textman
*
+
More Abusing the Prophets
.
> On Dec11 geoff wrote: <snip some rubbish>
.
>> textman previously wrote:
>> But you are at least technically correct in that
>> I do maintain beliefs and opinions that are very
>> contrary to the established religious orthodoxy.
.
> Thats because your beliefs are a fairy tale.
> They are about as based in fact as Lord of the Rings.
.
If you have any evidence to back up these outrageous
assertions, I'd very much like to see it. It's easy enough
for someone to say that I don't know what I'm talking
about. That's been done many times before. But when it
comes time to offer a considered critique of my exegesis,
the nay-sayers are curiously silent. And why is that?
Is pompous arrogance supposed to be more persuasive
than a well-reasoned and well-considered argument?
.
>> That's the name of my website devoted to the authors
>> of the NT epistles 'James' and 'Jude'; and which, btw,
>> is now undergoing a major revision (chiefly by removing
>> a lot of articles that have no bearing on bible-study).
>> Completion of this project is still a long way off
>> ... alas.
.
> Alas, your fictional second century prophets
> do not exist.
.
Not anymore, to be sure, but they did exist in the
second century of the common era.
.
> They are figments of your imagination.
.
Really? Are the epistles of James and Jude also figments
of my imagination? They must be, since the bulk of what
I know about these 2 Christian prophets comes from there.
.
> I'd like to see some proof they exist. Hard evidence.
.
Someone must have authored those letters, geoff, since
it is highly unlikely that they wrote themselves. My
second century Egyptian prophets are by far the most
plausible options for the authors. The evidence is
all there in the texts: "Jacob, a slave of God and of
the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jm1:1a). What's that? Jacob
the prophet? Looks pretty 'hard evidence' to me.
.
> All I see is a bunch of radical claims which have
> no support or proof.
.
Well, I can only do so much in the space of one small
posting, geoff; but there are plenty of articles at
my web-site which forward arguments and observations
in support of my radical claims. Do you have any
arguments, support, or proof to back up your claim
that my proposals are "a fairy tale"? If so, bring
them before the people so that we may see if indeed
they hold any water.
.
> Jacob and Judas... proof they lived, proof they wrote
> pseudepigrapha, let alone james and jude. I dont want
> proof they wrote these 2 books, first prove they lived.
.
And just how am I supposed to do that, sir? Shall I pop
round in my time-machine and take you back there for a
spot of tea and crumpets with the authors in question?
You know that if I could, I surely would.
.
Hey, I'm NOT a first-class type of prophet, but merely
a lowly second-class type of prophet. So don't ask me
to do the impossible or to perform miracles. That is
very NOT my assigned mission.
.
btw: For those who may be interested in such obscure
matters as the methodology of interpretation, it is well
known that "hard evidence" and "incontestable proof"
are things rarely seen in the biblical sciences. Most of
the progress gained comes about by finding tiny little
fragments of evidence, reasoning about them (their
meaning and implications), then trying to fit these new
facts into the body of knowledge already gained, and in
general just trying to fit the evidence of the texts into
some sort of coherent overall vision of the New Testament
and the history of its texts. This is the way that most
bible scholars (and second-class cyber-prophets) proceed.
.
4X: How do I know that the author of James was a
Christian prophet? Simple. He tells us so at the very
start of his letter: 'Jacob, a slave of God and of the
Lord Jesus Christ'. In the Bible a 'slave of God' is
just another way of saying 'prophet'. So is there *any*
possibility that Jacob was not a Christian prophet? ...
None whatsoever! This is about as 'hard evidence' as
it gets in the fuzzy realm of hermeneutics. And if you
can't accept that 1+1=2 then I suggest you get out of
bible study pronto, since it's obviously not suited
for narrow and inflexible minds who already know all
the answers before the first question is even asked!
.
- the one who pursues clarity and truth - textman ;>
.
P.S. "But if any one of you is lacking wisdom, let that
one ask God, who gives generously and without reproach,
and it will be given. But let him ask in faith (doubting
nothing); for the one who doubts is like a wave of the
sea, being blown and tossed about by the wind. And do
not let that one think that he will receive anything
from the Lord; for he is a double-minded man (unstable
in all his ways)" (The Book of Jacob 1:5-8/IEV).
.
P.P.S. Dear Carl, what do you mean by "What's up"?
Clarity PLEASE! I have no idea what you're asking ...
x
+
On Getting Lost Among the Details.
.
/ Topic -> Re: PoMo Hermeneutics / 13Dec2001 /
/ Forum: TheologyOnLine - Philosophy & Theology /
.
>> textman previously wrote: If you have any evidence
>> to back up these outrageous assertions, I'd very
>> much like to see it.
.
> On 12Dec01 geoff replied: They arent outrageous
> assertions... they are defendable understandings
> held by the Christian Church for over 1500 years.
.
textman interrupts to add: Maybe even longer than that. As to how defensible they are: Well, my view is that they are defensible *only* to the extent that no one [and that means YOU, dear reader!] takes the bother of actually asking any questions that may or may not test these noble and honorable hermeneutical paradigms ... these "understandings" of the Word that are oh so enshrined in the long and long and LONG traditions of faithful Christian commentary according to the unsurpassable wisdom of the scribes and pharisees . . . Good Grief!
