textman
*
+
The Cyber-Prophet Makes a Prophecy or Two!
.
/ Topic: Re: On Defending the Early Christian Prophets /
/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 17Dec 2001 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Yes, but this does not
>> mean that my methods and conclusions are wrong
.
> On 15Dec01 geoff replies: It certainly might not
> 'prove' you are wrong... after all, there are intelligent
> learned people who believe in evolution.
.
textman sayeth: I should hope so.
.
> However, when the consensus is ooooh, lets see... so
> close to 100% as to make no difference, then we must
> have 'extreme doubt' at very least. In all probability,
> this evidence alone might condemn you. However, we
> dont have to stop here, although any intelligent
> person would.
.
Approaching new proposals and new evidence (that
questions the consensus) with extreme prejudice and
extreme doubt simply because they are different is
hardly justified on purely rational grounds. I think
that any intelligent person would be able to agree
with me on *that*.
.
> We have other evidence.
.
So you keep saying. But I have found, over the years,
that saying we have evidence is not quite the same
thing as bringing it before the cyber-saints so as to
subject it to close public examination and intense
critical scrutiny. I am doing my part. Is there anyone
around here who refrains from doing likewise?
.
>> ... it's unlikely that my bizarre notions would make
>> much of an impression since their pious arrogance
>> and theological preconceptions and assumptions
>> would surely prevent them from recognizing the
>> truth of these things of which we speak.
.
> You dont speak any truth. Besides, your bizarre
> notions stem from your pious arrogance, theological
> arrogance and assumptions, preventing you from
> knowing the truth.
.
Wut? Wanna say that again, tough guy?
.
>> This is because they are unable to think about the
>> scriptures outside of the narrow and rigid definitions
>> of the prevailing hermeneutical paradigm (which, in
>> one sense, defines their identity and function within
>> the People of God).
.
> Right-o, lets abandon logic, good sense, and the
> established rules of hermeneutics so we can follow
> (non)truthman.
.
I didn't say that, geoff. Believers are more than welcome to bring all their logic, every scrap of good sense, and a rational hermeneutics with them as they travel through Prophet-Land. Indeed, I rather depend on it; although it seems that quite a few cyber-saints are altogether devoid even of common sense . . .
.
>> <snip> Real relevant observation there, geoff.
.
> If the other crackpots who have tried this same
> steaming pile of wombat doo have failed to convince
> anyone they were right,
.
Now you are surely talking through your theological hat. Friend geoff knows very well that textman's unique and systematic biblical interpretations have never been seen or tried before. It is for this very reason that they seem so bizarre and illogical *AT FIRST GLANCE*. But if the reader will give my ideas a chance to sink into their general approach to the Bible, *THEN* the true value and utility of my hermeneutics gradually reveals itself in a richer and deeper appreciation of the meaning and power of the Word of God. ... Please *DO* check it out!
.
> what makes you think you can?
.
I have great faith in the general sensibilities of most believers (even the cyber-saints), and I trust that if anyone approaches bible study with an open mind and an open heart and a strong willingness to learn, then nothing can prevent them from finding out the truth about all these things. And if they cannot find their way to the cyber-prophet then perhaps they will find another way to the same truths, or perhaps blaze a trail there on their own. It does not matter how it happens, but one way or another (and sooner or later) the "understandings" of the prevailing consensus *will* go down. They will go down because they will fall down under the weight of its own crumbling and lie-laden foundations which are not only supremely illogical and unhistorical, but *also* grossly unfit to support *any* sensible interpretation of the holy scriptures! ... And once all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is over and done with, they'll look once more over the databanks, and *then* they'll say: "Oh hey, that textman guy was right all along. How about that?"
.
> I am guessing you are going to answer 'i cant'.
.
I guess you guessed wrong, huh?
.
> Your right. You cant. What you are teaching is a lie.
.
Hey, geoff, we all know that you think and wish it were
so, but we are all *still* waiting for you to *SHOW* us!
