 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > help with john 6 and exegesis | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/17/2004 6:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | My Dear Hobbes (I just had to say that, because Hobbes sounds so English.)
You stated: but how would you document your claims that systematic theology is Greek in origin? Is there a definitive work on this question?
We all were conceived into the Word of God by someone or something. First we simply wanted to believe in God, and in Jesus Christ. Therefore we naturally gravitate towards those who teach the Word. They like us were conceived into their understanding in the same manner. The manner in which men become teachers of the Word is a system within itself. The errors we have received have been handed down to us from generation to generation, we did not ask for this, or seek it. It is the nature of the world’s system of education.
Being conceived in a sense by those who taught us, we then all have a genealogy of education. I can read and write because of my first grade teacher who imparted to me that knowledge. Knowledge is like a seed, it’s implanted and tends to grow, come to maturity and get passed on into someone else. Jesus called his Word seed. If we look to the teacher who most impacted our lives Biblically, and then find his teacher, and then his teacher and go clear back 2000 years it will lead directly to Greek philosophy. It will lead directly to Aristotle, Plato and then Socrates.
You stated: I am eagerly awaiting Greg Boyd's book, The Myth of the Blueprint. I understand that it has something to do with the Platonic and Manichean influence in Augustine.
And I would assume then Augustine’s influence on Calvin via predestination et.?
Except here’s the ticker, Greek thought influenced more than just one subject. A man could be right on regarding his thoughts on free will and the meaning of predestination, and right off on another subject, say what grace really is. I might escape the influence of philosophy in one area only to be captured in another. Plato, via Aristotle, via Greek education and a multitude of various teachers to the time of Jesus then to Plotinus, who founded what was called the “neoplatonic” school of philosophy to Augustine.
I’m bummed because I lost file of some research I did a few years back on Neoplatonism, which I called The Genealogy of Hell. So I going to start from scratch here and show you what I mean about educational genealogy. It doesn’t matter who you start with it all goes back to the same guy anyway. So here as an experiment we will just do Calvin’s educational genealogy.
OK here goes (I ought to be up the rest of the night.), we’ll just use one reference material, the Encyclopedia Americana 1961 ed., which I picked up for a whole 20 bucks.
One must always pay CLOSE attention to who’s educating who, and who seemed to have the greatest influence on another’s life.
I don’t know what all we’ll find here, but here goes.
Calvin, John 1509-1564 He enrolled in the College dela Marche. There he was attracted and stimulated by the distinguished Latinist, Mathurin Cordier, who was to spend the last years of his long life at the reformers side in Geneva.
Well Old Mathurin Cordier is not in my encyclopedia, so we’ll look him up on the net, another tool that almost anyone has access to. That’s the thing, all this stuff is easily accessible by any first grader. That’s what makes its deception all the more ridiculous. But I learned a long time ago that it’s an ego trip of Satan to steal from you while you got your eyes right on him.
Mathurin Cordier (from a page translated out of French) is really.....
Mathurin Rope-maker 1479-1564, Cordier obviously means Rope-maker,
Mathurin Cordier, who, disappointed with the poor state of preparation of pupils in the higher classes, wanted to teach beginners (get um while their young.). Calvin was impressed with Cordier’s teaching-methods, for which he subsequently expressed his continued gratitude. Twenty-seven years later, he dedicated to Cordier a commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians and expressed in the introduction his regret at not having been able to remain in tutelage for longer. Moreover, he arranged for Cordier to come to Geneva and entrusted him, despite his advanced years, with the directorship of the College.
One thing we know about Cordier, is that he was an ex priest and Calvin says this about him.
. In dedicating to him his Commentary on the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, as eximiae pietatis et doctrinae viro, he declares that so had he been aided by his instruction that whatever subsequent. progress he had made he only regarded as received from him, and this, he adds, I wish to testify to posterity that if any utility accrue to any from my writings they may acknowledge it as having in part flowed from thee.
In the 8 listed writings I could find of Mathurin Rope-maker, Colloqia Scholastica, which has a meaning in and of itself with neoplatonism. Finally we find this:
Soon, however, he was transferred to Paris. There, at the College de la Marche, he studied Latin and French under the renowned teacher Mathurin Cordier, a student of the great Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus himself.
We looked at Calvin’s favorite teacher, mentor, now we look at Cordiers favorite teacher, mentor.
Erasmus Desiderius Now I’m not going to say that Erasmus did not do some find scholarly work in his time, for the advancement of the New Testament. And though I am somewhat sarcastic at times, in truth I know that men for the most part did the best they could, with what was dealt out to them. We cannot always help whose influence we fall under when it comes to teachers. It’s not like these men had a real big choice or that they knew the dangers of Greek philosophy. If we are to blame anyone here, it’s those who were taught the truth in the first century, and then insisted on not taking heed to the warnings of Paul.
Erasmus in his humanism combined classic culture and Christianity and he was the world’s leading CLASSICAL SCHOLAR. That is he was the top in his field in Ancient Greek Literature, like all of Plato and Aristotle's works along with neoplatonic works of men like Plotinus. Other than the fact that Erasmus was admitted to the Augustinian order we have no real teacher of influence to go on here with Erasmus. What influenced Erasmus the most was the Greek literature both New Testament and especially philosophy. Part of the problem was that these men treated God’s holy Word, in the same light they treated pagan Greek literature. That is why they ignored all Paul’s warnings about philosophy and combined it’s beliefs and practices with those of the New Testament.
From Erasmus you can jump straight over to the pagan philosopher Plotinus, who’s writings were abundand, which Erasmus would have had, and as you will see obviously used, since he was endeavoring to do the very same thing Plotinus did, namely “ combine classic culture (Greek culture, philosophy) and Christianity and he was the world’s leading CLASSICAL SCHOLAR.
205-270 Plotinus, Roman philosopher (NOT A CHRISTIAN) and founder of the neoplatonic school. “Neo” simply means NEW, hence this guy founded the NEW Platonism that is, Plato’s philosophy and teachings but somehow they are NEW now. Just how they are NEW now will hopefully astound you as it did me.
The teacher that made a very deep impression on Plotinus was Ammonius Saccas. Now Ammonius Saccas was also the teacher of ORIGEN. So Plotinus the pagan and Origen the Christian both had the same teacher. What’s more is that Ammonius a “GREEK” philosopher was born to Christian parents, but abandon their faith for the polytheistic philosophy of Greece; This is said to be denied however by Eusebius and Jerome.
Now Origen the Christian, and Plotinus the Pagan were both students of an EX Christian Ammonius Saccas. Plotinus was the founder of the neoplatonic School. Origen on the other hand combined Platonism with Christian doctrine, particularly in his book, ‘De Principales’ (The Principles). And one of Origen’s great achievements is said to be he gave philosophy a recognized place in the Church.
So what is neo or new platonism?
Neoplatonism, the revival and TRANSFORMATION of Platonic (Plato’s) philosophy. (and HOW dose it transform itself???) Neo-Platonism started as a synthesis of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, and Stoicism, ADAPTED JEWISH and Oriental religious elements, CREPT THROUGH PROFESSEDLY PAGAN, INTO PATRISTIC CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY, and finally influenced medieval and modern thought.
You see Plato’s philosophy is Plato’s philosophy, until you ADD something NEW to it. Since in Greek “neo” means “new” once you ADD something NEW to it, it becomes “Neo-Platonism”. It becomes just like what Paul encountered on Mars Hill in Athens. Do you remember why everyone was there?
Acts 17:18
Then certain philosopher’s of the Epicureans and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? Other some, he seems to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection. and they took him and brought him unto Areopagus saying, May we know what this NEW doctrine is? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean. For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell, or to hear some NEW THING.
The teachings and doctrines, the philosophy of Plato became NEW or neoplatonism, when something was ADDED to them. In this case it becomes NEW when the teachings of and about Christ are added to it. It actually became new where any religion was added to it. For instance when they added Jewish (OT) literature to it. This is not pagans becoming Christians, this is pagans adopting all the teachings of Christ, and scripture into their pagan religion.
Ammonius Saccus 175-250 (the teacher of Plotinus, the pagan Roman philosopher, and of Origen the Christian,) forsook the faith of his parents for polytheism. But he did not forsake all those nice stories in scripture. He just added that knowledge to the pagan Greek philosophy and beliefs of Plato. Consequently his students, Origen and Plotinus did the same basic thing. Plotinus added the teachings of Jesus to his pagan religion and philosophy. While on the other hand Origen added the teachings of Plato to the teachings of Christ and the apostles et. What they endeavored to do here was reconcile the two teachings to one another, thus marrying Christ to a harlot, combining the knowledge of the truth God, and false gods, to form one belief. In this case something’s gotta give and it wasn’t paganism.
Now it pays us here to follow Roman paganism from this point on through the teachings of Plotinus, just to see exactly what took place from this point on. Plotinus wrote a lot and taught philosophy in Rome, his writings were published by his pupil and biographer Porphyry, who we will look at next. It should be noted that he was a famous and respected man in Rome, with the Emperor Publius Licinius Egnatius Gallienus and his wife admiring him and being good friends. He gave them moral teaching and spiritual guidance. He also had a house full of orphans, of whom he was the devoted and efficient guardian, paying careful attention to the details of their property.
Now Plotinus lived from 205 to 270, Origen from 185 to 254. They went to the same school, taught by the same guy (Ammonus Saccus), believed many of the same basic things. That is both combined Plato’s philosophy with Christian doctrine and teaching, but one was a pagan and the other a Christian. Now you tell me, don’t you think it’s going to get kind of hard to tell who from who and what from what as this thing progresses on?
I mean if you don’t know the scripture or Christ to begin with, then who’s the Christian and who’s the pagan? Who’s really teaching the truth about Christ here? Well obviously at this point NO ONE, except those few hangers on that still believe and try and do what Paul said to do to beware of Philosophy. However they are a dying breed especially after the influence of Plotinus as you will see.
During this time there was Christian persecution, so even though both Plotinus and Origne are teaching a lot of the same basic things, Origen is persecuted, while Plotinus among other things is hob knobbing it with the Emperor and elite of Rome and taking care of ORPHANS and managing their estates and property. HUM, let’s see, “Christians persecuted.....ORPHANS.... Christians persecuted.....ORPHANS. Wouldn’t you just like to take a guess at where all those orphans came from?
Plotinus and Origen went to the same school, that means they both had about an equal start in life, with their parents being on about equal economic levels. The poor didn’t go to these schools. So therefore we know that there were Christians that were of good lineage and higher up on the economic scale. Now as Christians are persecuted and put to death, who steps in for the ORPHANS, but good old Plotinus, the MORAL teacher of the Emperor and the elite of Rome. I mean these kids come from good families, it’s not their fault their parents are heretics as far a pagan polytheistic religion goes. So in plops Plotinus to save some of those blue blooded Roman Children and raise them up right, with the right PHILOSOPHY and understanding of what JESUS REALLY TAUGHT. Plotinus died in the lap of luxury, while Origen eventually died from sever abuse due to persecution. Here they were alumni, howbeit Origen belonged to the wrong party. (It’s like they were both Skull and Bones, but one was a Democrat and one a Republican. I hope someone gets that.)
But it gets better as we now go on to the pupil and biographer of Plotinus, Porphyry.
Porphyry, Greek Scholar and Neo-Platonic philosopher (also a pagan). And guess what his nick name is “Tyrius” because he was born in Tyre. (Now you aren’t going to believe this.) He early became a pupil of ORIGEN the Christian, however at 30 he came for the second time to Rome to place himself under the teaching of PLOTINUS the pagan. He entirely adopted the opinions of Plotinus and became his confidant and literary assistant.
