Sunday, 7 October 2007
Apocryphal Thoughts
It's not only Bob Thiel who can write detailed articles, and the nice thing about Jared Olar's offerings is that he actually knows what he's talking about. Over at Doug Ward's Grace & Knowledge Jared provides a useful two part backgrounder on those pesky books that you won't find in your standard 66 book Protestant Bible, no matter how hard you search. Appropriately Jared, a former WCG member now in the embrace of Rome, has entitled them Just What Do You Mean ... Apocrypha.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
Having read thru the first part of Just What Do You Mean . . . Apocrypha? my head is aching. And not because of the excellent information there, but because of all the disagreement on this topic.
Personally, I don't believe in such a concept of one book being "inspired" while another is not. Unless God themself reaches down out of the sky and clearly tells us which ones are inspired this will continue to be just one huge piece of guesswork.
Inspiration is where one finds it. We don't necessarily need to hold in reverence some musty old set of writings, written in a long dead language, over several eons, by widely varying cultures. Nor do we need to look only to them (sola scriptura) to form any ideas of how "God" would have us live our lives. Because, save the psychopaths and narcissists out there (e.g. the Herbert Armstrongs of the world), we ALL instinctively know what is right and what is wrong. And anybody who teaches otherwise is just another religious con man, trying to bring home your bacon, and not work for his own.
Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, made some interesting observations about the obligation those who do not hear the voice of God directly have to obey the words of the one who says God did talk to THEM personally or sent a book.
"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."
amen..
And beyond that, who cares what the Jews think? Their ability to ratify anything ended at the destruction of the Temple System in 70 AD, if not at the resurrection of Christ, for Christians. Paul's admonition in Colossians 2, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ", certainly applies in the sense that Christians don't go to the Jews for spiritual knowledge. It should be noted that in the First Century, the Jews wanted to kill off the Christians. Why would anyone in the group of believers want to go to them for ratifying which Scripture should be in the Bible, let alone how to set the Calendar. Beyond that, it is commonly tacitly accepted among Christians that the Jews did not have the Holy Spirit, even though that grates against the sensibilities of this multicultural diversity age: They weren't converted, why should we listen to them?
It would have been better to leave out the discussion of the Jews in the article from the First Century onward. Ezra pretty much nailed it down for the Old Testament.
The other thing which must be remembered is that among all the nutty things in the Bible, the Apocrypha adds more nutty wierd stuff than usual. It would be good to do as Paul said and avoid Jewish fables -- although you can feel free to do so if you want for your own amusement.
But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only.
And so we have a long series of mavens who claim revelation. Herbert Armstrong claimed that "I did not get this from any man," but it was revealed directly from God, which is less believable than when the Apostle Paul said it. Should we believe Ellen G. White? Or William Miller? Or L. Ron Hubbard? Or Joseph Smith? Or Charles Russell? Or James Russell?
There are long lists of would be prophets and revelators. Who should we believe? Is it true that "If they speak not according to this word, there is no light in them"?
If that were the case, and we're not saying it is, then no one should consider the hogwash being dumped on us because if you look carefully and critically, it is possible to find that they do not speak according "to this word". Therefore, there isn't one bit of light in them and they are a black hole of the works of the flesh.
And if you check history, particularly of the modern false prophets, it assuredly looks that they have a less than stellar record.
Unless, of course, you add in the Apocrypha.
we ALL instinctively know what is right and what is wrong
Experience isn't the best teacher, but it certainly is the most effective.
Experience is the only teacher...all the rest is hearsay
All these writings over a God that doesn't even exist and a man called Jesus of Nazareth who didn't exist either.
Religious men, wanting to be "perfect", need a perfect man as a pattern - that's Jesus. He did not exist as a flesh and blood man but as a personification of what they saw as the perfect man.
Taking "what would Jesus do" to a whole other level. It's not that a man named Jesus actually done anything - it's what he would have done if he was real, and perfect.
Our conscience tells us what is good and what is evil, if we listen to it. They listened and they listened to the point that Jesus became real.
This is what the argument between one group of Christians and another group was all about in the epistles of "John". The ones who said that Jesus was not a real man but a personification of a man, a perfect man, was the spirit of antichrist.
Ask yourself how some in that first generation of Christians could think that Jesus had not come "in the flesh". It was because they knew he had not but was their own invention of the perfect man. All very "spiritual" and all, some called them "Gnostic".
That people would doubt Jesus had come in the flesh and for the "Apostles" to be cursing them for it, so early in the game, is very telling about what some knew and the problem they had bringing Jesus from the cosmic concept of Paul to a literal one later written of in the Gospels after Paul.
The impression the NT gives is that the literal Jesus came first (Gospels) and then Paul truly understood the spiritual nature of the Christ in his letters. In reality , the books were written in the opposite order from Gnostic Jesus to literal one. Acts came along even later to bridge the gap between Paul and the literalist church making him seem more in tune with the program, which he was not.