If my teachings are all lies, as you claim, then one would
think that it ought to be easy enough to demonstrate, in
no uncertain terms, that I am wrong about *something*!
So far you haven't done anything like that. The scribes
and pharisees are counting on you to save their face
(and whatever), and you are *NOT* doing the job ... :D
.
> You cant convince me to believe it.
.
I can't convince you, geoff, because you have already
determined that I'm wrong about *everything*. So
obviously there's no possibility of changing *your* mind.
But perhaps some one or two readers (perhaps far in
the future) will not be so ... ummm ... *unbendable*
as you, and may indeed be curious to inquire further
*before* making any too-hasty final judgments.
.
>> <snipsome> This is because I can't cause you (or
>> anyone else) to do anything. You have to want to
>> understand the meaning of the texts, and the
>> intentions of the authors in expressing their souls
>> with just these particular words in just this particular
>> way. Otherwise we're just talking at two different
>> directions, and getting nowhere fast.
.
> I do want to understand the meaning of the texts.
.
Really?
.
> I do want to understand the intentions of the authors.
.
You have not expressed any such interest before.
.
> I have spent several years studying it.
.
It doesn't show.
.
> I have a friend who has memorised the epistle of
> James, is translating it from Greek and is writing
> a commentary on it. He's been to your website.
> He laughed so hard He cried.
.
Izzatso? Well then perhaps I should be grateful that
all my labor and toil on behalf of the People of God
is not *entirely* wasted?
.
>> They should believe me because my exegesis
>> is better than theirs
.
> So, your ability to, lets say, translate Greek to
> English, is better than the people on the
> committees that translate the Scriptures? Not.
.
Okay geoff. I freely admit that I'm no expert in Koine Greek (or any other language, for that matter), but I do have some grasp of the basics. Enough to know that the bible-makers are NOT providing post-modern believers with anything like adequate and faithful renditions of the oldest Greek texts. For that reason, and others, I stand by my own translations. Besides, knowledge of ancient languages is only one element in the larger machinery of the biblical sciences. I have elected NOT to focus all my energies on one section or sub-discipline in order that I not stray too far from the bigger picture (ie. the New Testament century, 50-150CE, as a whole).
.
> So, your understanding of the Sitz im Laben is better
> than the scholars who translate the scriptures, write
> commentaries, do archeological research, cultural /
> social research etc? Not.
.
I beg to differ, herr gustav. Unlike the more scientific aspects of these activities you mention, the matter of determining dates and context is one that requires considerably more detective work AND historical imagination. Piecing together words and artifacts is EASY compared to getting inside the heart and mind of a man who died nineteen centuries ago. Oh yes! There is a world of difference between looking at and describing some piece of evidence or concept and using that concept or evidence to carry the investigation forward. Yes, it's altogether another matter to *think* about it, and draw out the logical inferences and natural conclusions that bring you one step closer to a more complete knowledge of the Word. Not only that, but the skills needed to be a good detective and historian are not even taught at the little scribes and pharisees schools. They are not taught because no one can teach you how to think like a detective and/or a historian. That's a sad fact that is seldom mentioned, and thus rarely noticed. Yet you either know how to do it, or you don't, period. More than anything, this is what separates the first-rate scholars and exegetes from the legions of pretenders who haven't a clue what to do with a genuine clue.
.
> Your exegesis is not better, its not better than people
> I know who dont know what exegesis means.
.
Since your judgment is obviously impaired, I'll stand
by the quality of my exegesis, and trust that our
readers will have sense enough to recognize the
truth when they see it.
.
>> Demonstrate that my ideas are better than all the
>> many and varied established traditions, you say?
>> Sure thing, geoff! I'm doing exactly that right now
>> (with a little help from friends Carl and geoff).Amen!
>> "For where two or three are assembled in my name,
>> there am I among them" (Jesus, Mt.18:20).