Porphyry was a hypochondriac and the abtuse mysticism of Plotinus incited in him a tendency to cherish thoughts of suicide. Plotinus somewhat straightened him out on that and about 268 he went to Sicily, where he wrote his treatise AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS, in FIFTEEN BOOKS (no less). Porphyry and Plotinus, believed Christ to be an eminent philosopher; [but charged THE CHRISTIANS WITH CORRUPTING HIS DOCTRINES. The philosophy of Porphyry is completely identified with that of Plotinus, who is remember the founder of the neoplatonic philosophy. Part of this philosophy was when you reach the third level, which corresponds with absorbing devotion of philosophy, MAN BECOMES A GOD. and on the fourth level, he becomes the father of the gods. And there are Christians thinking and preaching things along this very line today. There are however different degrees of one’s infestation with neoplatonism, since it covered a large range of beliefs.
This is how the gospel of Christ became corrupted, though it did not start with these men. It stated clear back before the apostle Paul was dead. But from reading these historical facts, you should be able to see why Paul warned the believers of his time about Philosophy.
Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you, through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world and not after Christ.
Now you figure all this took place from 175 to 304 A.D. In 306 Constantine I was confirmed as Emperor and in 312 converted to “?Chrisitanity?”. The question is just what Christianity did he convert to? The Christianity of Plotinus that combined Greek philosophy with the gosple, or the Christianity of Origen that combined Greek philosophy with the gospel? Because by this time there is no pure gospel. And from here on out all you have are people who can read on occasion coming to different conclusions about just what the gospel actually was. However these people are persicuted and stamped out as time goes on.
Finally we come to the Reformation, in which supposedly men regained the truth and broke away from the Church established by Plotinis through his educational influence on Roman aristocracy. But here again what do the Reformers do? Do they leave all that Greek philosophy behind? No, they leave the Church but steal all her so-called theology and take it with them. Now how is it going to get them anywhere but where it got the Church to begin with? It’s just going to lead them right back into bondage to the same harlot system. I’m not saying that this is the “harlot” of Revelation, I’m just saying that what this all did was lead men of God to commit whoredom by combining the knowledge of pagan religion with that of the knowledge of Christ. Because it led to the formation of “another gospel”, which as Paul said was not another, but a perverted form of the original.
They didn’t actually have to take the original documents and teachings of Jesus away, they just had to give it all a different meaning based on Greek philosophy. Hence you have “another Jesus”. And as Paul wrote to the Corinthians if you receive another gospel, and another Jesus, you also receive another spirit. When Paul wrote that to the Corinthians, he was writing to Christians who had already received the holy spirit. Yet he said that even they as born again Christians filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, could if they received a false teaching from someone, also receive “another spirit”. And that spirit is the spirit of error, which blinds men’s minds to the truth. It can be right there in front of their fact and they won’t see it. ALL of Christianity through Greek philosophy in combining it with the gospel has received a spirit of error, blinding their minds to the truth.
The gospel will remain corrupted, being another gospel which is not another but one that was perverted long before any of us were born. It will remain so until men’s eyes open up to the fact that theology and philosophy was intended not to lead them to an accurate understanding of the truth, but to blind their eyes to it.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/17/2004 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Lariss,
Yes - I might quibble with some details but I basically agree - and so - has the Bible that we use been corrupted? If not, how can that be verified? If one were to believe what you have written above, it would seem to me that there is a high degree of probability that it has been corrupted, yes? Interpolated passages, unauthentic books (2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, etc). What say ye?
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/17/2004 9:03 AM (GMT -6) | | I should note that any mocking I've done is not directed at those who sincerely try and understand and teach the bible, but at those who at all costs endeavor to twist the texts into saying what they want them to say. That is, prove and protext their pet doctrine no matter what.
Larris: You and I both know that those different letters there are simply inflection and do not change the basic meaning of the word.
Albert: I'm sorry Larris, but this again shows that you know nothing about Greek. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's the truth. The difference between methodeia and methodeuo, and methodos is not inflection, and if you knew even the slightest bit of Greek grammar you would know that. Methodeia is a noun, methodeuo is a verb, and methodos is a different (though etymologically related) noun. They are absolutely not inflections of the same word.
That's OK Albert, I don't mind bluntness at all. If I dish it out I should be able to take it right. And I appreciate your comments.
However I have a different understanding, and I will show you why that is so.
You stated: Methodeia is a noun, methodeuo is a verb, and methodos is a different (though etymologically related) noun. They are absolutely not inflections of the same word.
What is inflection?
Greek An Intensive Course, Hansen and Quin
Each Greek noun can be divided into two parts: a stem, which shows the dictionary meaning of the word, and an ending, which shows the nouns number and case. The various relations a noun can have to the other words of a sentence are shown by changes in the endings. Changing the ending of a word is called inflection, and a language which uses this device is said to be inflected.
The inflection of a noun is called its declension and nouns are said to be declined. The inflection of a verb is called its conjugation, and verbs are said to be conjugated. In Greek, inflection alone can show the relation among the words of a sentence.
As you see both nouns and verbs are simply inflected forms of the same stem word, which give the basic dictionary meaning. Inflection shows the grammtical catigory of the word. Is it a noun, is it a verb, is it a pronoun or adjective or participle. As far as I can asertain the stem of the inflected word methodian is according to Moulton's Anylitical Greek Lexicon, the word methodia meaning to trace, investigate; to handle methodically; to handle cunningly; from methos meta & hodos. artiface, wile Eph. 4:14, 6:11 It's just translated "lie in wait to deceive" in the New Testament.
I mean for the most part the KJV is translated word for word, till we get here and then they take 7 words to translate one basic Greek word. Sounds like they did a little of that Dynamic Equivilence translating here, where they are giving it an interpretation rather than a translation, and covering up with it actually says.
I'm not the one that's saying this word means "method", all the REAL Greek scholars are saying that. Again I would point to the words listed here http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek&lookup=meth&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically
You state:
Secondly, methodeia in koine Greek just does not have the meaning you claim. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
If I am wrong it's because of those who really know koine Greek like Moulton, Liddell, and Scott and all those of the Perseus Project at Tufts Univercity are all in league to deceive us on this one word.
You stated: The English word method derives from methodos in classical Greek, which does have that meaning. But methodeia, which is a different word in a different language (koine, not classical Greek), does not. Sorry, but as you say yourself, "There is not sadder sight in the world than to see a beautiful theory killed by brutal fact".
Yes I know that there have been so called Biblical Christian Greek Scholars who make that statement. But it's simply not true and here's why.
What you call "Classical Greek" is in reality what is called "Attic Greek", the dialect of Athens, as it appears in authors such as Plato. Out of Attic Greek there developed the later Koine or "common dialect" in which the New Testament is written.
Koine or "common Greek" is not a different language from Attic Greek. It is simply a different dialect.
Websters Dic.
dialect, 1 a : a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language <the Doric dialect of ancient Greek>
I don't know how to tell you this but so-called Biblcal Greek Scholars have been trying to dissuade God's people from studying any Attic Greek for a long time. And so in books titled "Learn New Testament Greek", and "Learn Biblical Greek", they make statements telling you that Attic or Classical Greek and New Testament or Koine Greek are "TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES". When they are just a different dialect. An example of that would be the English I might use as compaired to say those who translated the KJV. Or better still the language I might speak and write in to the language a professor of English might speak and write in.
At any one time in any language there are various dialects, differeing somewhat in pronunciation, vcabulary, and grammar, but all mutually comprehensible. (Greek an Intensive Course)
It really irritated me when I discoverd that many of these so called New Testament Greek Scholars made false statements just to keep people away from finding out what some of the words they used in translating the New Testament really meant, to those it was written to. Just to cover up things they don't want you to know. But they'll sure go back and quote those ancient sources if it agrees with what they are trying to get you to think.
You stated:Let me ask you a question. You've shown in your posts that you don't understand even the basics of Greek grammar and inflection. So what gives you the right to make statements about the meaning of words in a language that you don't understand, just because you have an interlinear? Especially since you are mocking the learning of people who DO know the language?
I'm not mocking the learning of ALL those who know the language, just those who twist the facts in order to draw you after them and keep the truth away from you.
I'm not saying anything that the greatest experts on the subject don't say and they say it means "method". Now it's not my fault that the King James translators desided to translate "method" into "lie in wait to deceive", just because the ecclesiatical authorities of the time, did not allow them to use the real word "method", since it was to close to what they aproved of applying on the scriptures. And since the common joe might be reading the scriptures, you didn't want them to get any ideas about your "method" of studying and preaching the Word.
Again, I'm not saying anything that the greatest experts on the subject don't say and they say it means "method", be it verb or noun. It only winds up meaning something else in the NEW LANGUAGE called "New Testament" Greek. You see you have Attic Greek, Koine Greek and then a little thing called "New Testament Greek". New Testament Greek is where those who teach the New Testament take a word like "methodeian" and slap and idiom on it, and then use 7 words to translated it, just to cover up what it REALLY means.
I don't think Paul sat down 2000 years ago and said, "Gee, I think I'll write a letter to the Ephesians and use "New Testament" Greek." And then he put a meaning on some words that no one in Ephesus could understand, since many of them were actually trained in Attic Greek, though they used Koine Greek in general. If the word meant what some have led many to believe it meant, then Paul would have had to make up his own special dictionary, just so the Ephesians would understand what in the world he was talking about.
Now that the "methods" of the philosophers were tricks applied to written documents, designed to lead you away from what they actually said is fact. But to the Gentiles at the time, they were simply "methods" of study. The fact that these "methods" were in fact "tricks" meant to deceive is how eventually long after Paul was dead, the word changed meaning to be what you think it is. However the understanding of just HOW you were deceived to begin with was dropped off of it, and "method" was left out. Meanwhile all the great learned men of the Church were actually applying the very method, the very tricks the Ephesians were warned about to begin with. WOW, how sneaky is that!
Again, I am just saying what the real experts say, of which some can be found at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek&lookup=meth&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically
You scroll down to the m's and click on the blue letters and the definitions come up from very well known real Greek scholars, who for the most part were not trying to prove some denominational doctrine.
I'm sorry but I didn't like it when I found out I'd been lied to any more than you will.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/17/2004 9:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Hobbes,
You stated: Yes - I might quibble with some details but I basically agree - and so - has the Bible that we use been corrupted? If not, how can that be verified? If one were to believe what you have written above, it would seem to me that there is a high degree of probability that it has been corrupted, yes? Interpolated passages, unauthentic books (2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, etc). What say ye?
Well, I'm not right about everything, and I know I mess up. Has the Bible been corrupted? I don't believe that the documets themselves have been corrupted as much as translation here and there. Except when it comes to many of the New translations, they go way out into an interpretation.
As far as unauthentic books such as 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John et. I think that those who are deceived are the ones trying to tell you those books are not authentic. The reason for this is that those books really reveal a LOT about the very deception we are speaking of.
It was actually 2 Peter that led me to the understanding of the deceit going on. As well as Jude, 1, 2 and 3rd John. Any time you learn some truths, howbeit even about deception, you are going to be tempted to go way over the other direction.
From what I have learned it's not so much as the book itself has been corrupted, as it is the methods applied to the book that cause the corruption in the minds of men. Theology is able to corrupt the understaning of the mind, without ever actaully touching the book itself. This is how it was designed. IF you can't get rid of the actual book, then you control how men look at and read the book.
When theology was invented by Socrates, his aim was at writers like Homer. Homer was considdered a prophet to the Greeks, and his writings were considdered as holy scripture. Socrates hated Homer and what Homer said about the gods. But for Socrates to just come out and say, "Hey Homer was a liar", would have gotten him stoned immediately.
Therefore he came up with a way to change what people believed by the manner the METHOD in which Homer was taught. And in one generation through teaching the young, he was able to influence the young and change what people believed about Homer's writings. But he never had to actually touch the books themselves.