The Apocrypha was not included in the canon of Scripture because it was not directly inspired by God. We are told by the Apostle Paul that: "All scripture is given by the inspired of God..." And Peter also informed us that: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit." So according the Paul and Peter, both the old and new testaments were directly inspired by God.
On the other hand, the Apocrypha, like the Talmud and Josephus, contains some factual information, some speculation and much private interpretation. For these reasons, it cannot be included in the canon of the OT and NT, which have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth.
In addition, the Catholic church is an obvious heresy. So any decisions its leaders make about the books its followers should read is completely irrelevant to genuine Christians. On the other hand, nominal Christians tend to believe any nonsense, for they are as unstable as water.
Of course, I can understand why Doug Ward would want to provide a platform for Jared to disseminate his heretical thesis, for Doug never once spoke word a in public against Joe Tkach's doctrinal changes, even though he believed they were heretical. Was he another hireling who abandoned the flock while clutching a financial package?
Interestingly, the name Jared is mentioned the book of Hosea, as a person to whom many will turn to for help. But he won't be able to help them escape the judgement of God.
Tom Said:
"Peter also informed us that: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit."
I have never been able to tell the difference between those we must listen to as factual holy men of old, and those that had private interpretations? It always sounded to me as if Peter was saying, "No prophecy of scripture is of an interpretation different from the one we tell you it is..."
Tom also said:
"Interestingly, the name Jared is mentioned the book of Hosea, as a person to whom many will turn to for help. But he won't be able to help them escape the judgement of God."
Hmmm..... and Tom is mentioned as one who doubts. Ol doubting Tom. Of course, such connections are irrelevant to anything.
So according the Paul and Peter, both the old and new testaments were directly inspired by God.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey!
Just one darn minute!
Paul and Peter couldn't have been saying the New Testament was directly inspired by God... yet!
We also must conclude from the posting that Herbert Armstrong produced nothing but hirelings as the fruit of his doing.
Tom said....
"Of course, I can understand why Doug Ward would want to provide a platform for Jared to disseminate his heretical thesis, for Doug never once spoke word a in public against Joe Tkach's doctrinal changes, even though he believed they were heretical. Was he another hireling who abandoned the flock while clutching a financial package?"
Tom, you've mistaken me for somebody else---probably UCG's Donald Ward.
You're not the first one who has done this. In fact, Gavin made the same mistake some years ago, prompting my initial contact with him.
To find out more about where I'm coming from, look at my website more carefully, and in particular, check out the "Interview with the Editor".
Doug Ward
Professor of Mathematics
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio USA
The contrast between the Apocrypha and the Biblical canon is stark. To give the Apocrypha serious consideration is like saying that a comic book about the adventures of Donald Duck should be bound in with the writings of Albert Einstein.
These books are curiosities but they do not carry the theme of he Bible.
-- Neo
Anonymous said . . .
I have never been able to tell the difference between those we must listen to as factual holy men of old, and those that had private interpretations? It always sounded to me as if Peter was saying, "No prophecy of scripture is of an interpretation different from the one we tell you it is..."
That is exactly what that passage is saying. In other words, "the scriptures were given to the priestly writers by inspiration of the holy spirit and it takes priestly men with the holy spirit to interpret them properly".
That's how the bishops of the 4th century knew which books belonged in the "holy NT canon" - the holy spirit guided them. The funny thing is, people still believe that nonsense.
That Tom, he is such a doubter, but also such a Smiley!
Neotherm said :
These books are curiosities but they do not carry the theme of he Bible.
And who are you to judge?
Who died and left you to be the King's Censor?
Or are you one of those "ministers" trying to bring home your neighbor's bacon, rather than your own?
From WWCG to the Roman Catholic Church? Talk about jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.
DW>>>Tom, you've mistaken me for somebody else---probably UCG's Donald Ward.
You're not the first one who has done this. In fact, Gavin made the same mistake some years ago, prompting my initial contact with him.<<
Please accept my sincere apologies.
Yes, I thought you were Donald Ward, who applauded when Mr. Tkach announced that Ambassador College had received accreditation, even though he knew that to achieve it the college had to throw the bible out of the window.
The deuterocanonicals, and all of the discussion surrounding them make a person wonder why some would find them so disposable. Are there additional teachings contained in them which people would be required to obey if the books were considered to be scripture? And, although all acknowledge that these books were from Jewish sources, do they tend to support the veracity of some of the Catholic doctrines?
Some of the great religious thinkers of the Christian movement have discounted other books of the Bible, such as the often horrifying book of Revelation, from which Herbert W. Armstrong got all of his scare tactics.
I'd love to see an analysis of the "pseudoepigrapha" by Jared.
BB
>>>Tom is mentioned as one who doubts. Ol doubting Tom. Of course, such connections are irrelevant to anything.<<<
In most cases, if not in every case, when names are recorded in scripture they reflect the character of the person bearing the name. So don't dismiss them as irrelevant!
Thomas did not totally doubt the resurrection Jesus. Unlike his fellow disciples, he asked for physical proof. However, some people are able to recognise the truth without having to touch it. They are capable of grasping abstract principles and drawing right conclusions, using the logical processes of deduction.