.
> hahahahahahaha
.
geoff is one happy camper, folks! :)
.
> So far you have demonstrated you dont know
> anything. The quote from Matthew, for example,
> is to do with judgement on peoples behaviour.
> Carl and I then, have Jesus' authority to
> pronounce you a Heretic.
.
Yeah sure, but that would be pointless, geoff, since
you *already* did that; and under your very *own*
authority too, I might add!
.
>> Hence most scholars today push the date of Jm to
>> just beyond this point - thus ignoring Jacob's
>> awareness of the gospel traditions (and 4X 1Peter)
.
> So, while the scholars are fairly confident that
> James was written in the 50's,
.
I'd say that most scholars today would place Jm in the early sixties. OR if some go slightly later (say by a decade or two), they could say that while the author was not necessarily James the Righteous himself, it comes from a source very close to him. In this case, however, the author/disciple is writing under the master's name and authority, and does not tell us his true name OR identity. ... But given the way that the book begins - Jacob, a slave of God & JC - I rather find this possibility to be most unlikely. The name just "smells" too genuine and final. The author's name is 'Jacob', so let's get along with it! :D
.
> you claim it cant be because 'jacob' (James) was
> aware of the gospels. Funny that. According to the
> scholars, James is Jesus' brother. He has intimate
> and direct knowledge of the gospels from Jesus.
.
How do you know he has "intimate and direct knowledge of the gospels from Jesus"? When his family came to see him, and begged admittance to the house, didn't Jesus reject their claims in order to identify those who listened to Him as his brothers and sisters and kin? Oh yes he did, sir. And the Lord's attitude makes perfect sense in light of the reaction back home after he announced himself and his mission (ie. they tried to throw him off a cliff maybe). "intimate and direct knowledge" indeed! That's one mighty *BIG* assumption you got there bub!
.
> He was the leader of the Jerusalem Church;
.
Yes, but not at first. I mean not for the first few years. At first it was Simon Peter and some of the senior disciples from the early days. They more or less shared leadership, I suppose, between the two main bodies of believers (ie. the Aramaic-speaking Jewish believers, and the Hellenistic Greek-speaking Jewish believers). And then James showed up one day and all of that changed. And then, while the two synagogues were still young and fresh: Oh oh, trouble in the Holy City . . .
.
> he has direct access to the disciples,
> notably Peter and John.
.
Ah, but this is not so, friend geoff. John and Peter both left Jerusalem with the Dispersion of the Greek-believers. John went south-west with one batch, while Peter went north (to Antioch) with another. Other groups may have gone in other directions, but most of these did not get very far. In any case, the Mother Church in the Holy City was never the same after that, and her days were numbered too. Anyway, the point is that James did NOT have *direct* access to the leaders of the daughter churches far far away; and I rather strongly suspect that Peter and John were both perfectly happy with *that* fact!
.
> Of course he is 'gospel aware' - He was there while
> the events were taking place.
.
Would that also include the event where his family and
neighbors accuse Jesus of being a crackpot? According
to the evidence of the gospels, we have scant reason
to suspect the Lord's brothers of any great under-
sanding of, or great sympathy for, the Greek-believers.
If anything, the evidence points the other way.
.
> This evidence doesnt support you, it condemns you.
.
Nonsense. While he doubtless had some contact with the oral traditions circulating through Jerusalem, this is a far cry from having intimate knowledge of the gospel-texts and their literary traditions. Remember that Jesus' brother was killed before Peter and Mark even began their great project that would change the world forever. It is the creation of the Gospel of Mark & Peter that splits early church history into logical chunks. The early Apostolic Age covers church history from about 35CE to c.70CE and includes *only* the authentic epistles of Paul and the Gospel called Mark. Almost every other scrap of Christian literature ever written is written *after* these hard-core apostolic documents, and all of them are stamped by the light and influence of these truly radical and revolutionary documents. The Epistles & Gospel in a sense BEGAN church history, and it is around those scrolls that the New Testament *eventually* collected itself. So there is no mistaking a pre-Mk document with literature written after the Fall of Jerusalem. No indeed. It would take a special kind of confusion to make *that* sort of mistake.