To show how well his methods work, we take ourselves from the time of Socrates, when everyone believed what Homer wrote to be the truth, up to the 1800,s. At this time in all of acidemia all the scholars and teachers et. believe and teach a certain thing called MYTHology. Namely that anything Homer or those like him wrote is simply MYTH.
However there was this littel boy in Germany, who's father a pastor use to read him the Illiad and the Oddesy at bed time. The little boy said that when he grew up, he was going to go and dig up Troy. Of course everyone laughed at that and didn't take it serriously. However the little boy grew into a man, and never gave up his singular goal which was to dig up Troy. Now the big shot scholars just laughed at him, because everyone knew there was NO SUCH THING. Troy was just a figment of the imagination of Homer and the Illiad and the Odessey were just fables.
Well Henrich Scheilman (I don't think I'm spelling that right, but anyway) Henrich was not educated in the great schools of the day, he taught himself quite a few languages and worked as a clerk, eventually circumstances led to him becomming a rich and wealthy self made man. And then at that time he finally leaned to read and speak Ancient Greek, the dialect of Homer. He had saved learning it till he was rich enough to go on the adventure of his life time and dig up Troy.
Well guess what? He went right to where Homer said Troy was and dug it up. All the great scholars had EGG on their faces. And even today you don't hear much about Henrich because it really aggrivates the highly educated to think that a self educated man, a self made man, who went from being poor to wealthy because of his own smarts and talents, was the one to simply believe something that some guy wrote thousands of years ago, and then had the audacity to just go dig it up.
Here it was right under their noses the whole time. They thought it was MYTH. And why did they think it was myth? Becasue that is exactly what Socrates set out to make people believe though the usage of his teaching methods about 2200 years previous. Only grudgingly will acedemics even mention the one who found the Troy they all thought was myth.
To change the bible into something other than what it originally was, you don't have to add or take out books, you simply have to apply the methods of teaching that Socrates came up with. God made sure that we would always have a wittness, and that wittness is the written word of God. A man by normal means can if left to himself come to a pretty accurate understanding of it. But when that man is led to the higher rehlms of education, then he's taught a "system" of how he should read it. That system keeps him in the hermeneuticl circle of ever learning and never able to then come to a knowledge of the truth.
Now a few break out of that system and see some truth, but they will never be allowed a voice, because that is part of the system also. You basically have to teach what they programmed you to teach and what they themselves accept or you are out of a job. Therefore men stay locked in these systems, not just becasue they are deceived, but because their livlihood is at steak.
Do you think if what I have been saying is true, that men will be overjoyed at it? Absolutely not, because it threatens their very existence and if true and accepted, then must be followed. Hence this kind of thing can turn a mans life completely upside down. Men loose all their connections, their degrees mean nothing, most Churches have you get a degree in order to get ordained, so they loose their ordination and place in that church. For me it was hard enough to accept and I'm a NOBODY. Do you think that those who are SOMEBODY would be overjoyed at all this.
Eventually I'll probably get kicked out of here for even saying this stuff. And then I'll just be back where I was, standing on what I am convinced of regardless of weather or not anyone else in the world believes it's true. I'm pretty much there anyway.
In christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/17/2004 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
I’m going to stay away from this Greek controversy that’s going on. I’m not knowledgeable enough to jump in with any confidence. Keep in mind that I have come to much the same conclusion as you without much knowledge of Greek. There are other ways to make this argument. You said,
“As far as unauthentic books such as 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John etc. I think that those who are deceived are the ones trying to tell you those books are not authentic."
Steer me towards some documentation please. In my opinion the arguments against those books actually being written by Peter and John are good enough to be worthy of serious consideration if not acceptance.
"The reason for this is that those books really reveal a LOT about the very deception we are speaking of.”
So? Just because a book is NOT authentic doesn’t mean it’s not true. Except of course for the small matter of it’s authorship.
You said: “It was actually 2 Peter that led me to the understanding of the deceit going on. As well as Jude, 1, 2 and 3rd John. Any time you learn some truths, howbeit even about deception, you are going to be tempted to go way over the other direction.”
You learned some truths from the Shepard of Hermas, right? So what makes the Shepard of Hermas different from 2 Peter? Why don’t you consider the Shepard of Hermas as scripture? Actually, the Shepard of Hermas WAS considered scripture as far as a majority of early Christians were concerned. It is even now a part of the Ethiopian Church canon. Irenaeus called the Shepherd of Hermas “Scripture” and gave it equal stature with Malachi.
I’m questioning your presupposition that the Protestant Canon and only the Protestant Canon is “scripture”. Again, what is scripture, and how do we know? I would like for you to consider the question that the same process that corrupted the gospel via Greek philosophical thought might have also corrupted the "scriptural" documents. If you deny that, then please give me your reasons why. So far all I've gotten from you is, "I've gotten lots of good stuff from 2 Peter - so it must be authentic." But you said the same thing about the Shepard of Hermas.
- Hobbes
PS – I most certainly hope that you don’t get banned from this board. Controversy like this is what a board like this should be all about. I, for one, have enjoyed you. Thanks for taking the time. You stated in your profile that God was working on "character development" in your life. I would suggest that one of the tools for that is a situation such as this. My advice to you, for what it's worth (I know you didn’t ask for it but I’m giving it anyway  ), is to deal with arguments against you in a detached manner, refrain from sarcasm, hostility and the like. When an opponent attacks you in a heated manner, or employs sarcasm against you, resist the temptation to respond in kind. Respond to the content of the argument, not the tone. I have learned this in my own life – the hard way. I’ll shut up now!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/18/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | |
Dear Albert,
When I said: As you see both nouns and verbs are simply inflected forms of the same stem word, which give the basic dictionary meaning.
I did not mean, “that the noun is the same word as the verb”. like they are ALL just interchangeable and infection shows weather a stem word to which infleciton is added is a verb or a noun. But I can see how you took me to say that. What I should have said to make myself more clear was;
As you see both nouns and verbs have inflected forms of their individual stem words.
I did not mean that say agapao was just nothing until you added infection which could make it into a verb, noun, pronoun et.
“Some” words cross the line, not all, but some.
Greek an In. Course, Hansen and Quinn pg. 382
The noun archon, archontos, o, “ruler; archon,” should be distinguished from the related noun arche, arches, e, “beginning; rule, empire, “ and the related VERB archo, one of whose meaning is “rule.”
On this case they both have the same stem, yet one is a noun and the other a verb. And the ending or inflection tells us which kind of noun or verb it is. A Greek knew that “archo” meant to rule and was a verb, and he knew that archon was the noun who was doing the ruling.
Thinking of an example of how this kind of thing develops in a alanguage, it’s like Jim called Jimmy by his friends is a thief, who breaks into houses by a method of placing a screwdriver in the locks and opening the door. He’s so famous for this, that his method becomes known as “jimmying”, also a noun but in application a verb, “I jimmied the lock. He was a proper noun that turned into a verb.
I don’t know if that’s how we got the word jimmy, but it’s an example of how many words were developed and used. And even there in English we see some inflection.
WOW, I thought I would just look up that word in the dictionary to see if I even spelled it right and I can’t believe how good my guess was.
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural jimmies
Etymology: from the name Jimmy
: a short crowbar ?
: 2jimmy
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): jim·mied; jim·my·ing
: to force open with or as if with a jimmy <the burglar jimmied a window>
Well that cracks me up. .
I did not misunderstand the quote of Hansen and Quin I just did not explain myself to you clearly.
You have caused me to search out some more sources, just to make sure of what I think I’m seeing. That is always a good thing. Therefore I thought I would go to Blueletterbible and see what they had.
So would you please take a look at this?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1084906387-5604.html#14
Click on the number that will take you to the meaning of the word which is:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1084906608-2444.html
If you will look at the Greek Interlinear of that first page and scroll down to the word methodeian, you will see that it’s NOT even translated “crafitness or craft” or any such similar word, to begin with. It’s translated LIE IN WAIT.
I think you need to take an exact look at what is translated what here.
The KJV states:
Eph 4:14....carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
You are looking (and obviously so are some others, even experts) at that word “craftiness” and automatically thinking that it is our word “methodian”, but it’s NOT. Our word comes after that, and this word we are looking at translated “craftiness” is the Greek word “panourgia”, while “methodeian” is translated “lie in wait”.
Our word methodian is translated “lie in wait”. Look at the exact Greek words with the King James translation instead of the word for word Interlinear translation.
(my transliteration may be a bit off, since I’m typing from the Greek letters.)
peripheromenoi........panti...............anemo...tes......didaskalias....en.... te
and carried about.....with every.......wind......of ......doctrine........by.....the
kubeia......ton anthropon,..............en panourgia
sleight...........of men................and cunning craftiness
pros.............ten.......methodeian.......tes........planes
whereby......they......lie in wait..........to........deceive.
They did not translate methodeian as “craft, crafty, craftiness, wiles, or wiliness. They did not even translate it deceive, they translated it “lie in wait”. But so far I have at least 3 different scholars making the same mistake of thinking they translated it “craftiness”, because they are somehow mistaking the translation of the word “panourgia”, craftiness, as the English translation of the word “methodeian”. I have Bulliinger doing it, and the LSJ and Middell Lydell all doing that.
On the other hand I have the Interlinear at Blue letter Bible showing it’s “lie in wait”, I have Strong saying it means method, and I have two actual KJV Interlinears printed by Zondervan, with the translations by different scholars, Thomas Newberry and the other
George Ricker Berry they both give the literal word translation as “systematizing”. And Moulton’s Anilitical Greek Lexicon saying “methodeian” means “method”.
Before we ever got so into this, where did you get your definition from, I would really like to know.
Moulton lists this word as being a noun in the accusative case, singular, and that it’s definition is from “methodea”, which he says means, to trace, investigate; to handle methodically; to handle cunningly; from methodos. But that it is “translated” artiface and wile in Eph 4:14 and 6:11. Now that’s interesting since the word “artiface” is not what the KJV says, it says “lie in wait”. So I guess he missed it to.
I myself did not realize that the actual translation was “lie in wait” until we got into this discussion. That drove me to look at my Interlinear more closely and actually type out the King James Translation underneath the corresponding Greek words. That is when I realized that “lie in wait” was how they translated the word “methodeian”. I like you thought they translated the word “craftiness”,( as did obviously quite a few others.) although I was convinced the word meant system or method primarily because of the manner in which two different interlinear translations translated it “systematize”.
I knew that you would go to the sight I directed you to and see where methodia seems to be saying that it means 1. craft, wiliness. However it took me some time to learn how to read those lexicons. And in your reply you did not state everything it said there. You left out one very important aspect and that was “THE REFERENCE”. Word for word that page states:
method-eia or method-ia he, craft, wiliness, Ep.Eph. 4:14: pl, m tou diabolou ib 6:11
This is not telling you what the word means, it is telling you HOW IT WAS TRANSLATED IN CERTAIN DOCUMENTS by referring you to Eph. 4:14 and 6:11. However again, they were wrong in using the word “craft”, since we know it‘s tranlslated “lie in wait“..
If you go back to the main page from which you clicked on to this page you will see in black letters a word in the second box, that give the basic meaning of the word. That word is “method”. You also did not click on the other reference in the same box. You clicked on LSJ. If you click on the other reference you get Middel Liddell from the same box, same word you get:
methodeia craft, wiliness, NTest. [from methodeuo]
This word comes from the word methodeuo. They are saying it is ONLY TRANSLATED in the New Testament as craft in Eph. 4:14 and wiliness in Eph. 6:11. Then if you click on “methodeuo”, you find that it comes from “methodos” meaning method.
I want to thank you for getting into this discussion with me, and not giving up on me.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/18/2004 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes,
Thank you very much for your advice, it was well accepted, and very true.