In these days of great scams and deceptions, if there were more people like Thomas, people won't be so easily duped or deceived into believing much of the nonsense that is currently accepted as fact. For example, note the millions of people who have been converted to the new, false religion of Global Warming, but are unable to verify or expose the pseudo science, which is supposed to underpin it.
Come back Thomas, all is forgiven!
...huh? What is the world are you talking about??
Armstrongers! Oh brother!
Tom said :
. . . even though he [Tkach] knew that to achieve it the college had to throw the bible out of the window.
Hogwash! And you know it. Many reputable "bible" colleges are accredited and they still teach from the Bible. Your hyperbole leaves you looking like a religious ignoramus here.
The process of accreditation is there for a reason. It is to keep the religious quacks and queer ducks from setting up a diploma mill, as the Herbster did. And no, please don't give me that Herbster baloney that A.C. was "accredited by God." That won't flush here.
BTW, I was there for the first attempt at accreditation in the late 1970s. And it almost worked, which would have given A.C. students some measure of having a real college degree back then. But the Herbster, seeking to regain control of his empire, squelched all that when he put his cult "back on track." We then flew ass backwards as fast as we could go!
It never ceases to amaze me how you Herbalists keep trying to rewrite the history of the WCG, and in his favor. But, once again, I was THERE. And you won't get away with this revisionism.
"Yes, I thought you were Donald Ward, who applauded when Mr. Tkach announced that Ambassador College had received accreditation, even though he knew that to achieve it the college had to throw the bible out of the window."
Don Ward never abandoned Armstrongism. The idea that he softened to acquire accreditation is a false assertion of Stephen Flurry. Ward wanted a liberal arts program taught in an Armstrongite context. This was in sharp contrast to the non-education that AC students had long received -- all the sound and fury signifying nothing.
I am not an Armstrongite nor am I a proponent of Don Ward but the idea that Tom asserts here is without foundation. Ward is as good an Armstrongite as Flurry any day of the week.
Any seeming distinction between Flurry and Ward is just a political ploy.
-- Neo
I believe that the main reason accreditation failed in the 1970s was that the committee realized that freedom of speech, and in a greater sense, any intellectual freedom was totally lacking at Ambassador College.
As a student, I learned that you simply didn't ask real hard and incisive questions. Softball questions were encouraged, or questions which tended to support the views of the church, college, or individual faculty member doing the teaching.
But, even the class officers and dorm monitors were appointed. They were people whom it was felt could be trusted to rubber stamp whatever the faculty decided should or should not be done.
The dress code during the mid to late '60s was straight out of the 1940s! It was a very strange place to be during that era, and virtually everyone in Pasadena could recognize an Ambassador student in five seconds or less. When people whom I admired from the community asked me if I was from Ambassador, I felt like imitating Peter and denying it all. That's why some of us called the place Embarrassing College. It looked awful on a resume when you were applying for a job! You'd have done better as an Amish.
One fulfilling thing about getting the boot from AC was that some of the kids from the neighborhood whom I'd befriended thought it was really cool that I got to go to Pasadena City College with them. They really enjoyed seeing me be able to experience the freedoms that they had taken for granted.
BB
Stingerski>>>Hogwash! And you know it. Many reputable "bible" colleges are accredited and they still teach from the Bible.<<<
The difference is that AC was a liberal arts college, where students could major in theology, which was the fundamental reason behind the establishment of AC. Accreditation meant that theology was relegated to a minor on the curriculum.
>>>BTW, I was there for the first attempt at accreditation in the late 1970s.<<<
You were not conscripted into AC. Neither were you detained against your will, for you were free to leave whenever you wanted to.
You, perhaps along with your parents, decided to attend AC because you thought you would benefit from the experience. Because it didn't deliver what you wanted or expected, may be more to do with your judgement in deciding to go there in the first place.
Sadly, you were never truly converted. If you were, you won't be spending some much valuable time railing against HWA, who was inspired to create a unique college environment, where all God fearing people could grow and build wholesome, spiritual character. The fact that you failed to achieve these noble virtues is NOT HWA's fault, you be shocked to learn!
The attempt by GTA to gain accreditation by introducing the STP project had to be resisted, because the STP project was pure Protestant heresy.
Tom said, well . . . what a dyed in the wool Armstrong apologist always says. I think he has this disk that plays in his head that contains all the stock answers. You challenge, e.g., the STP project and he skips to track 16, sector 3:
WARNING! WARNING! Protestant heresy!
And Tom, you are wrong on all accounts about me. I never attended AC. Nor would my parents have anything to do with this if I had. Neither one was in "God's" Church. And neither one would certainly have approved of me going off to some queer little cult institution and wasting their money on a diploma mill.