.
> The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
.
So in other words, I have to prove everything I say,
while you need never bother to explain or defend
*any* of your claims or beliefs? . . .
Oh, that's a sweet deal alright! :)
.
> Your claim is the one that is against the norm,
> so you must prove it.
.
Umm, *which* claim are we talking about, exactly?
.
>> It's easy enough for someone to say that I don't
>> know what I'm talking about. That's been done many
>> times before. But when it comes time to offer a
>> considered critique of my exegesis, the nay-sayers
>> are curiously silent. And why is that? Is pompous
>> arrogance supposed to be more persuasive than a
>> well-reasoned and well-considered argument?
.
> You dont have a well reasoned and well considered
> argument, either here or on your website.
.
Ow! ... yer such a meanie!
.
>> Do you have any arguments, support, or proof to
>> back up your claim that my proposals are "a fairy
>> tale"? If so, bring them before the people so that
>> we may see if indeed they hold any water.
.
> As I said, it is YOUR burden to prove your claims, not
> mine. If you want to prove the world is flat, now that
> we believe it is round,
.
I do NOT believe the world is round. I *know* that the world is round because I have seen (over the years) overwhelming evidence in support of that simple physical fact. There is a subtle, but very important, distinction between knowing something and believing something. I know that I shall surely die. I believe the Lord will save me. It is this very failure to make these sorts of distinctions that so characterizes the sloppy scholarship of the scribes and pharisees. Thus, for example, the bible scholars *know* that James was the first NT book written because it is Jewish and makes no mention of the Fall of Jerusalem. This they take to be certain knowledge so solid that they can claim James' early date to be an established fact. An established fact! Ha! A classic example of stupid and sloppy scholarship is the only "fact" to be found around here. This is because the Jewish features of the text most certainly do NOT prove that Jacob had to be a so-called Jewish-Christian in Jerusalem in the years between 45-65CE. Nor do these features prove that the epistle is explicitly intended for some nebulous and hard to find (but apparently widespread) population of Jewish-Christians. Yet both of these baseless and down-right stupid *opinions* are widely taken to be established facts!
.
Want to know what pisses a cyber-prophet off? Want
to know why the cyber-prophet can't say enough bad
things about these thoughtless and illogical "bible-loving"
post-modern Christian scribes and pharisees? ... Grrrrrrrr
.
> then the burden is on you to convince us.
.
Sometimes I think that it really might be easier to
convince the cyber-saints that the world is flat than
to convince them that the early Christian prophets
are the very heart and soul of the New Testament
... and the Faith!
.
> Otherwise we shall continue to consider you a
> crackpot making untenable claims.
.
Thx a bunch there geoff.
And a very merry Christmas to you too!
.
>> And just how am I supposed to do that, sir? Shall I
>> pop round in my time-machine and take you back
>> there for a spot of tea and crumpets with the
>> authors in question? You know that if I could,
>> I surely would.
.
> I can offer evidence to show that there was a real
> Jesus, john, Paul, Lames,
.
Who's Lames?
.
> Matthew, Mark, Luke, Peter. They are real historical
> characters and there is evidence they existed.
.
Right. There is evidence they existed (with the possible exception of this Lames person). But the only tangible evidence that exists *now* is contained in the texts of the Greek scriptures. You are asking me to prove the existence of Jacob and Judas without reference to those texts, and I am trying to tell you that there is no such evidence apart from the texts. Jacob and Judas are the authors of James and Jude because they *ARE* the authors of those texts. ... Is it just me? Why is this simple fact so difficult to understand?
.
> One of the principle actions of an exegete is to
> determine who wrote the passage in question, and to
> try and determine their historical reality. If you cant
> do that, then you have failed in your task.
.
I'm sorry, geoff, but I just don't see things that way. For me, the historical reality of Jacob and Judas is established in and by the fact that the texts of James and Jude are direct extensions of their concrete personalities. *That* they existed is therefore already an established fact and not something that can be doubted or questioned. *Who* they are, and *when* they are, are not such brute facts, but rather are things that must be carefully coaxed and squeezed out of the texts (without doing undue violence to the person of the author, or to the integrity of the Word).
.
> As for the name Jacob.
> Jacob is the Hebrew name, in Greek iakobos is James.
.
Either you're not explaining this well enough, or I'm not understanding you well enough. Let's at least get our facts straight. The Greek text gives the author's name as 'Iakobos' (in Greek characters of course), which we can legitimately translate as 'Jacob' firstly because there is no Greek equivalent to the letter 'J', and secondly because 'Jacob' is to 'Iakobos' as 'Paul' is to 'Paulos'. Now when we substitute 'James' for 'Jacob' (or 'Jude' for 'Judas'; or 'Paul' for 'Paulos') we are taking *another* step toward modern English; one that is not so much legitimate as it is convenient. I hope I'm making myself clear on this matter: There is no 'James' in the Greek New Testament! 'James' and 'Jude' rule *solely* and *entirely* by common consent alone. It's like saying that 'Bob' is the equivalent of 'Robert' because we say so, and who would be so foolish as to dispute this, eh? ... :)
.