First of all I guess I would have to know who’s telling you these things, and who’s making the argument. Yes you made some very good points, but all I can really say is that I have read and studied those books so much that I just know the authors are genuine.
Why is it that they want to keep 1st John and not 2nd and 3rd John? Why is it that they want to keep 1st Peter and not 2nd Peter? And what’s their problem with Hebrews? I can read every single word of these books from start to finish, fit them in perfectly with every other book in the bible and not have one contradiction. Then I could teach each on in total context, not just immediate context but the context of the entire bible. I know them that well. If there was something that unauthentic about them I’d hope I’d notice it. If a stranger possessed the body of my mother, and for the most part even spoke like here and said a lot of the same things, I start to notice something was wrong, simply because it would in fact be another person. But I am willing to look at your sources.
The documentation is within the books themselves and the personal study of them. But again I would really like to know who’s writing this stuff, as well as their educational and religious background because that will tell you a lot about their motive.
I believe that the Shepard of Hermas could have been a real event that happened to a real believer, who then wrote it down. I also believe in that it was a real event that it was directed to happen to that particular man by the Lord. However that dose not make it scripture. As Peter stated in Acts 2, “your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit and they shall prophesy. BUT that dose not make their visions, their dreams or their prophesy scripture, even if it’s written down.
Scripture was the witness of specific individuals chosen by God to write what they wrote, that with a person understanding and believing it, could then receive the holy spirit in order to have those visions, dream those dreams and prophecy. And ultimately more than anything for the following.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
You said it all came from one mind, and so far in over 20 years of study I have not found anything that seemed totally unacceptable to that one mind. But these are just my opinions, I cannot convince you, it’s something that you and God will have to work out in the end. However I am willing to discuss it and give my opinions more so after I read some of the sources you can give me.
In the love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/18/2004 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Albert,
Good questions all, and there are no pat answers. When it comes to the inerrancy or errancy of the Biblical documents nothing is provable. An inerrantist would say that the errors are only apparent, that they only APPEAR to be errors because we do not have all the facts. In sympathy to that argument I will say that I am very sensitive to the limitations of logic and reason and so I acknowledge that we lack ALL the facts and therefore our “reasonable” conclusions might be completely wrong. How many times has it happened that you arrived at an airtight, completely supportable conclusion based on all the facts at hand, and then one, single, previously unknown fact comes to light and blows your formerly airtight, reasonable conclusion out of the water? Having said that, I think that there are errors in the Bible. E.g. Mat. 27:9 mistakenly cites Jeremiah for Zechariah. Surely, if God was infallibly superintending the writing of Mathew…??????
So, when we talk about this subject, in my opinion, there are no provable answers, only opinions. Some opinions might be more informed than others, but that’s all they are – opinions. People hold opinions for different reasons, but, as I said before, I think a lot of it has to do with personality type and personal issues. So what you are going to get from me is my opinion - more or less informed than yours I don’t know.
You said, “The question of the canon is an important one, and I'm not convinced that some of the books you mention should be in there, or even that the concept of a canon makes much sense.”
Response: Bravo, Albert! To be blunt, I don’t believe in the concept of “canon” AT ALL. I’m defining “canon” as a closed set of books or writings that have been instituted and preserved by God Himself. The study of how the “canon” came to us is too complex to get into here. I will only say that, in reality, there is NO universally recognized canon. There are different Christian canons in existence today (Protestant, Catholic, Eastern, Ethiopian) and disagreement even within sects about what is canonical. E.g. Martin Luther explicitly REJECTED James and Revelation as scripture, yet Protestants today accept them. Martin Luther “HATED” the book of Esther. The Old Testament canon was not closed BY THE JEWS themselves until around 90 AD. There was all kinds of controversy about Ezekiel as well as others. By and large, the early Christians rejected the Jewish definition and used the Septuagint. BTW - Martin Luther ACCEPTED the Jewish definition, and that's what we have in our Protestant Bibles today. If you study the ante Nicene fathers, you will find as many positions on what constitutes “scripture” as there are Fathers! And, I might add, most of the fathers accepted as scripture and quoted AS AUTHORITATIVE books that Evangelicals today do not accept. The WHOLE thing is a big mess!
On a different but related subject, I also question whether the right side won at the council of Nicea. The doctrinal issues played out there had a great effect on what became canonical and what did not. Greek philosophical and Platonic thought is very documentable to greater or lesser degrees in most of the ante Nicene fathers and I suspect that Larris would agree with me that the Greek way of thinking triumphed at Nicea. So what we have is a massive begging of the question. In order for a book to be considered scripture, it had to espouse the right doctrine, which just happens to be derived from scripture.
Albert: Do you agree with me that two truths will not contradict each other?
Response: Yeah – in a perfect world! I’d like to think so but it’s not that simple because we don’t have all the facts. We also have the issue of each person’s degree and kind of “messed-upped-ness” and what “truth” is required to solve it – some people would say, “to compensate for it” – but I happen to believe that people can truly get “fixed” by truth and rightly relating to God. “Redeemed” is a good word in this context. So, because of these qualifications, namely 1) we don’t have all the facts and 2) the differences in people’s pathologies – It might very well appear that two contradictory “truths” exist. Or rather, what’s true for one person is not true for another. I think this idea can be “Biblically” supported, e.g. “Let no man condemn himself for what he approves” or “One man considers one day as different from another, another man considers all days alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.”
Albert: If so, doesn't it follow that if the analogy of faith is wrong, and the books of the New Testament may contradict each other, then that means that these books contain errors. If so, what criteria do you use to decide which bits are errors and which bits aren't?
Response: I see no intellectually satisfying answer to this question other than trust in God and the Spirit of Truth. My whole life is based on trust in God, isn’t yours? Or do you trust in the Bible? Or do you trust in your intellect to arrive at truth? In what have you placed your trust? In what or in whom is your sense of well being rooted? Does the conclusion that there are errors in the Bible shake you? If so, perhaps your trust has been placed in the wrong thing. I’m not assuming anything about you Albert, I think you’re somewhat of an independent thinker just by the questions you’re asking and the observations you’ve made - my questions are rhetorical.
Albert: you insist on reading the text in context in terms of the author's intended meaning.
Response: Yes – simply because I’m interested in what the author thought. That’s because I am not Jesus or an apostle or a prophet. The apostles are in kind of a class by themselves, wouldn’t you say? So I want to understand what they wrote in the same way that they understood it. I question whether that’s really possible but still I try.
The errancy or inerrancy is a different issue than the issue of what the author’s intent was. The author might be wrong but I still want to know what he thought.
Albert: The problem I have is, that this isn't the way that Jesus or the apostles read the Old Testament. They consistently interpreted the Old Testament in very odd ways that you could not possibly get from a straightforward reading…The more I have studied the way Paul and the other NT writers use the OT, the more it seems to me that they rarely interpret it in context in its obvious meaning. So why should we read the text like that, if Jesus and his followers didn't?
Response: I have three possible responses to this:
1) We’re not Jesus and we’re not apostles. As far as we know, Jesus didn’t write anything down. Paul claimed to have “the mind of Christ.” Are you willing to say the same for yourself? If not, can you be trusted to interpret scripture in very odd ways that no one would get from a straightforward reading? No? Me neither! Well, then, where are we? We are at the place where we can accept the apostle’s specific “odd” interpretations and the apostle’s memories of Jesus’ “odd” interpretations and no others. All other interpretations must be straightforward, taking the immediate context into account. No “odd” interpretation is verifiable, since Jesus is gone and the apostles are dead.
2) I think that many times we view the NT authors as interpreting the OT texts in “odd ways” because we DON’T GET WHAT THE NT AUTHORS ARE SAYING. If we did, their use of the OT would not be odd. It would make perfect sense. This happened to me on Romans 9-11. I had always thought that Paul was quoting the OT out of context. He wasn’t. My understanding of what Paul is saying was wrong. When that got straightened out I discovered that the immediate context of EVERY SINGLE OT text that he quoted is completely applicable to what he is saying in Romans 9-11. Perhaps all the other “odd” interpretations are the same. What is “odd” is me!
3) They interpreted the OT that way BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT GREEKS! And whether you believe it or not, like it or not, or are aware of it or not, WE THINK LIKE GREEKS! We are the intellectual children of Plato and Aristotle. “All western philosophy [and I would add theology] is a footnote to Plato.” That’s a big reason that we have the problems that we do with the Biblical texts. We are overly literal; we do not REALLY find and appreciate Truth in allegory and symbolism. The truth has to be propositional or we devalue it.
Paul used the patriarchal narratives allegorically – he explicitly says that that is what he’s doing. So? So maybe WE shouldn’t take things so literally, is that what you’re saying? If so, I generally agree. But are you willing to live with the intellectual implications of this way of thinking?
For instance, Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for his too-literal interpretation of Jesus’ “you must be born again” statement. All we’ve done is insert the word “spiritually” - as in “you must be spiritually born again” – making Jesus say something He did NOT say - and continued merrily on our literal way, all the while thanking God that WE’RE not like Nicodemus, WE know what Jesus meant – He literally meant born again ---spiritually.
Are you willing to give up your literalistic concept of what exactly being “born again” is? That it’s a metaphor, not for a literal, “spiritual” birth, but for something else (we’ll talk about what that might be some other time). That maybe Jesus, and the Apostles, did not think about it the same way that we’ve been taught? Because, my dear Albert (“Albert” sounds English too ), that’s where your questions and your line of reasoning leads. EVERYTHING you’ve learned and been taught will have to be reexamined in light of a non-Greek way of thinking that deemphasizes propositional truth and elevates metaphor and the symbolic. This line of thought also will wind up with you agreeing with Larris (and myself) that institutional Christianity, and the various systematic theologies emanating from it, became corrupted VERY early on. Pre-Nicea even.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/18/2004 7:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
Larris: First of all I guess I would have to know who’s telling you these things, and who’s making the argument… I am willing to look at your sources.
Response: We are quickly getting into something that I don’t have time for. The history of the Bible is extremely complex. But you could start with Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Clarendon, 1987)
To copy and paste the quantity of the research and what I’ve written on this subject would be an abuse of this board. I will only say this:
The authenticity of certain books of the New Testament was already in question in antiquity. Particularly disputed were Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. The authorship of these seven books are indeed the ones questioned by Origen, about 200 CE. Hebrews is an anonymous book, and not really an epistle at all. Origen had some theories about it being written by a disciple of Paul, but concluded, "God only knows," who wrote it.
By 327 AD we have Eusebius – who is an important figure when it comes to the formation of the NT canon – considering the Gospel of Peter i.e. The Preaching of Peter, that Clement of Alexandria considered to be scripture, to be “altogether absurd and impious.” He relegates The Apocalypse of Peter and The Shepard of Hermas to the category, “spurious” even though both Clement and Irenaeus both considered The Apocalypse of Peter to be scripture and The Shepard of Hermas is quoted and called scripture by Irenaeus. The Epistle of Barnabas also garners a “spurious” rating. Both the Shepard of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas are included in the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from roughly the same time frame. Jerome considered the Epistle of Barnabas to be authentic, and he considered Hermas to be authentic. What of The Didache, which was considered scripture by Clement and Origen? – “spurious”. John’s Revelation is either “recognized” or “spurious” – apparently Eusebius can’t decide – James, Jude, II Peter and II and III John are “disputed” and he acknowledges that the authorship is in doubt.
Larris: I can read every single word of these books from start to finish, fit them in perfectly with every other book in the bible and not have one contradiction. Then I could teach each one in total context, not just immediate context but the context of the entire bible. I know them that well.
Response: How systematic and methodical of you!
Larris: The documentation is within the books themselves and the personal study of them.