But I did live within a stone's throw of the Herbster's Golden Palace for 5 years. And I got to see first hand some of the horrors of Armstrongism, like those solid jade pissoirs, more gold leaf than Liberace's house had, and a ministerial dining hall that the Queen of England would envy. All paid for, of course, by the faithful, many of whom were trying to scrape up enough money for a new set of tires for the next Feast of Booze.
And then I finally decided that I had had enough, and moved away -- just as you said I was free to do so. Thank you very much! You should have done the same for your own mental health.
Sadly, you were never truly converted.
Oh, so now you are playing God! How nice of you to admit it. Yes, perhaps like one of those good little Hitlerian ministers at A.C., you really can determine a person's character! YOU get to decide just who is and isn't "converted" based upon whether they agree with your weird religious ideas. I see. How A.C.ish of you, Mr. God.
Having you on this forum is actually a good tonic. You are reminding a lot of people why they DID leave their Armstrongology behind, along with all the mental illness it engendered (that you are exhibiting here, like thinking you are God) and moving onto spiritual healing and actually learning how to live in the real world around us.
So, if you've still got your Petra Pak at the ready, you might want to consider that fact that you've wasted its contents for the past 32 years, not to mention much of your life. See, I can play God too. I got very good at this during my Armstrong years. That's how I know much of your life has been a waste. :-)
"the STP project was pure Protestant heresy."
Yes, calling a doctor so your kids can get some help above just having hands laid on them and seeing how it goes is Protestant heresy.
Looking at a better way to understand Divorce and Remarriage in the real world is protestant heresy.
Examining tithing in such a way as to not incure guilt or hardship and go with the NT approach to "give as you are able" is Protestant heresy.
I was there. I sat through every meeting, every conference, every announcement, every plenary session, every topic, all the time, for weeks.
The STP was the one shot WCG had at growing up and Herbert W Narcissist couldn't let go or be that wrong in his own sight. And we all payed just as we all paid under the Tkaches who patted themselves on the back for reinventing the wheel of goofiness.
GTA's biggest shortcoming was his inability to tell Dad no go. We need to change on these topics. The rest was pressure he felt in a position he probably never in his soul personally wanted.
I am glad Tom is posting his views to this website. It will remind us all of what the mindset is within the Armstrongite organizations we so often write about. It also shows why nothing we will ever write will make much of a difference with these people.
The only problem is, Tom seems a little too "Classical" to me. I wonder if he is just messing with us.
-- Neo
Sadly,....you be shocked to learn!
It seems that Tom went to the Bob Thiel School of Godly Writing.
I have noticed that he likes to use these two points over and over, especially the "sadly." It gives him an air of humility and compassion as he launches into Armstrongist condemnation. It is an attempt to temper his judgements, but only comes across as smarmy. Just like Thiel.
Paul
Tom is not fooling. If he was, then he has been fooling people for the past few years on several different forums.
Paul
A good question for Tom might be, "Did you ever attend Ambassador College?"
In the late "60s, it was not just a liberal arts college where you could major in theology. Those of us who wanted a liberal arts education which we might be able to use in some sort of career (even if it was all unaccredited) were publically poo pooed in the forums and sabbath services for not clinging to the "valuable" theology courses, which were considered to be the most important aspect of the education.
Calling AC a "liberal arts" institution was a misapplication of those two words. It was, plain and simple, a Bible college, based totally on the scriptural interpretations of one individual.
The administration wanted accreditation, but was at best, only willing to pretend to comply with the basic requirements which would have legitimatized the educational process taking place there. It was a sham, not unlike what goes on with many business deals. The accreditation committee was much too perceptive to allow lip service only, as other institutions were being asked to accept the value of an AC education as being on a similar plane to their own. But, somehow, HWA and his lackeys never did have a keen eye for real integrity, especially that displayed by outsiders.
Tom, you seem mighty naive. You need to get out some more and see the real world, and learn to think independently, and outside of the box. Stick around with us for a while, and maybe you'll see things just a little differently.
BB
Paul...you're sadly right. I have endeavored to put a definition to "sadly" and you hit it right on the head. It is the same as "of course, poor deluded people that they are, I and we know what is right and they are so far off it is pathetic.....I deem this so."
Dr. Thiel, under news of WCG, is upset that more people know the ingredients of a Big Mac than the Ten Commandments. Well, if the Big Ten had special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun, they would be more memorable..duh!
Anyone ever notice how the Catholics count the ten commandments differently than the Protestants? By slicing it differently they get around that graven images thing.
Then with the Protestants there's the oxymoron of the Sabbath being commanded for Sunday Worship. The basis of all those silly blue laws about alcohol and store hours.
How can Christianity promote the 10 commandments when they don't even agree which ones make up the 10?
Add to that, the hilarious story that Moses trashed the worlds most amazing archaeological artifact , a docuement written by the very finger of God, that said "You shall not kill," and then ordered "everyman to kill his neighbor and in that day about 3000 perished."
I suppose after that, Moses saih, "ahem..ok now where was I? Oh Yes, You shall not kill."
But that's how most Chiristians keep the Ten Commandments any how so Moses set a good example.