.
>> That's what most pomo Christians say. You're all in
>> denial. The plain fact is that we are all of us post-
>> modern believers by virtue of the fact that we are
>> all living in the present post-modern era.
.
> I wasnt born in, or raised in the post modern era.
> Therefore I am not post modern.
.
If you're alive and breathing in the year 2001 (or later) then you're *in* the post-modern age whether you like it or not. Where or when or how you were born and raised is irrelevant. You can no more escape the effects of post-modernism than you can hide from the sunshine.
It's in the very air we breathe.
.
> One shouldnt speak where one has no understanding.
.
I couldn't agree more!
.
>> A brute fact about the text of Jm is that the
>> autograph was written in Greek characters
>> according to the Greek way of writing sacred
>> and inspired scripture.
.
> it was certainly very hellenistic.
> The Greek is exemplary.
.
Good of you to notice these facts, geoff. Now if
only you could *also* notice the meaning and
implications of these things . . .
.
> HOWEVER, the fact you ignore is that although it is
> written in Greek, and is very hellenistic in nature, the
> thought behind it is completely and utterly Jewish.
.
I take exception to this remark! Chiefly because it is so blatantly false, but also because there is a very deep contradiction at the heart of this assertion. It's like saying that although James looks and tastes like an orange-epistle, it is *really* an apple-epistle. The reader should be aware that this assertion of geoff's that Jacob's thinking is "completely and utterly Jewish" is NOT justified or even supported by the text of Jm.
.
> Chapter one is a match for Isaiah 40, the sermon on
> the mount features heavily etc. Very very Jewish
> thought went into this letter. NOT Greek, NOT
> Egyptian. Jewish.
.
What the evidence of the text *does* show is that our author is very well-acquainted with the LXX and a variety of early Christian literature, and that what geoff calls his *Jewish thinking* is actually the author's *Christian thinking* (which is enhanced and strengthened by the Hebrew traditions that entered the Faith by way of Greek translations of the Hebrew scriptures). *ALL* of Jacob's so-called "semitisms" can be accounted for on the basis of his love and knowledge of the scriptures! Claims that Jacob MUST be "Jewish" therefore go far beyond what the text will support.
.
>> When did he find time to make himself so fluent
>> in Greek literature?
.
> Your ignorance is flopping about the place like a fish
> out of water. Greek was the PREDOMINATE language
> spoken in the 1st C. James, Jesus, Paul, etc would
> have spoken it as their main language. Aramaic would
> have been spoken in 'jewish only' circles, and Hebrew
> in the Synagogue.
.
Again you are not paying attention. There is a world of difference between speaking the "common tongue" and being well-educated in the Greek literature of the day. Just because James could speak Koine doesn't mean that he was literate in the written Greek languages, or had knowledge of the Greek classics. Simon-Peter could speak some Greek, but he was still unable to read and write that same Greek (that's why he and Mark together created the Gospel). There is no contradiction in this. Many illiterate people can speak just fine. Reading and writing are a different kind of skill. And the skill to write well is not something that comes automatically. You said yourself that the Greek is exemplary, but you have NOT explained how the Lord's Aramaic-centered brother, of all people, could have gained these exemplary hellenisms, or even why he should want them in the first place!
.
> The rest of your post is a load of rubbish.
.
In other words, geoff is lacking for the appropriate insults to deflect the readers attention away from the truth, so as to occupy it with trivial concerns that serve only to distract the reader from realizing that poor geoff really has no viable criticisms of textman's exegesis, and indeed is sinking fast under the weight of his own absurdity. Hence the constant recourse to insults that prove and demonstrate ... nothing at all!
.