Response: So I’m supposed to believe a book that says it’s the inerrant Word of God just because it says so? Doesn’t the Tibetan Book of the Dead say the same thing? Yes, it does. Why not believe that just because it says so? And how is personal study “documentation”? By the way, I don’t believe the Bible says ANYWHERE that ALL these 66 books are the inerrant word of God. Certain books make that claim about themselves but no internal claim is made for the whole.
Larris: I believe that the Shepard of Hermas could have been a real event that happened to a real believer, who then wrote it down. I also believe in that it was a real event that it was directed to happen to that particular man by the Lord. However that dose not make it scripture. As Peter stated in Acts 2, “your sons and daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit and they shall prophesy. BUT that dose not make their visions, their dreams or their prophesy scripture, even if it’s written down.
Response: I disagree. If God is REALLY speaking, then what He says is inerrant, wouldn’t you agree? If what God REALLY says is written down then THAT is scripture. If the Shepard of Hermas is REALLY God speaking – and I think you are saying that it is – then The Shepard of Hermas is scripture.
Larris: You said it all came from one mind…
Response: No, I didn’t. I said, “IF it came from one mind, then the ‘system’ will take care of itself.”
Please don't think I'm getting down on you here, there is an element of devil-advocating going on in my responses to you. In fact, I believe that what constitutes "scripture" is somewhat of a relative thing, to be decided by each individual. This is in fact what you are doing. I have a problem, however, when you say, "MY canon is the ONLY canon." If your reasons for your canon are based on the books saying that about themselves and your personal study of them - and that's what you've said - then you have no room to rationally or intellectually argue that what you believe to be the canon should be universally applied. I really hate to agree with John Calvin on anything, but when he's right, he's right!
But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils … They allege an old catalogue, which they call the Canon, and say that it originated in a decision of the Church. But I again ask, ‘In what council was that Canon published?’ Here they must be dumb. Besides, I wish to know what they believe the Canon to be. For I see that the ancients are little agreed with regard to it. - John Calvin
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/18/2004 9:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Albert,
You probably do know Greek far better than I. But where I believe you are not understanding what I am trying to say, is along the lines of how and why words come to mean what they mean. Also there is a lot more to knowing a language than just the alphebet and all the grammatical cattigories. It also takes knowing a good history of the people and how they lived, how they thought. While also realizing that they were in essence no different from ourselves. In that case they could all speak Greek and understand it even without knowing all the gramatical intricacies of what they were saying.
Though you presented your argument and all the grammer points, you did not attack the question concerning WHY in two different interlinears to the KJV, they translated the word "systematize".
But OK, lets say that it means "lie in wait" or that it means "tricks or trickery" or that it means craft or craftiness, or that it means artiface or wiles.
Let's think about those words for a moment. The verse in question deals with men who are out to deceive us away from the truth in Christ. We are told that it's possible to be blown around with every wind of doctrine by the slight of men in cunning craftiness where by they lie in wait to deceive. So OK, now I would ask you the following questions.
1. If they are going to lie in wait to deceive us then don't you think there must be some plan, some "method" for HOW they will do this.
2. If they "lie in wait" WHERE do they lie in wait for us?
3. If they do tricks on us, what are those tricks?
4. If they are crafty and use craftiness on us, HOW are they crafy, HOW do they use craftiness?
5. If they have a wile or an artiface with which they deceive what is it?
In other words WHAT METHOD do the use to deceive?
To steal, to lie, to cheat, to defraud, to deceive someone in ANY area always takes a fairly sophisticated METHOD. The harder the job, the more sophisticated and intricate the METHOD has to be.
If you remember one of the definitions on the sources we have looked at along with craft was "a method of collecting taxes". If you remember tax collecters, then as now were not very well thought of. For the reason that back in the time of Jesus they used devious methods to collect taxes so that they could skim some off for themselves. Hence they were in fact for the most part theives.
Etymology tells us why words came to mean what they mean from telling us where they originated, and then we follow them as they developed and they tell a story. And they tell a story about regular people, how and why they came to use certain words as they do. You have not asked the question of why methodos with meant method wound up being craft, crafiness, lie in wait, or what ever in the word "methodeian". And you've already admitted that methodeian goes back to that word.
In this case those who lie in wait to deceive do it by methodos. And a very advanced methodos it has to be. It has to be seductive, alluring and seem harmless. It has to look to us to be profitable and benificial. And the more we know of God's Word, the more it has to mimic what we might do to learn God's Word.
In the end, regardless of weather or not we ever agree in what this word means, and I think we are both right, except for the fact that you might not realize just how methodical one has to be to deceive someone. And that this methodology is a form of knowledge and that this knowledge can be learned. But in the end regardless of this one verse. The fact is that Paul warned against Greek Philosophy and all Christian Theology can be traced directly back to Greek Philosophy.
They even name their system of Hermeneutics after the pagan Greek god Hermes, who was the Egyption god Thoth, and the Babylonian god of the moon Nebo. Interesting that Hermes from which Hermeneutics, gets its name was the god of THEIVERY and TRICKERY, while as the Egyptian god Thoth he was the god of reading and writing and the INTERPRETER of the gods, while as the god Nebo he was the Babylonian god of wisdom, science, speech, and authority. And as the Roman god Mercury he took on ALL these atributes along with being the god of merchants.
So what do we have here? We have Christians teaching us the Word of God who name their interpretation after a pagan Greek, Egyptian, Babylonian, Roman god who's attibutes were lieing, stealing, and using wisdom, science, speach and authority to do it. Hence then as the god of merchants, making merchandise of you.
It seems that if one knows anything abouth the Bible, if one has any spiritual savy at all, that once one at least hears these facts, they should be prompted to serriously check them out. And that once they are aware of the truth of it, they should begin to think that something is terribly, terribly WRONG with this picture.
Let alone the fact that Paul being a man of God, speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit warned those in his day to BEWARE lest any man spoil them (steal them away from, and carry them off as prey) though PHILOSOPHY. Yet Christans BRAG about all their great teachers and all the Ph.Ds they have and are thrilled by all the philosophy and theology they use on the scriptures. And when you point out where all this stuff comes from, they insist upon turning a blind eye.
You are right methodeian dose mean TRICKS, however the TRICKS are all wrapped up in one bag called "Theological Hermeneutics", a.k.a "Systematic Theology".
If I was only basing my conclusions on this one word, in one verse, it would be pretty flimsy. But there are lots of verses pointing directly to Greek Philosophy and lot's of historical facts showing the Christianity adopted the Theology right out of Greek Philosophy. So even if Eph. 4:14 wasn't there it would not change all the other evidence.
But this has been good for me, so as to get a greater understanding of both the verse and the word, so as to be able to articulate myself more clearly, and I have quite thoroughly injoyed the discusion. In
I would like to also say, that I really appreciate the tone you've taken with me, that even in disagreeing with my conclusions, though being blunt, you have not made me feel at all unsulted or stupid. I hope I have maintained the same integrity.
In the Love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/19/2004 5:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not aware of another name that Metzger writes under. Perhaps you know something I don't?
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/19/2004 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Hobbes, and Albert this pertains to you also even though it's primarily written to Hobbes.
As you remember I stated that I had studied this subject and would have to brush up. But when you brought up Metzger’s name it rang a bell. I went and searched though my books and finally found one he’s written, “The Text of the New Testament, It’s transmission, corruption and restoration. I had read and studied this word and a few others I found in the library about seven years ago.
But here’s something you should know about Bruce Metzger. He writes under at least 2 different names which are Bruce Manning Metzger, and Dr. James H. Charlesworth, his real name is George L. Collord. And he writes and edits books towards two distinctly different groups.
1. As Bruce Metzger he writes to those who are either new in the scriptures or those who hold to the KJV and textus recptus as being authentic and authoritative. And in so doig endeavors to convince them it's not. Under Metzger he also writes along more concervitive lines.
2 As Dr. James Charlesworth he can be involved in organizations that promote eccumenicalism and Gnosticism. Express his more liberal and what are his real views, which those of no. 1 would not accept.
In other words he can present one face to one crowd as Bruce Metzger and his real face as he is to the other Gnostic Eccumenical Crowd as Dr. James Charlesworth. He is really a liberal theologian but he plays to the conservitive crowd.
For example in his interview conducted by Planet News on the book of Revelation he clearly give an interpretation that true conservative fundamental Christians and literalist interprers in general do not hold to and would be offended at. When asked about the meaning of the apocolypse.
Dr. James Charlesworth (Bruce Metzger) states:
You have [David] Koresh who was building not on his own imagination, but on over 150 years of exegesis (meaning conservitive Protestant Doctrine) of the apocalypse of John, going back to the Shakers and going back to the Millerites and coming through the 19th century to the present. He was claiming that he was the one anointed by God to explain the meaning of Revelation. That is, he felt Revelation was written for the 1990s. Now this is the great danger. What was Revelation written for? In the minds of the critical scholars (meaning just scholars of his theory) teaching in Roman Catholic institutions around the world, Protestant institutions around the world, and when it's mentioned in the Jewish academies, the emphasis is quite different. What did this author intend to say and to whom? And the answer is around the world unanimous, whether it's Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish, the author is writing to a community at the end of the first century, and he's trying to give them meaning for their lives.
This interview can be found at http://www.theology.edu/revelation/revappen.htm
As I stated in a pervious post of mine this is simply the Preterist School of Interpretation developed in late 16th century by the Jesuit Alcazar. Which endeavors to declare that the events of the book of Revelation PREVIOUSLY took place. Hence the aim is clear, and the deceit is obvious that of endeavoring to relieve the Roman Catholic Church of the stigma of being called the “Harlot Church” and the Pope from being called the “Antichrist”.
However it takes on an extended meaning since in this day many fundamentalist have taken on the belief that the Harlot Church is both a mixture of Protestant and Catholic Churches joined together in ecumenical unity. Therefore it would be no wonder that these groups would join forces and endeavor to relive themselves of the stigma of being The Harlot church, by using the same Preterist method of Interpretation used 500 years ago for the same purpose.
It’s interesting that in the interview and in the introduction to who is being interviewed the name “Bruce Metzger“ by which most conservative fundamental literal Bible believers might come to know him, is not mentioned. As Bruce Metzger that is the target he is aiming at, therefore when he expounds upon his liberal and truly anti Biblical views he must present the face of James Charlesworth.
What is extremely false and truly dangerous, is how he flat out states that anyone who has a literal view of the book of Revelation is in danger of becoming another David Koresh. Hence he is attempting to squelch the liberty and freedom of others who hold opposing views, by false accusation. He might as well say anyone who holds an opposing view from his is like Hitler and in danger or becoming another Hitler. It has the same basic effect.
And it's just not true that weather Roman Catholic, Protestant or Jewish every one of those institutions holds the same unanimous view. Another thing is, since when do you ask Jewish institutions their opinion on the book of Revelation, which is in a New Testament they don’t believe in to begin with? Naturally they will agree with any method of Textual Criticism or Interpretation that cuts it out, lessens it‘s authority or gives it another interpretation all together that has no bearing on them?
And here’s another thing about Bruce Metzger, a.k.a George L. Collord, a.k.a. Dr. James Charlesworth, he’s a prominent member of the American Interfaith Institute, which is a member of the International Interfaith Movement, of which also is the Islamic Royal Institute of Inter-faith Studies. In fact you will find a “Inter-faith” institute among every religion all working toward the same goal, the combining of beliefs into non contradictiory religion and even ordaining their own ministers. Therefore an interfaith minister could be from any religion, since the goal is to combine all religions. All for world peace you know.
http://www.interfaith-scholars.org/scholars.htm
“For over 21 years, A.I.I. has engaged prominent Catholic and Protestant scholars (and Buddest and Islamic, and Hindu et. et. but of course they don’t tell you this.) to participate in research, initiate educational programs and author books and reports that will remove the seeds of hatred in the New Testament that are seminal to anti-Semitism. (Sounds good but they just say that to get the Jews in, they could care less about anti-Semitism when it comes right down to it.) This Network represents the world's leading translators, authors and researchers working in the field of biblical studies today. The influential scholars listed here have joined with us in making the world aware that anti-Semitism can only be eliminated through Christian leadership. They are committed to modifying the anti-Judaism in Christian theology.”