Bamboo Ends said:
How can Christianity promote the 10 commandments when they don't even agree which ones make up the 10?
It gets even worse than that. The Bible itself cannot agree on what the Big 10 are. Compare Exodus 20 and the "first 10C" with Exodus 34 and the "second" 10C. (!)
One time almost all of the graduates of AC were hired by The Work. They either went into the ministry or they printed magazines or ordered food for the cafeteria or some such similar occupation. Most were paid well and wore a suit to work.
When larger classes were accepted, the administration was not able to hire everybody. At that point, AC administration experienced a disconnect with reality. Rather than face the reality of needing to provide AC students with education for careers, they simply immersed themselves in denial.
An AC graduate told me back in the early Seventies of a conversation he had with Rod Meredith in Pasadena. Another AC graduate had managed to get a job with IBM. Who knows how or why. No doubt it had nothing to do with his AC education and very likely related to a degree he already had when he came to AC -- my speculation.
The graduate who spoke to Meredith knew about the hiring of this fellow AC graduate and the background details. But what RM said to him was that "IBM wanted to hire all the AC graduates that they possibly could" as if the AC training were highly prized.
The graduate explained to RM the background of this situation and that this was untrue about IBM's intents and went further to say that AC should create a placement office and seek to aid its graduates in finding jobs. RM's response was to look at him with incredulity for a few moments and then walk away.
Don Ward attempted to introduce Education into the AC curriculum. If it had been left up to people like RM, AC would have remained a backward little religious college with an idosyncratic curriculum forever. The real problem to RM and his ilk was that potential employers needed to awaken to the value of an AC degree not that AC needed to change.
I sat through many sermons where the salaries of AC graduates were compared to national averges and the AC grads were always head and shoulders above the mean. At one time, I believed the truth of this implicitly. Now I have my doubts. Many AC grads either had a degree when they came to AC or got another degree when they left. Unless the data were examined more carefully, it is hard to accept these statements from the pulpit as a measure the value of an AC degree.
-- Neo
To anonymous who stated why should we care what the Jews think. They were given the oracles of God and therefore we use their wisdom.
There were many Jews that believed in Jesus, in addition Christ stated that unless our righteousness exceeds that of the pharisees, we shall by no means be saved.
There is popular opinion that Jesus was a pharisee. Read the book, Jesus the Pharisee by Hyam Maccoby. (available from Amazon).
He alludes to the fact that many of Jesus' parables are taken from Chasidic sources, similar to chasidic stories. Though some of the claims are fanciful, claiming the church re-wrote major passages of Biblical text in an order to accuse the Jews of Jesus murder, instead of where the blames really lies--the hand of Rome.
He is right that some texts are unreliable and have been altered, the problem is God is not directly communicating with people today in any speech form, and if he did, we have become so far advanced that we probally wouldn't believe them anyway.
"...the problem is God is not directly communicating with people today in any speech form..."
And why not? Why the cut-off 2,000 years ago?
Seems a bit suspicious to me.
Paul
"...the problem is God is not directly communicating with people today in any speech form..."
And, he never did. Men have only said that he did.
In ancient times, as well as today, men have claimed communications with gods.
Nothing has actually changed except that men who claim communications with God are more careful about it. Well, except for Oral Roberts.
Nowadays we have a book of the revelations of the ancients and people don't believe gods literally talk to men anymore except through the book. So, God communicates in a different, more subtle way now.
Those communications are just as fake as they ever were, so nothing has really changed.
NOE>>No doubt it had nothing to do with his AC education and very likely related to a degree he already had when he came to AC -- my speculation.<<
Of course this may or not be true. But enlightened managers don't only recruit employees because of their qualifications. The adopted maxim in progressive companies is: "Recruit for attitude train for skill." AC graduates brought to their employers the priceless gifts of honesty, integrity, loyalty and hard work.
"AC graduates brought to their employers the priceless gifts of honesty, integrity, loyalty and hard work."
*snort* *giggle* *lol*
You may be shocked to discover that I find that hard to believe, in a general sense. Especially the honesty and integrity part. Sadly, those two might have been given lip service at AC, but were definitely not encouraged as a matter of practice, you may be surprised to know!
Paul
Bamboobends said: Anyone ever notice how the Catholics count the ten commandments differently than the Protestants? By slicing it differently they get around that graven images thing.
B as in B, S as in S. How does counting the Ten Commandments differently get around one of the Ten Commandments? Just because Catholics and Lutherans follow the Septuagint/Augustinian numbering, that doesn't mean Catholics and Lutherans believe it is okay to worship false gods and idols.
If we follow your reasoning, then we should conclude that because Protestants and Jews group "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" together with "You shall not covet your neighbor's property," that means Protestants and Jews believe wives are their husbands' property.
Jordan wrote:
"You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" together with "You shall not covet your neighbor's property," . . .
But that commandment is not part of the 10C. You will not find any mention of this injunction in Ex. 34, where Moses was told to record them on a new set of stone tablets.
About the only commandment the two sets have in common is a seventh day rest from all labor.