> Its not worth the cyber paper its written on. You
> <snipped> all the bits that show how wrong you are,
.
HA! ... LOL ... That's a hot one!
.
> and argue vaguely about a bunch of minor things
> which really show you to be completely off target,
> and ignorant of decent exegesis, Jewish and
> Hellenistic culture etc. this is, quite frankly, lame.
.
The truth or falsity or greatness or inadequacy of any systematic interpretation of scripture will ultimately be judged according to how it deals with the little details, the small clues, and the minor things. For it is upon the details that the evidence is transformed into reliable knowledge. It is the details and little things that make or break ANY hermeneutical scheme. Those who cannot handle the little things can hardly be fit to judge the big things! What's truly lame, therefore, is a self-appointed defender of orthodoxy who can't bother to get himself dirty by crawling among the "minor things" that mark out the path toward the achievement of knowledge and understanding.
.
- one who points to the minor things - ttextman ;>
x
+
/ Topic > Re: PoMo Hermeneutics 8 /
/ Forum > TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 24Dec01 /
.
> On 23Dec01 geoff wrote: another random
> illogical unbiblical post from textman...
> with such idiotic claims as:
.
>> <snip three random quotes from PMH8>
.
> blah blah blah, unfounded claims...
> completely ridiculous balony
.
textman sayeth: "completely ridiculous baloney", eh? Gee, that's exactly what I think about the unfounded claims of the scribes and pharisees whenever they attempt to explain the why's and wherefore's of the text of Jm. ... Anyway, it's nice to see that the universe remains consistent after all: geoff continues to offer his unique brand of witty critical insights that are entirely lacking for even one miniscule shred of analytical content!
x
+
>> textman previously wrote: Indeed, it is this gross
>> belief that the Word of God can *only* be found in
>> the Bible that causes so many ridiculous problems
>> for the bible-worshippers and bible-idolizers and
>> other fools who do not even know that which
>> they read (and therefore think they know well).
.
> On 23Dec01 bill betzler asked: Are we to believe
> that these are the words of God given to one of
> His prophets?
.
textman answers: If the words be true, believe them;
if not, don't ... Besides, what kind of prophet would I
be if I couldn't offend somebody now and then? :D
.
> That you have chosen your title of "prophet" as
> a joke is now quite apparent.
.
If you think I am joking about the early Christian prophets, then perhaps you don't know the cyber-prophet as well as you think you do. Moreover, it would not be wise to imagine (even for a moment) that the fact of my obvious lack of inerrancy and infallibility somehow proves I'm not a prophet (or worse, proves I'm a false-prophet). Having such unrealistic expectations about the prophets is just as foolish as the idolization of scripture! Even the great Paulos himself was not above making a mistake or two in his ministry, in his relations with other believers, and in his writings.
.
> WE worship God and trust that the Bible is God's
> word to us. We do not worship the Bible.
.
Whenever anyone invests divine qualities and attributes (that are proper to God alone) into any finite object, then they are committing the sin of idolatry. How much of the teachings of the old Hebrew prophets focus on the theme of idolatry, eh? Indeed, it is the primary preoccupation of the Hebrew scriptures as a whole. The Hebrew prophets understood human nature better than most believers today do. The latter think that the problem of idolization is confined entirely to ancient history. This is NOT the case. Only the means and methods have changed; the impulse to idolatry remains as strong as ever. Of course Christians do not openly worship the Bible with dancing and revelry as though it were some golden calf. They do it in other "more civilized" ways. Such as promoting the myth of inerrancy and infallibility ...
.
> All theological truths of God are found in the Bible,
> we need no other source.
.