Where do you get your information, geoff? I think maybe there's something wrong with your sources. So what I did was to have a quick look around the WWWeb, and what I found is pretty much summed up in your quote above. This suggests to me that the cyber-saints who put up these Christian bible-study websites are entirely lacking for any real interest in Jacob's universal epistle. And this disinterest doubtless stems from the fact that the scribes and pharisees are still very comfy-cozy with their grossly dismissive attitude toward Jm (so ably manifested in Martin Luther), and which they justify on the basis of their "certain" and "doubtless" knowledge of the book's "Jewishness"!
.
Want to know what pisses a cyber-prophet off? Want to know why the cyber-prophet can't say enough bad things about these dismissive and disrespectful "bible-loving" post-modern Christian scribes and pharisees? ... Grrrrrrrr
.
> Jesus' brother James (Matthew 13:55; 27:56; Mark 6:3;
> Luke 24:10; Galatians 1:19; 2:9,12), the head of the
> Jerusalem Church was probably known as Jacob,
.
I'd say more than probably, but I'm with you so far ...
.
> when at home with the family.
.
And why not outside the family?
.
> James is the graecised version of his Hebrew name.
.
You're wrong, geoff. 'James' is NOT a Greek word.
Latin maybe, but not Greek.
.
> So, there is absolutely no reason why we should
> not believe they are the same person.
.
WUT?!?! Whoa there tonto! Slow down a minute. You can't just jump in and out of warp speed without so much as a 'by your leave'. There are so many assumptions embedded in this last statement that I hardly know where to start unraveling this tangled mess. Just what are you saying here, geoff? Are you saying that because the Lord's brother happens to have the same name as the author of Jm, that this proves that he is the author? Don't you think that maybe such a radical conclusion is a bit hasty given the sheer flimsiness (not to mention absurdity) of your alleged evidence?! The fact that the Lord's brother and the author of James have the same name proves *ONLY* one thing: namely, that they had the same name. And that's all it proves. Any assertions added to this goes far *far* beyond what the evidence (if you can even call it that) can legitimately support.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+
> On 12Dec (a bit later) geoff reads PMH6 and to his
> chagrin discovers that it makes no reference to his
> previous post, and so then wrote: textman, not a jot
> of an answer in there, try answering the questions,
> evidences offered, ie interact with my post, instead
> of posting heretical propaganda.
.
textman answers: Dear geoff, PMH6 is not intended as an answer to your criticisms, hence the lack of interaction with your previous posting. Please forgive me. I did not intend to subject you to such painful "heretical propaganda". In future when you see any posting of mine that begins with the document icon please please ignore it, as it is doubtless chock full of prophetic spirity goodness and must be avoided at all cost! :)
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+
> On 12Dec (a little bit latter even) Carl Smuda wrote:
> Textman and Geoff, God Bless you both in the name
> of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah.
.
textman answers: Thx Carl.
And many blessings on thy kin as well.
.
> Textman, what's up is what's up with Geoff's charges?
.
Well I'm none too sure about that exactly, but I'd suspect that friend geoff is somehow voicing the concern of the prevailing hermeneutical paradigm in the face of its - How shall I say? - imminent destruction under pressure of massive common sense powered by faith and spirit and the grace of the Father of Lights.
.
> I respect Geoff's work,
.
Is that what he calls it? :)
.
> I've read much of him on other websites.
> He said you are spouting Fairy-tales.
.
Yes, I heard that too.
.
> He pooh-poohed your work
.
If you mean he constantly and constantly defecates
upon the cyber-prophet's scribblings, then you're right!
.
> and gave me your website. That's all.
.
All of wut?
.
> I suppose I have to read your stuff on your website,
> don't I? But I'm reading this thread.
.
Of course you don't have to. In fact, I'd recommend against doing so, as there are a great many articles available there, and the unwary believer could easily succumb to a prophetic overdose, dazed and confused for many days on end. ... Maybe it's best to revise one's hermeneutical paradigms slowly and gradually rather than suddenly and violently. Reading one thread at a time is fine. Indeed it's the best way to learn what's what with textman.
.
> It looks like I'm waiting for another shoe to drop.
.
Ha! I know the feeling.
.
> This isn't the first time I've heard the claim Peter
> didn't write the epistle with his name on it.
.
Oh no. I certainly didn't discover that rather obvious textual fact (although geoff may wish it were so). I think even Calvin was aware of this fact, although he takes great care in saying so without actually coming straight out and saying so, if you know what I mean.
.
> Geoff, what exactly is Textman saying that is off-color?
> respectfully, Carl
.
[A deep and awesome silence descends upon the world
as the cyber-saints await geoff's cunning, wit, and
wisdom. And none more so than the offensive one.]
.
- the one who works on two things at oncce - textman ;>
.
P.S. . . . No p.s. today! This post is long enough already, already.
x