And lest anyone think that this second set has no real relevance, notice Ex. 34:28.
"And he [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant -- the Ten Commandments."
So, will the REAL 10 Commandments please stand up?
Stingerski, you seem to be confused. There is no list of the Ten Devarim ("Word" or "Utterances" or "Declarations") in Ex. 34. The only places in the Bible that one finds the Ten Devarim listed all in one place is Ex. 20 and Deut. 5. So it's hardly surprising that one does not find the 9th and 10th Devarim (or 10th Debar) in Ex. 34.
Jordan said :
Stingerski, you seem to be confused.
No, I don't think so. If anyone was confused here is was YHVH. He gave Moses an almost completely different set of 10C the second time around.
Read them for yourself. This second set became the "Covenant," not the first set found in Ex. 20. Adultery, stealing and lying are out. But this set is really heavy into sabbaths and festival days.
Read them for yourself. This second set became the "Covenant," not the first set found in Ex. 20. Adultery, stealing and lying are out. But this set is really heavy into sabbaths and festival days.
I've read Ex. 34 many times -- there is no compilation of the Ten Commandments/Devarim in that chapter. You're not paying attention to what the text actually says, so you've reached an erroneous conclusion about what Ex. 34:27 means. In verse 1, God says he will write on the new tablets the words that were on the first tablets which Moses broke. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere in Ex. 34 that the discourse in verses 10-26 were the words written on the new tablets. In verse 27, God tells Moses to write the words of verses 10-26 (in which the proposal of a covenant with Israel is restated), but it doesn't say Moses was to write them on the tablets. Verse 27 then says that "he" (which grammatically can mean either God or Moses, but which verse 1 shows must refer to God) wrote on the tablets the Ten Words of the Covenant, which answers back to verse 1.
Corky said: All these writings over a God that doesn't even exist and a man called Jesus of Nazareth who didn't exist either.
I'm sure you're aware, Corky, that believing that Jesus of Nazareth never existed has all the scholarly respectability and intellectual heft of Flat Earthism and Geocentrism.
Religious men, wanting to be "perfect", need a perfect man as a pattern - that's Jesus. He did not exist as a flesh and blood man but as a personification of what they saw as the perfect man.
Whether or not one believes Jesus was or is "the perfect man," there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man.
This is what the argument between one group of Christians and another group was all about in the epistles of "John". The ones who said that Jesus was not a real man but a personification of a man, a perfect man, was the spirit of antichrist.
No, those early antichrists didn't say Jesus never existed but was just a fictional personification o a perfect man -- you're reading your own opinions back onto the Johannine texts. Rather, they said Jesus did exist, that He was a divine being, but was not really a human being -- that He only appeared to be human.
Ask yourself how some in that first generation of Christians could think that Jesus had not come "in the flesh".
It's because of the Platonic classification of matter and the body as evil, and the spirit and soul as good. They couldn't conceive of God being incarnate as a flesh and blood human being: it was a scandalous, foolish, to them, so they rejected it out of hand. So they reconceived of Jesus as a purely spiritual divine being, untainted by human flesh.
It was because they knew he had not but was their own invention of the perfect man. All very "spiritual" and all, some called them "Gnostic".
No, the Gnostics never thought "Jesus" was their own invention: they claimed He was a real person, just like the Christians claimed He was a real person.
Corky, just because you detect or experience conflict between Christians and those, like yourself, you claim Jesus never existed, that does not justify projecting that conflict back to the first and second centuries and discovering (what do you know!) a group of people who just happened to hold the same opinions about Jesus that you do.
Tom the Hyper-Armstrongist said: The Apocrypha was not included in the canon of Scripture because it was not directly inspired by God.
Ah, but history shows that the Apocrypha were indeed included in the canon of Scripture (or some of the more widespread and authoritative canons of Scripture). So, by your logic, that could indicate that the Apocrypha were directly inspired by God -- or perhaps the Christian Church botched the biblical canon.
We are told by the Apostle Paul that: "All scripture is given by the inspired of God..."
Yes, and we also know that St. Paul in that verse was talking about the Old Testament (including the Septuagint). St. Paul doesn't bother to tell us in that text which books are "scripture" and which books are are not.
And Peter also informed us that: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit." So according the Paul and Peter, both the old and new testaments were directly inspired by God.
Saints Peter and Paul certainly affirm the inspiration of the Old Testament and probably to some of the New Testament -- but in these prooftexts of yours, they never tell us which books belong in the Old and New Testaments.
On the other hand, the Apocrypha, like the Talmud and Josephus, contains some factual information, some speculation and much private interpretation.
Many people says the same thing about the Old and New Testaments.
For these reasons, it cannot be included in the canon of the OT and NT, which have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth.
Be that as it may, the disciples of the apostles, such as St. Polycarp of Smyrna and St. Clement of Rome, seem to have thought books like Tobit, Judith, and Greek Esther belonged in the Old Testament.
In addition, the Catholic church is an obvious heresy.
Obviously.