NO, what they are committed to is Ecumenicalism and eliminating anything in the scriptures that might get in the way of that. Now on that page under the “C” is his names, well not all of his names as you can see.
James H. Charlesworth
George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language & Literature
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, New Jersey
WHY doesn’t he list his other name “Bruce M. Metzger”? I mean wouldn’t he want everyone to know about all the books he’s written? NO he doesn’t want EVERYone to know, especially those evangelicals and fundamentalist or literalist Christians, who by the way are not anti-Semetic but are anti ecumenical, in that they do not want to crawl into bed with the Catholic Church again, or they do not want to crawl into bed with every other religion, which is the ulimate goal of the ecumenical movement ada Interfath movment. Using many names for the same basic thing is a METHOD or TRICK or deceit.
There are many Christians out there who would reject his books outright if they knew what his REAL beliefs were. Because then many of them would recognize the deceiving purpose behind those books. That is to weaken their faith in the written word of God and draw them into the ecumenical bed, of the desired inter-faith one world religion.
And here we have a biography of James H. Charlesworth with narry a mention of him being Bruce M. Metzger.
James H Charlesworth - George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary.
James H. Charlesworth received an A.B. from Ohio Wesleyan University, a B.D. from Duke Divinity School, a Ph.D. from Duke Graduate School, and an advanced degree from the École Biblique de Jérusalem.
He has been on the faculty of Duke University, the Universität Tübingen, and The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
Since 1984, he has been the George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary.
He has written or edited more than thirty books and 200 articles, including editing of the first comprehensive English language edition of the Pseudepigraphia. Some of his recent books include
· Jesus Within Judaism (Doubleday),
· Jesus' Jewishness (Crossroad),
· What Has Archaeology to Do with Faith (Trinity),
· The Messiah (Fortress),
· Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Doubleday),
· Qumran Questions (Sheffield).
He has been involved in the discovery of more than four thousand biblical and religious manuscripts and has worked on photographing and translating the Qumran scrolls.
He is the editor of BIBAL's Dead Sea Scrolls & Christian Origins Library and the editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton Theological Seminary.
Again so where is Bruce Metzger? Obviously on he would have to say, “Me and Myself were there that day but “I” took a vacation.”
The whole thing just smacks of deceit from beginning to end. Then as Dr. James H. Charlesworth we have a quote like the following.
"Jesus may have inherited from the Essenes [Yahad] their concept of the Holy Spirit.”
James H. Charlesworth, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Historical Jesus" in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (1992), p. 20
There a whole lot of Christians out there, who if they ever read that under the name of Bruce Metzger, wouldn’t give Metzger’s books a second look. Because Metzger’s books are there to lure them in to believing this kind of deceit. Yes let’s study the Essenes and just combine all our doctrines and beliefs and fall right into mysticism. Hence Interfaith ecumenicalism.
Another Quote from the same book to prove my point.
“If so, Jesus and his followers inherited the term 'the sons of light' from the Essenes”.
Well if Jesus and his followers inherited so much from the Essenes, then obviously GOD didn’t teach Jesus anything. Therefore if we really want to know what Jesus taught, let’s study the Essenes. And since what Jesus said was like what the Essenes said, then I'm sure we can find a similar passage in the Koran, or the Bagavad Geeta or the Book of Mormon, or Hitlers Mine Komp, or something Lennon said. I sure if we did far enough we can find that the Inter-faith movement is also a member in good standing with the United Religions Organiztion started by Mechael Gorbechav, the ex president of the USSR.
Anyway more quotes from Dr. James Charlesworth Metzger Collord can be found at the best NEW AGE sight on the web at http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/xenochian.html
And here we go at GNOSTIC BOOKS DOT COM. we find another “special” book of Dr. Charlesworth, Metzger, Collord and what is it?
Authentic Apocryphy by james H. Charlesworth
The Publisher, April 16, 1998
Entertains & informs
in this book, Dr. Charlesworth introduces the reader to stories which many early Chrsitans regarded as Scripture, BUT which are not a part of our modern Bibles. They are fascinating to read and can provide important insights (into how to be a pagan Gnostic, my comment.) the development of Christianity and even the nature of the Gospels (Gnostic, New Age my comment) in the New Testament.
They want to make sure they get those extra books in there, especially those ones that give a gnostic tilt to anything, of which there are many.
James H. Charleswoth has at least FIFTY EIGHT, yes 58 different books with his name on them either as the author, coauthor or editor and all about the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnosticsm, and interfaith ecumenical concepts. Then as Bruce M. Metzger he has SIXTY FIVE, yes 65 listings of different books he’s either written or helped write or edited, for those who don’t go into all that Gnostic stuff YET. And he has more book ideas in the works. My where dose he get all the time? It’s a cinch that most of the works are collaborations and conspiracy of many willing hand the Interfaith Institute. I’m sure this keeps a lot of Jesuits real busy.
Plain and simple, straight forward this man’s one of the very deceivers lying in wait for unsuspecting people to get tagged by his books and led into the idolatry of Gnostisicm and Mysticism, which is really theosophy and neoplatonism and ultimately into eccumenicalism and not just back to Rome, but back to Greece herself. For they are just doing as the Greeks did combining all religions and all gods into one singular religion..
It makes me really weep for all of God’s people who are deceived by these kinds of people. It makes me weep because I too was at one time deceived by the very same thing and it was a real SHOCK for me to learn the truth of their deceptive tacktics. It also took me years to eradicate all that I learned from them. I know that in being blunt about this man I will probably offend you Hobbes and I’m sorry for that. But the guy is a deceiver and much of what you have learned from him was purposly meant to give you a lack of trust in the authority of Scripture in general. As well as to lead you into a Gnostic and Platonic Interpretation of the Scriptures.
You stated in one of your last posts, that Chrisitan in being influenced by Greek thought education et.interpreted the scriptures too literally like Plato interpreted things. Let me say I have read Plato’s works and the very LAST thing he dose is interpret anything literally. He was the KING of allegory and giving mystical rather than literal interpretations to books like Homer. In fact he hated what Homer said and didn’t believe anyone should believe it and that’s why he developed the methodology of allegorizing everything.
I'd say that if Bruce Manning Metzger, aka Dr. James Chalesworth, aka George L. Collord is not the antichrist, he's sure helping to pave the road to world rule for him. But then according to him that would be my Koreshic Interpretaion, since I believe the events will be in fact real events and not just an allegory to make us feel better about ourselves in this bad world.
May God bless you in the name of Jesus Christ by helping you to see the truth and escape from those who are living in this error, as he did me.
In the Love of Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 5/19/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | The Antichrist is coming, the Antichrist is a-coming... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/19/2004 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
I did not know about the double identity of Bruce Metzger. I will take your word for it; I’m too busy right now to devote much time to research and verify this. Thanks for the information, I appreciate it.
I suggested “Dr Metzger’s” book for the purpose of a general overview of the issues. Fortunately for me I am not highly invested in “Dr Metzger” as far as my position is concerned. I arrived at my position on the canon in the middle ‘70s. That was before the Metzger book that I referred you to was even written. A couple of years ago in the context of a dispute with a Calvinist I wrote a 25-page paper on my position. I quoted “Dr Metzger” exactly ONE time. It was a paragraph on Eusebius. So the new info on Metzger that you have graciously supplied me with does not really affect my position that much, but I shall henceforth cease and desist from referring anybody to him, thanks to you.
Most of my position is based on my reading of the ante Nicene fathers. As far as I know, I have read everything that exists and has been translated. You will notice that I gave two references, one of Origen, and one concerning the lack of consensus between Eusebius and almost all of the ante Nicene fathers. I also gave a corroborating statement from John Calvin.
Secondly, all the talk of Preterism, Gnosticism, etc does not faze me in the least. I have Gnostic and Preterist leanings myself. My suggestion that perhaps the wrong side won at Nicea should have clued you in to my Gnostic sympathies. Before you get all in a tizzy about what I’m saying here, allow me to say that I do NOT claim to be a Gnostic. From 325 until 1945 no Gnostic writings were known to exist. The ONLY things we knew about the Gnostics were what the winning side said about them. Hardly a neutral perspective. The destruction of all Gnostic texts was, until 1945, complete and total. Doesn’t that bother you? It does me. It bothers me a lot. It does not speak well of the side that won. As far as I’m concerned, the cache of (what are supposedly) Gnostic writings discovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945 don’t line up very well with what the winning side said about the Gnostics. So either the side that won mischaracterized the Gnostics or the Nag Hammadi library is not Gnostic. Or both. Take your pick. I question whether we really know what the Gnostics believed, thanks to the eradication of the Gnostic literature and the potential for special pleading by the side that won. There are those who claim to be modern Gnostics, and I think there is some value to exposing oneself to what these people are saying, but whether or not what they espouse is the same thing (they say that it is) as what the 1st century Gnostics believed is sheer speculation as far as I’m concerned.
On Preterism: while my Preterism is highly qualified, I think that there is value to Preterism also. My view of the book of Revelation is MOSTLY Preterist. Several times we are told that these events are “coming soon.” Two thousand-plus years is not “soon”. Either most of the events in Revelation happened almost two thousand years ago, or the book is false. I have gotten the idea that this is Greg Boyd’s view also, for what it’s worth to you. I do not believe in the typical Evangelical scenario of the Rapture, the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation a la Hal Lindsey et al.
On the (so-called) New Age Movement: Many Evangelical Christians are paranoid of the New Age Movement. I’m not scared of being labeled New Age, and I’m not scared of exposing myself to their teachings and beliefs. Furthermore, I have gotten a lot of benefit from Christian, Christ-centered ministries that are denounced as “New Age” and “Therapeutic Movement” by people who throw labels like stones and don’t know what they’re talking about. Do we have the Spirit of Truth or not? Is God able to bring to completion the good work He has begun in us or not?
Larris: Another Quote from the same book to prove my point.
“If so, Jesus and his followers inherited the term 'the sons of light' from the Essenes”.
Well if Jesus and his followers inherited so much from the Essenes, then obviously GOD didn’t teach Jesus anything. Therefore if we really want to know what Jesus taught, let’s study the Essenes. And since what Jesus said was like what the Essenes said, then I'm sure we can find a similar passage in the Koran, or the Bagavad Geeta or the Book of Mormon, or Hitlers Mine Komp, or something Lennon said. I sure if we did far enough we can find that the Inter-faith movement is also a member in good standing with the United Religions Organiztion started by Mechael Gorbechav, the ex president of the USSR.
Response: I’m not defending Metzger here but your response to Metzger’s quote is extreme false extrapolation and is beneath the Larris I’ve been talking with. You have ignored two very important words – “IF SO”. If you were to ask me, I would say that Jesus and his followers were influenced by, first and foremost, the books of Moses, the Law, and the Prophets. Secondly, the Book of Enoch, and thirdly, the Essenes. And in saying this I am NOT saying, “obviously GOD didn’t teach Jesus anything.” I would say, “Obviously God taught Jesus a lot because He raised Him from the dead – Enochian and Essene influences notwithstanding.”
Larris: I know that in being blunt about this man I will probably offend you Hobbes and I’m sorry for that.
Response: No offense taken, Larris. As I said, I am not highly invested in Metzger. Besides that I am not easily offended.
