine escapes recognition
through unbelief." -- Heraclitus
x
Goto GodTalk #4&5