So any decisions its leaders make about the books its followers should read is completely irrelevant to genuine Christians.
Fine, then tell us when the genuine Christians came together and published the inspired table of contents of the Holy Bible.
On the other hand, nominal Christians tend to believe any nonsense, for they are as unstable as water.
Nonsense like the belief that the Germanic, Celtic, and Ugric peoples of Europe are actually Hebrews disguised as Gentiles? Or that the Germans are actually Assyrians? Or that the world will end in 1972?
Of course, I can understand why Doug Ward would want to provide a platform for Jared to disseminate his heretical thesis
It's because Doug and I are friends (yes, a Hebrew Roots evangelical can be friends with a Mary-worshipping Papist, and they really can recognise each other as brothers in Christ).
As for my "heretical thesis," it's obvious that you didn't actually bother to read my two-part essay on "the Apocrypha" before coming here to post your Armstrongist fulminations. If you had read my words, you would have known that it is (or was intended to be), as Gavin said, a helpful backgrounder, and does not take a position in favor of one canon over another. My purpose was to note and describe the disagreements over the biblical canon and to provide some history of how those disagreements arose, not to advocate that the Catholic Church's canon is correct (even though as a Catholic I naturally think that it is).
Interestingly, the name Jared is mentioned the book of Hosea, as a person to whom many will turn to for help. But he won't be able to help them escape the judgement of God.
Yes, and, go-o-olly!!!, the name Gomer is also mentioned in the book of Hosea. Amazing! 2,600 years before Jim Nabors was ever born, God had already given a TV Guide listing for his show!
You're so weird, Tom. You also need glasses -- Hosea mentions the Assyrian king under the symbolic name of "JAREB" (Hos. 5:13; 10:6), not "JARED." Yareb ("Contentious"), not Yered ("Descending"). I admit that I'm of German descent on my mother's side, but no one will ever confuse me with the King of Germany.
Jordan said:
In verse 27, God tells Moses to write the words of verses 10-26 (in which the proposal of a covenant with Israel is restated)
Very curious indeed that in this "restating" that only one of the original commandments is included in this covenant. All these other provisions, like firstborn males and cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (very important stuff there) are not mentioned at all in Exodus 20.
Will the real covenant please stand up?
This is just another example of how the various authors of Torah often contradicted each other, no doubt because they did not know what the others had written, or were writing. At any rate, it's not called the "old" covenant for nothing. It's just that the Armstrongites here & there (and other assorted Jewwannabees) haven't gotten that message yet.
Jared Olar said...
"Whether or not one believes Jesus was or is "the perfect man," there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man."
Among the believers this is true.
However, aside from the NT and the forged passage in Josephus, there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence.
Another man we should be aware of is Paul. He single handedly converted the whole of the Roman Empire to Christianity and he is mentioned by not even one historian of the time.
Paul travelled to Arabia, Greece, Asia, Anatolia, Jerusalem, Syria and eventually to Rome and performing miracles and setting up churches all along his route. But, no one seems to recollect him as existing in actual history.
"there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man."
Depends on what one is willing to read.
For being "eyewitnesses" the Gospel writers see to have had to resort to much copying from each other and forming a story of Jesus based on OT scriptures rather than following him around.
Jesusneverexisted.com
will give a boatload of considerations to the questions about the story as we all received it as kids and our parents before us.
The "that's been disproven long ago" line does not wash so well these days.
However, aside from the NT and the forged passage in Josephus, there is no evidence whatsoever of his existence.
Yeah, aside from all those people in the first century who wrote about the things Jesus said and did, there's no evidence whatsoever of His existence!
On the contrary, there is a passage in Josephus that is at least interpolated if not forged, but there is also Josephus' account of the execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ." Tacitus also refers to the sect of the Christians, who took their name from Christus, who was put to death by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius also has a garbled reference to tumult among the Jews of Rome that had something to do with some Jewish guy named "Chrestus." Thallus and Phlegon also note the surprising phenomenon of an eclipse of the sun during a full moon (something that is physically impossible) during the reign of Tiberius. Then there are the 27 books of the New Testament, all of them written within 70 years of Christ's death. Sounds to me like an awful lot of near-contemporary historical primary sources mentioning the words and deeds of someone you claim never existed. To dismiss all of that evidence so casually is irrational and unscholarly.
Another man we should be aware of is Paul. He single handedly converted the whole of the Roman Empire to Christianity
He did? First I'd ever heard of that. He went on missionary trips around the Roman Empire, but it wasn't until the 300s and 400s A.D. that anything like "the whole of the Roman Empire" was converted to Christianity. I'm pretty sure St. Paul died long before that happened.
and he is mentioned by not even one historian of the time.
Except for St. Luke, that is. There are also St. Paul's letters which testify to his existence. Oh, but those are all forgeries, aren't they. His tomb has been venerated in Rome since the earliest centuries, but of course that's not really his tomb, since he never existed. He was just made up. Christianity has no founders -- the people who founded Christianity never existed. That's why Christianity doesn't exist, which is why you aren't claiming that Jesus and St. Paul never existed -- for if Christianity doesn't exist, there couldn't be anything for you to react against as you are doing.