Larris: You stated in one of your last posts, that Chrisitan in being influenced by Greek thought education et.interpreted the scriptures too literally like Plato interpreted things. Let me say I have read Plato’s works and the very LAST thing he dose is interpret anything literally. He was the KING of allegory and giving mystical rather than literal interpretations to books like Homer. In fact he hated what Homer said and didn’t believe anyone should believe it and that’s why he developed the methodology of allegorizing everything.
Response: Yes, I agree - but Plato led to Aristotle and if you follow the history of that line of thought you will wind up with literalistic, scientific rationalism. I did not say Plato interpreted everything literally. I said, “We are the intellectual children of Plato and Aristotle.” Plato and Aristotle began the process; the chickens have come home to roost in us. Compared to us Plato was the farthest-out mystic you could imagine! But he taught Aristotle and “Aristotle, more than any other thinker, determined the orientation and the content of Western intellectual history. He was the author of a philosophical and scientific system that through the centuries became the support and vehicle for both medieval Christian and Islamic scholastic thought: until the end of the 17th century, Western culture was Aristotelian. And, even after the intellectual revolutions of centuries to follow, Aristotelian concepts and ideas remained embedded in Western thinking.”
I would also say, “Aristotelian concepts and ideas remained embedded in Western theology.” The "method" or "systemizing" that you're talking about is Aristotelian in nature. Many Western theologians explicitly extoll Aristotle - Thomas Aquinas for instance.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/19/2004 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris & Hobbes,
A simple search of the Princeton Seminary website reveals the source of the misunderstanding about Dr. Metzger expressed by larris. The designation, "George Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature" refers to the endowed chair (position) at Princeton that is named in honor of Collord. As you may know, it is common practice in schools of higher education to honor past leaders by naming a chair (professorship) after them. Dr. Metzger and Dr. Charlesworth are two separate individuals; Dr. Metzger is the emeritus professor (meaning basically that he retired with honor and much achievement), while Dr. Charlesworth is the current professor holding the Collord endowed chair.
http://www.ptsem.edu/meet/fsdirectory.htm
The following information is found at the above link to Princeton's webpage:
James H. Charlesworth, Ph.D.
George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature (Methodist)
Bruce Manning Metzger, Ph.D., D.D.(Hon.), L.H.D.(Hon.),
D.Theol.(Hon.), D.Litt.(Hon.)
George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language
and Literature Emeritus
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/19/2004 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks John. As I said, I don't have the time to research this issue and so I'll let Larris respond to this.
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/20/2004 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
You said, Hobbes (I hope this isn't an allusion to Thomas Hobbes of "Leviathan" fame - a bit of a pessimist was he):
Well, I think ol’ Hobbes paints a pretty accurate picture of human existence – without Christ. But my pseudonym has nothing to do with Thomas Hobbes. It has to do with the cartoon Calvin and Hobbes. Hobbes = not Calvin.
Albert: The issue of canon is for me tied up with the issue of inerrancy. After all, inerrancy is an all-or-nothing concept. If certain pieces of writing are inerrant, then it makes sense to try and figure out which ones they are, and make a list of them. If they're not inerrant, then we just have a bunch of writings, all of which contain some truth and some error. Some are more truthful then others, but it's just a matter of degree.
Response: Ok - so how would you go about establishing the inerrancy of any given writing? As I said, inerrancy is not provable. What APPEARS to be error may not be, it only APPEARS to be error because we don’t have all the facts. And just because something might claim to be inerrant doesn’t mean it is. We might not be able to find any error in it but, again, we don’t have all the facts. If inerrancy is THE issue in defining canon, then since inerrancy is not provable, defining a canon is impossible. Linking those two things is a self-defeating position.
If, however, the primary issue in defining a canon were to be what is authentic, i.e. what was ACTUALLY written by the apostles, then I would concede we might have some chance. THAT canon, in my opinion, would be quite a bit smaller than the one currently in use among evangelicals. (As an aside to clarify my definitions: “Scripture” is NOT synonymous with “Canon.” I believe in “Scripture” – massive amounts of it, my definition is broad, but I don’t believe in “canon” at all. “Scripture” – in my mind - does not necessarily entail authenticity or even inerrancy.)
Albert: I don't know that either side was more or less influenced by Greek philosophy then the other. I assume that you're referring to Arianism here, which certainly was influenced by Platonic thinking via Origen.
Response: Yes – ALL sides were more or less influenced by Greek philosophy. My thesis is that Christianity was already corrupted by 325.
Albert: Everybody involved in these disputes, and the subsequent ones leading up to Chalcedon, behaved less than admirably, which is what concerns me more than the use of Greek philosophy. If you're going to follow Christ, you should live as he did, or make a decent attempt, anyway.
Response: Well said. I would hold that the behavior is indicative of the corruption.
Albert: But if we're so messed up as you say, how can we be sure that we're being led by the Spirit of Truth?
Response: Trust. What else is there? Don’t you trust God to bring you into the truth? We must operate on the basis of intellectually unprovable presuppositions:
1) God exists
2) He rewards those who diligently seek Him
If we believe the written record of what Jesus said to be accurate, then God will not give us a stone or a serpent if we ask Him for bread. He will give us the Spirit of Truth - if we ask for it. If we knock, it will be opened. If we seek, we will find, if we ask, it will be given. Do you believe these statements? Is not God capable of performing according to what Jesus said? What is it that’s not clear?
Albert: What happens if I think the Spirit of Truth is telling me something opposite to what he's telling you? Wouldn't it be the end of all possibility of discussion - after all, you can't argue with the Spirit! Shouldn't we just end this discussion now and all go and meditate for a while?
Response: It could happen that the Spirit of Truth would tell two people opposite things. That could happen because what one person needs to hear in order to get them into a more right relationship with God is different than what the other person needs to hear. That’s what I meant when I spoke previously about the differing pathologies in different individuals.
Secondly, you CAN argue with the Spirit of Truth. The prophets and patriarchs and the apostles – even Jesus – argued with God. It happens all the time and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. It COULD indicate a rebellious and antagonistic attitude. It could also indicate a son who is GROWING UP – and that’s a good thing.
Thirdly, your comment, “Shouldn't we just end this discussion now and all go and meditate for a while?” indicates a lack of balance, or a lack of integration between your rational and your intuitive. I say this in fear and trembling, Albert, I know I could be misjudging you. I will expound on this as I proceed in response to your post.
Albert: OK, let me say something really, really controversial (which Larris will probably not like at all). I think everybody, when it comes down to it, trusts their intellect to arrive at the truth. People say, "oh no, I trust the Bible". But why do they trust the Bible? Because *they* have decided, for one reason or another, to trust it. In doing so, they have evaluated and decided to believe it. Why do you trust the "Spirit of Truth"? Because you have evaluated and decided that's the way to go. So I offer no apologies for attempting to be rational and using my intellect to arrive at conclusions. They ain't no escape from that. Whoever tries not to do so, thereby does so.
Response: I too offer no apologies for attempting to be rational and using my intellect to arrive at conclusions. And I understand what you're saying here. However, reason and intellect are not enough, are they? Reason is valid insofar as all the facts are known. We don’t know all the facts. Reason is SUBJECT to – limited to - known facts. Reason is SUBJECTIVE. (Speaking of saying something really, really controversial!) One of the pathologies of Greek thought (mainly from Aristotle) is the out-of-balance domination of the logical, reason-based, linear way of thinking, and the idea that that kind of thinking is “objective.” In speaking thus, I am NOT saying that logical, linear, reason-based thinking is BAD; I’m saying it’s out of balance. It needs to be counter balanced by the intuitive, the visual, the emotive. Unfortunately, because of our culture, our educational system, our Greek intellectual heritage, physiology, and a whole host of factors, our intuitive is devalued, stunted, underdeveloped, and retarded. We learn to reason, we are taught deductive logic (thank you Aristotle). When we excel at logical, reason based activities we are rewarded with praise, acceptance, and most of all, money. The intuitive, the visual, the wholistic way of “thinking” is devalued and repressed. There is what I call, “non-cognitive thinking” – please, no references to oxymorons - you DO “think” non-cognitively every night when you dream. Dreaming is a language that is just as valid, just as real, and just as important as the spoken language you and I are communicating with right now. Do you understand it? Do you value it? Do you believe that Jesus died to redeem it? We are taught the principles of grammar but principles of dream interpretation – any approach whatever – is devalued. We work at learning to reason and to improve ourselves in the use of logic but is there a parallel in learning to dream in productive ways? Or learning how to proactively use our imagination? It appears to me that Greg Boyd might be moving in this direction with his book on the use of the imagination. Haven’t you ever wondered WHY God gave us an imagination? In my life it seemed all I ever did was fight with it and repress it. Surely that’s not all there is to it? I have learned that the imagination is a wonderful tool and when it becomes redeemed in Christ it is VERY powerful. It is one way to “call those things that are not as though they are.” GOD Himself speaks in all these languages – very fluently I might add.
I would also like to emphasize that I’m not proposing that the intuitive be dominant. That’s the ditch on the other side of the road. I’m just emphasizing the intuitive because THAT is what most of us are deficient in. Both should be interdependent and equally developed. The word I like is “integrated.”
Now, you and I don’t communicate via dreams, we communicate via spoken/written language. THAT language is linear and reason based. The more logical and linear we can be the better we can communicate. But by all means, go and meditate for a while --- and then come back and tell me what you “got”. I’d be interested to hear it.
Albert: Let me start by saying (lest I be misunderstood) that I agree with you that knowing what the true meaning of the original author in context was, is very important. That's the task of good scholars, and something to be pursued.
Response: We agree – however, “knowing what the true meaning of the original author in context” is NOT the task of good scholars, it’s the task of EVERYBODY, scholars or no. I agree with Larris that anyone who can read can get it; it’s the theologians and philosophers that have obscured it. Some of those theologians and philosophers are sincere and well meaning, and struggling to find God and truth just like the rest of us. And I think there is some value to some of it. It’s just that generally God has chosen what is foolish to confound the wise. In Paul's time there were not many educated, not many university graduates, not many people the world considered wise, in the church. Now there are. The apostle Paul was the most educated man among the apostolic group. Yet he who had the greatest learning was "the least" of the apostles and was "untimely born." I think these things are worthy of consideration.
Albert: But the way in which Jesus and the writers interpreted the Old Testament (and we don't have any record of how they interpreted the New Testament) makes me wonder if that meaning is really the important meaning. In other words, maybe God built a meaning into the text of which the author was unaware.
Response: And so how would you propose that one get at this hidden (hello? GNOSTIC!) meaning? Perhaps we should just end this discussion now and all go and meditate for a while?
Albert: I know you won't like this, but you gave me the exact same answer that every good, true-blue (that's an Aussie expression) conservative evangelical gives when I raise this question. Ah, they say, but that was the apostle Paul (or Matthew, or John, or whoever). They can do that kind of interpretation. You can't, cause you're just not in their league. The problem I have with this, is that it doesn't do justice to the texts. When Paul interprets the patriarchal narratives allegorically, he doesn't say "on my apostolic authority, I have a new revelation for you from Genesis". On the contrary, he makes no appeal to his apostolic authority, but seems to expect his readers to be able to recognize the truth of his interpretation for themselves.
Response: Paul appeals CONSTANTLY to his apostolic authority (Gal 1:1, 1:11-24)! I don’t see how you can say that he doesn’t. In my opinion, he does it so much in almost all of his letters that you would think he was insecure about it! He had good reason to be insecure. He did not know Jesus in the flesh, the risen Christ appeared last of all to him as though to one untimely born. Paul’s apostolic credentials were based on an unverifiable encounter on the road to Damascus. The men accompanying him saw the light but said it thundered. They did not hear a voice; they did not hear the words that Paul heard. One could characterize Paul’s experience as a psychotic break. I’m not refuting Paul’s apostolic claim, I think the validity of it is self-evident as far as Paul’s ministry bearing it out, plus the other Apostles accepted his claim to Apostleship. I’m just pointing out that Paul appeals to his apostolic authority quite often.