All necessary theological truths are doubtless expressed through the scriptures, but there is a strange tendency among believers to extend "all theological truths of God" so as to include all manner of incidental realities (such as historical facts and the various qualities of the biblical literature). This confusion of truths generates a situation whereby the simplest course (always the most popular) is to just imagine that *all* truth is perfectly contained within the Bible. Yet no one can say that "the truth" can be found here alone and nowhere else. Truth is universal; just as the Logos of God is universal, just as the Heavenly Father is universal, just as the Spirit of Truth is universal. Would you bind up the Spirit of Truth and confine it in a box forevermore? ... Yet that is exactly what believers do when in their unspeakable arrogance they deny and reject the prophets out of their conviction that the prophets are null and void because we "enlightened" believers can read and understand the scriptures just as well as they can, and therefore they are no longer required! ... Oh you need another source alright. You have no idea just how much you really need another source.
.
> All of our concepts of God are formed by the Scriptures
.
That's fine; I have no objection to this.
.
> and the manipulation of our thoughts by God via faith.
.
Wut?! You think God manipulates your thoughts? ...
WOW! I must admit that I have a rather different view
of Providence. Mine doesn't actually include the deity
rearranging my mind or my thoughts, as that would
surely compromise our God-given gift of free-will (and
therefore make a mockery of salvation).
.
> Your hermeneutics come up very short in allowing
> us to know God and Jesus.
.
It is not the purpose of my hermeneutics to focus
attention on God and Jesus directly. That is best done
by the scriptures themselves. My purpose is to assist
believers to a better understanding of the Word through
gaining a more complete knowledge of the early
Christian prophets who are at the core of the NT Faith.
.
> Hence , don't call God's servants fools and then
> pretend to know the significance of our
> relationship with God and Jesus.
.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean. I was talking about believers and the nature of their relationship to the scriptures. My methods presuppose that the bible-student is at least able to make the necessary distinctions between one's attitudes and ideas about God, and those one holds about Scripture. Alas, there is an unfortunate weakness in the minds of many believers that causes bible-readers to detach the scriptures from men (and their sin and error), to divorce the creation of the Holy Bible from the historical process, and to attach the Book directly to the Mouth of God as if the scriptures themselves were deliberately intended to function in the role of prophet!
How ridiculous is that?
.
> Use your hermeneutics to study the words mercy
> and compassion,
.
I understand the words 'mercy' and 'compassion', bill. Do you understand that your hermeneutics may not be all that it's cracked up to be? Do you see the slightest possibility that the popular understandings about the NT books are perhaps not as perfect and complete as so many suppose? ... If not, then there's something seriously wrong among the cyber-saints!
.
> then you will see that hermeneutics is a secondary
> discipline and not primary. -- bill
.
I see that hermeneutics is not primary to the substance of discipleship, bill. But it IS primary if we wish to read the Word of God in a mature and rational manner; rather than through the eyes of children. Milk is suitable to children, meat and potatoes for adults. My hermeneutics is certainly not milk! It is intended only for those who require strong meat and drink. For those who can recognize the truth when they see it. And for those who are willing to accept the facts as they are.
.
For example, consider further this matter of biblical inerrancy and infallibility. What this comes down to in practice is not so much the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture as it is the inerrancy and infallibility of whatever particular understanding of them that one happens to favor. In other words, it is the *interpretation* that is considered inerrant and infallible! This absurd situation arises from that very lust for simplicity that confuses the text with its interpretation, such that the latter appears to be directly attached to the former!
.
As evidence of all this I submit this very thread as 'Exhibit A'. If the reader looks through the various posts carefully, he will be hard put to find anyone explaining or defending the "common understandings" that most believers have (via the scribes and pharisees) about these NT books. Is this not because the popular interpretations are considered to be so inerrant and infallible that it would be sacrilege and blasphemy to even question or doubt them? When I attack the stupidities and illusions of the scribal interpretations, is this not taken by many as a direct attack upon *their* sacred scriptures? As an attack upon the Faith even?
.
So then it is much easier to simply lash out against the cyber-prophet, than to take the far more difficult path of actually thinking through all these matters very carefully and prayerfully!
.
- the one who refocuses prophecy - textmman ;>
x