The "that's been disproven long ago" line does not wash so well these days.
Sure it does. Geocentrism was disproven long ago, and it's still false. The nutty theory that Jesus and St. Paul never existed is right up there with geocentrism, and is supported by the kind of reasoning and abuse of historical sources that "establishes" other similar conspiracy theories such as British Israelism, the Apostasy of the Lost Century, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The contrast between the Apocrypha and the Biblical canon is stark. Neotherm said: To give the Apocrypha serious consideration is like saying that a comic book about the adventures of Donald Duck should be bound in with the writings of Albert Einstein.
That's an extremely inapt comparison, and suggest that you may not have read these books -- or if you did, you did not give them a fair shake or approach tme with an open mind.
These books are curiosities but they do not carry the theme of the Bible.
I'd invite you to give these books another read, Neo, if you've ever read them at all. Then tell me, if you will, why Proverbs and Ecclesiastes so obviously carry the theme of the Bible while Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom do not, or why Esther and Job carry the theme of the Bible while Judith and Tobit do not, or why I & II Kings carry the theme of the BIble while I & II Maccabees do not.
"there's no serious question that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man."
Depends on what one is willing to read.
There are no serious works of scholarship that raise the question of Jesus' non-existence, but yes, there are plenty of unscholarly publications out there that advance that thesis. One thing Armstrongists generally didn't/don't have, and were discouraged from developing, is a sense of what makes a writing serious scholarship and how to read the works of scholars. Armstrongists will mine the secondary, tertiary, and occasionally even primary sources for proof-texts they can take out of context as evidence for a conspiracy theory, but they don't usually have the ability or willingness to treat a source fairly and honestly. Having left the Armstrongist anti-intellectualism behind, we ought to begin to learn how to tell the difference between the serious works and the goofy stuff like the books and websites that peddle the "Jesus never existed" conspiracy theory. Otherwise, how is our intellectual apparatus essentially different or better than it was when we were Armstrongists?
Jared Olar said...
Thallus and Phlegon also note the surprising phenomenon of an eclipse of the sun during a full moon (something that is physically impossible) during the reign of Tiberius.
Of course it's impossible but religious types will believe anything. If they can believe Adam lived 930 years - it's pretty much over with for rationality and reason ever being part of their thinking.
As far as Christus and Chrestos, that has been down the pike too many times to rehash that fallacy again.
there is also Josephus' account of the execution of James, "the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ."
Do you have a reference in Josephus of that quote? I believe that was James the Just, but I don't remember him being called the brother of Jesus Christ by Josephus.
Do you have a reference in Josephus of that quote? I believe that was James the Just, but I don't remember him being called the brother of Jesus Christ by Josephus.
The passage is found in Book XX, Chapter 9, of Whiston's old translation of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews:
"But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ more recent translations render that phrase "the so-called Christ", whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."
There is nothing about this episode that has the feel of Christian interpolation, quite unlike the Testimonium Flavianum which undoubtedly is interpolated by Christians if not completely forged. But it's almost certian that Josephus did mention Jesus and his execution. First, in describing the death of James, he identifies him as brother of "Jesus, the so-called Christ," as if his readers would know who he was referring to. If we remove the words "Jesus, the so-called Christ," then James remains unidentified, and the reason for Ananus' animosity and false accusation towards James is unexplained. But if Josephus explained who James was by saying he was brother of Jesus Christ, then it only makes sense that he would have previously explained who Jesus Christ was. The natural place for Josephus to do that is in his chapter on the outrages committed by Pontius Pilate, which is where all extant texts of Josephus place the Testimonium. The medieval Melkite Christian writer Agapius of Hierapolis quotes a version of the Testimonium Flavianum that lacks the obvious Christian interpolations -- the Agapius version reads like something a non-Christian Jew could say about Jesus, so it's likely that Agapius preserved the original text:
"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die."
That fits the report of Tacitus, who says the Christians took their name from Christus, who was put to death by Pilate.
As far as Christus and Chrestos, that has been down the pike too many times to rehash that fallacy again.
True -- it remains the case that it is a very plausible interpretation of Suetonius' "Chrestus" comment that it is a reference to Christ.
As for Thallus (1st century A.D.)and Phlegon of Tralles (2nd century) who reported the impossible "lunar eclipse" during the reign of Tiberius, their writings constitute independent witnesses to the darkness over the earth reported in the Gospels on the day of Christ's death.
Like I said before, for somebdoy who supposedly never existed, there were quite a lot of people in the first century and early second century who talked about him as a real person who lived and died in the first century. If that doesn't constitute historical evidence of a person's existence, then there is no historical evidence for anyone's existence prior to our own awakening to what some presumptuously call consciousness (for it is rash to believe that we are conscious, since we may not even exist at all -- we might be disembodied brains in a laboratory somewhere, you know).
Post a Comment