While I’m not in any danger of being classified as a good, true-blue conservative evangelical, it seems to me that the apostles, especially Peter and Paul, made a huge distinction between themselves and EVERYBODY ELSE. This is also the case with the earliest Church fathers who knew the apostles personally - Clement of Rome, Ignatius, etc. If I didn’t accept their apostleship I would have to say they were at an extreme of arrogance, self-importance, and self-deception. As Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised from the dead, we [apostles] are of all men the most to be pitied.” If you still disagree with me when I say that the apostles appeal to their apostolic authority quite often, and that Paul explicitly appeals to his apostolic authority in the very book of Galatians where you said he didn’t, then I will have to spend more time and effort supporting my position.
So, I think that the observation that we are not the apostles has some validity to it. They were a special class of people, not special by virtue of anything within themselves, but chosen by God to be witnesses of Christ’s resurrection. In Acts 10 Peter says, “…but God raised Him on the third day and made Him manifest; NOT TO ALL THE PEOPLE BUT TO US WHO WERE CHOSEN BY GOD AS WITNESSES, who ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead.”
Albert: Doesn't it worry you that we are interpreting texts in a radically different way to what Jesus and the apostles did?
Response: Again, the same three responses.
1) I think there is an element to the apostolic applications that are unique. It was a unique circumstance in history that God was making the promises to Abraham available to the Gentiles, that had never happened before, and once done, was once for all time.
2) We don’t get what the NT author is saying and so we do not see the applicability of the OT references.
3) The Biblical authors were more balanced in their logical/intuitive minds and so they perceive non-linear connections between things that we don’t because we are overbalanced on the logical, linear side. In other words, we think like Greeks and they didn’t.
In the case of #2 and #3 yes, I would be worried. And of course, a fourth option would be that Jesus and the apostles were wing nuts way out in left field – insane even, and their insanity is demonstrated by their bizarre interpretations and applications of Old Testament scriptures the contexts of which are plain to see. In that case I would be VERY worried. Even so, if I became convinced that that was the case, I would chuck my “Christianity” (such as it is) and continue to seek and cry out to God as best I knew how, and trust Him to compensate for my deficiencies. What other option is there?
Albert: OK, there are obvious differences between Hebrew and Greek thought. But something isn't right because it's Hebrew, anymore than something is wrong because it's Greek. Suppose that they interpreted the texts in a funny manner because that was what all the Rabbis did (and I've read plenty of Rabbinic interpretation, and some of it is "out there"). Does that make it a true reading? Surely whether a reading is valid or not depends on the text, not on the culture of the reader. If there are symbolic meanings and so forth truly in the text, then its OK to read it that way. If not, then it's not.
Response: And so where does, “maybe God built a meaning into the text of which the author was unaware” fit in? Where does Jesus’ and the apostles out-of-context applications fit in?
I’m sorry Albert; I have to sign off now. I really want to get to your questions on Romans 9 and the rest of your post. I understand your dilemma, I’m sympathetic to it, and I doubt that I can produce any answers that will satisfy you. I will most likely appeal to #’s 1 and 3 and I may have to retract a thing or two I've said. But – I’ll spend some time pondering on it. You must bear with me and give me several days, weekends are busy for me. My time for this is limited, I don’t understand how many of you can be involved in multiple threads at the same time. I just don’t have the time for it, but I do very much enjoy what little I can do. Anyway, I’ll get back to you.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/21/2004 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Quick response. 1 Cor 15:12-19
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of YOU [Corinthians] say that there is no resurrection from the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then OUR [apostles] preaching is in vain and YOUR [Corinthians] faith is in vain. WE [apostles] are even found to be misrepresenting God, because WE [apostles] testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, YOUR [Corinthians] faith is futile and YOU [Corinthians] are still in YOUR [Corinthians] sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. For if in this life only WE [apostles] have hoped in Christ, WE [apostles] are of all men most to be pitied.
The “we” of verse 15 is obviously the apostles. He’s speaking of the enormity of the consequences if the apostles are wrong. Consequences that extend even beyond the grave. I understand your argument and it’s really not a big deal to me one way or the other, but I see no reason to change the antecedent in verse 19. Anyway, that’s how I read it.
I read 1 Cor 2:6-16 the same way. The “we” and the “us” is apostolic. Paul is here saying that “WE” impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God. This supports your (Gnostic) idea that there is “hidden” meaning in the scriptures. It also supports my idea that the apostles had insight into it. Notice that “WE” [apostles] have the mind of Christ. That doesn’t mean that this knowledge is NOT available to US. It just means that the knowledge is “imparted” by the apostles to the “mature.” That is one reason why authentic apostolic writing would be important.
I read Ephesians the same way. All through the epistle, the “we” and the “us” is apostolic and the “you” is Gentile Christians.
Notice Eph 1:13 – “In Him YOU also…” This statement makes a distinction between the “we” and the “us” of verses 3-12 and the “you” of verse 13ff. The antecedent to the “we” is found in 1:1 – Paul, AN APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST BY THE WILL OF GOD. The antecedent to the “you” is found in verse 2 – the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus. This distinction is obvious when, in 2:11, Paul explicitly defines who “you” is – “…YOU, Gentiles in the flesh…” In 3:4ff Paul says that “When you [Gentiles in the flesh] read this you can perceive my insight into the MYSTERY of Christ, WHICH WAS NOT MADE KNOWN TO THE SONS OF MEN IN OTHER GENERATIONS AS IT HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED TO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS BY THE SPIRIT…
These are just a couple of examples of why I say that the apostles made a distinction between themselves and everybody else. Read through the Epistles with this in mind and I think you’ll see what I mean.
Wish I had more time….
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/21/2004 7:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Sorry Albert, I’m multi tasking today, doing several things at once, so my replies are disjointed and not very linear.
Albert: I think the task of everybody is to discern the meaning of the text that God has put in there, not necessarily the author's intended meaning.
Response: I’m sympathetic to you Albert, but I like to play devil’s advocate. If what you say here is the case, then the role of philosophy, theology, scholarship, and LOGICAL exegesis based on immediate and historical context becomes very much a secondary issue. Furthermore, one cannot argue for the meaning that one has received allegedly from God, allegedly hidden in the text by God, in any kind of rational manner, seeing as how immediate and historical context and the author’s intended meaning may not have anything to do with the meaning God has put there. So why are you defending philosophical and theological thought in relation to determining the meaning of a given text?
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 5/21/2004 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Hobbes,
I am of the opinion, that Aristotle did not teach deductive logic as much as it is claimed he did. But that rather he became the master of using logic to convince others of what he wanted them to believe. In other words, that though it seems at first, that he was not teaching platonic doctrines, he was in fact establishing them. One thing of note in his writings that is most promenent is his hatred for Homer, and the great yet subtle manner in which he goes about to defame both his character and his writings as in "Aristotle's Poetics". This is just a continuation of the educational methods set down by Socrates in Plato's Rebpublic. Whereas in the Republic it's all just theory and what they would like to do to control education and the beliefs of men, by the time you get though Plato's life and into Aristotle's life, you have what was theory on the development of the state through education, being put in direct practice and application on students.
And think of this, how well it worked since one of Aristltle's students was in fact Alexander, who then furthered what was once educational theory become applicalbe fact in Aristotle over the then conquered nations. Thus not so much as taking Greek thought and education in general into the rest of the world, but specifically that of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Yes they say He was much different from Plato, but in reality I do not believe that is so much the case. One method of deceit is to make the same thing look like something else by using different words to describe and teach it. This works real well since people die off that knew the original and the next generation is not the wiser to it.
Case in point are how so many way back when condemed the Gnostics, when in reality they were in essence teaching the same things. However to point out the Gnostics was another method of deceit because it got the light off of them. It's like you are robbing the neighborhood blind but no one knows it. So to throw light off yourself, you speak to your neighbor who's house you plan on robbing that night, and you say "Hey I don't want to speak bad of anyone, but you know Joe down the street. Well I heard the he spent some time on probation for stealing a few years ago." That night you rob your neighbors house and the neighbor thinks it was Joe.
This is what I mean by "methods" of deceit of which there are many. Probably anyone who is very adept in marketing knows exactly what methods to use to deceive someone into thinking their product is better than the other guys.
In christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/21/2004 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris: ...so many way back when condemed the Gnostics, when in reality they were in essence teaching the same things. However to point out the Gnostics was another method of deceit because it got the light off of them.
Response: To whom are you referring? Who condemned the Gnostics who were in fact teaching the same things? And what were those teachings?
- Hobbes | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/22/2004 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Hobbes,
quote:
I just now saw your post. I’m not really very good at being involved in more than one thread at a time.
That makes two of us! I usually just check in the Raging Debate forum, and I just now saw your post here.
quote:
Lee: But why is "no one" [in John 6:65] referring only to the disciples? Jesus did make a statement similar to this, which he may have been referring to:
JN 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me.
Lee: This is a similar thought, stated positively, speaking not to his disciples, but to those who thought he should be king and feed them bread every day.
Hobbes: So…you are saying that verse 65 refers to verse 37 and NOT verse 44? On what basis?
No, I think the verses are all similar, and they do not refer only to those who were Jesus' current followers.
quote:
I agree that the drawing is not irresistible. That is obvious from the context. “Many disciples withdrew…”
Oops. No, they withdrew because they were not drawn, I think (verse 65), because the Father had not enabled them to come.
quote:
Could you kindly direct me to the thread you mentioned concerning “helko”?
That thread was on another message board entirely, in the Yahoo "Theology List" egroup, and you would have to join that egroup to view the archives. You may if you want to! But the point comes from the "Little Kittel" Greek dictionary, where it is said that "helko" is used in secular literature to refer to magic spells, thus the word does not invariably imply success.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hobbes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 63
| Posted 5/22/2004 7:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Sorry, more random responses defined by the constraints on my time.
You said, “…he can't find meaning that isn't there, as I've already argued.”
Response: Why can’t he find meaning that isn’t there? Isn’t that exactly what he does? He takes a text that is about Israel and says it’s really about the Gentiles. Who to believe? Isaiah or Paul?
Albert: Can you find me evidence that the apostles had authority over and above what you might expect from the fact that they knew Jesus and were taught by him?
Response: Paul didn’t know Jesus and was not taught by him.
Albert: Albert: OK, here's my radical suggestion. Maybe the revelation of God was not in the writings of the apostles, but in the person of Jesus Christ. The apostles wrote down what they had seen and heard of Jesus, and also their theological reflections on those things, which we should treasure and consider carefully. But maybe they didn't always get it right. Maybe they were influenced by their times and their culture. Maybe we have to find the underlying Christ at the core of their theology. And maybe we need to read the Old Testament more creatively.
Response: I got no problem with any of this, Albert. Here is my definition of Christianity.
1) Jesus died
2) Jesus rose
3) He appeared to many
If you BELIEVE these three things, you are a Christian as far as I’m concerned. EVERYTHING – and I do mean everything – else is secondary. THESE three things are the basic thrust of every apostolic sermon given in the book of Acts. These three things are what the apostles were chosen to be witnesses to. Any “theological reflections” – apostolic or otherwise – are secondary. If you ask me, I think there’s lots of room to question and criticize a lot of what the apostles taught and did. BUT – they were chosen by God to be witnesses to the three things stated above. Everyone agrees that the NT teaches AT LEAST those three things. Not everyone believes it, but even those who don’t believe say, “Yes, that’s what it says.” Anything else that a person “gets” from reading the Bible is secondary, and most likely THAT meaning comes from the reader, not the text.
- Hobbes
| | Back to Top | | |
| 102 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:45 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|