/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 22oct02 /
.
"My goal is that their hearts, having been knit together in love,
may be encouraged, and that they may have all the riches of full
assurance in their understanding of the knowledge of the mystery
of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will deceive
you through arguments that sound reasonable." - Col.2:2-4
.
Dear Cyber-Saints, thanks to a very nice (and very pretty)
Fundy-Lady on TV (who just happens to have the same initials
as the one who shines, btw), I've been lately looking into
the New Testament epistle called Colossians. So let us call
this lady Annie, and let us suppose that her level of
critical awareness holds rock-steady at absolute zero.
.
Now Annie (like most uncritical fundies) holds the absurd
opinion that each and every single word in the Bible is
inspired; which I take to mean that each and every word
(regardless of its actual historical genesis) is *equally*
inspired because they *all* come directly from God (ie. the
actual authors, writers, and editors are merely mindless
secretaries). Logically then, no verse or page or chapter or
book can be considered any more valuable or revelatory or
better than any other. The scriptures are thus uniformly and
consistently divine, free of all error and all hint of error,
thereby conferring inerrancy and infallibility upon the whole
of the text (and all its parts), because the Bible is One etc.
.
That's the general idea anyway; in practice, however, the
fundies routinely treat (for example) the New Testament as
vastly superior to the Old Testament. How they justify this
blatant contradiction within the narrow confines of their
dark and rigid minds, I'm sure I have no idea. But it's
obvious that they are drawn especially to those verses that
seem to support their pious theological preconceptions.
.
For example, it is clear that Annie (who considers herself an
inspired exegete) "knows" that Jesus is God because the New
Testament teaches us that very fact: "For in Christ all the
fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form ..." (Col.2:9/NIV).
Now this does not necessarily mean that Jesus is God, or even
equal to God (ie. the author of Colossians - definitely NOT
Paul - nowhere makes such absurd fundyfied claims), yet the
fundies (in the darkness of their ignorance and unknowing)
take it to mean exactly that, and nothing else. But we shall
not argue against this interpretation here, since it seems
quite plain to us that for the author of Colossians (and for
the New Testament in general) God is the Father, period.
.
Now since the author of Colossians is clearly not a fundy
(Tyndale (in 16C) was the first true fundy), we are perfectly
justified in our scornful skepticism of the silly hermeneutics
surrounding this epistle. Thus a key verse in Colossians (from
the fundy perspective) is 1:15 -> "He [ie. Christ] is the
image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation"
(NIV). But this is a very curious verse in that the first
clause is taken (by many) to be a clear affirmation of
Christ's divinity, while the second clause is taken (by us)
as a clear denial of that same claim that Jesus IS God.
.
Nor is it at all irrelevant that the early churches later on
specifically denied this idea that Jesus is the "first-born"
(chiefly because it hampered the bishops affirmation that Jesus
is God). So I guess that the early churches (like the fundies
today) know better than the clear statements of the sacred
texts. So much for their hypocritical claim that every word is
equally inspired of God. Maybe some words are more equal than
others; (especially those that fundies suppose support their
pious delusions).
.
Thus Annie's fundyfied version of the text reads: "He is the
exact likeness of the invisible God ...". Now one can easily
see that 'exact likeness' is far more congenial to the pious
stupidities of scribal-christianity than the vague and nebulous
term 'image'. Among the early Greek churches there was quite a
big stink over this very question of 'likeness'. Just what does
'likeness' mean, exactly? Does it mean that Jesus was "merely"
like (ie. similar) unto God? Or does it mean that Jesus and
God share the same divine essence and nature? . . .
.
I'm sure I don't need to tell the reader how that controversy
turned out, since its results are well summed up in the word
'exact' which is used to qualify the 'likeness' to the end
of clearly denying that Jesus was merely "like" unto God.
Technically, however, 'image' is the better translation of
the Greek term actually used by the inspired author.
.
Thus the fundies are not only not above dismissing those
texts that are offensive to their arrogant and self-serving
piety, but they are also not above deliberately distorting the
inspired text in favor of their supposedly even more inspired
interpretations. In other words, the essence of this popular
post-modern Christianity is nothing other than illusion,
distortion, and a grossly hypocritical contempt for this very
same Word of God that they otherwise worship and idolize!
.
Therefore these thoughtless believers are like a plague upon
the Faith; and it is these people that the author of Colossians
refers to when he says that we should "Be careful not to allow
anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy
that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits
of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col.2:8/NETbible).
.
- one who captivates through honesty - ttextman ;>
.
P.S. "Got a nervous kind of feeling
. Got a painful yellow headache
. Every picture in every magazine's turned real
. Every face looks out and screams at me too real
. [from 'Swelling Itching Brain' by Devo]
x
+
Re: Jesus IS God!
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #2 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 23oct02 /"I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most> On 22oct CATHY921 (cathy921@aol.com) wrote:
exalted of the kings of the earth" (Ps 89:27/NIV).
> The question "Is Jesus LIKE God?" is misleading!
.
textman replies: Hi, cathy. In what way is it misleading?
It is, after all, just a simple question. And a simple
question requires a simple answer . . .
.
> Jesus Christ is God and always will be! He WAS God when He
> came to earth in a body - God incarnate!
.
Where in the scriptures do you find the words "Jesus is God
incarnate"? If you cannot produce the chapter and verse, then
we can surely assume that this is only your *interpretation*!
.
> HE shall judge the world -- that's what the Holy Bible
> says, and you'd better believe it!
.
I do believe it. My question to you is this: Is Jesus
incapable of judging the world if he is not on equal terms
with God Almighty? And if not, why not?
.
> "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven"..!
.
Right. 'Thy Word' being here the Eternal Logos.
.
> "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that
> Christ is Lord". (Better sooner than later, dear reader)..
.
Is "Christ is Lord" the functional equivalent of "Christ is
God"? Does 'Lord' necessarily and logically imply 'God'? Why?
.
> Christ shall reign King of Kings and Lord of Lords!!
.
Jesus does not have to be God in order to be King of Kings
and Lord of Lords. He only has to be the "first-born". In this
way Jesus remains *fully* human while yet retaining an aspect
of the divine. But the idea that Christ is 'God incarnate'
does away with the idea that Jesus was a normal man. To say,
as the early bishops did, that Christ was both God and Man
*equally* is sheer nonsense, since there is *NO* equality
between God and Man, but rather a huge gulf that hides God
from our sight completely, such that only the eyes of faith
can ever so dimly see the features of God in Jesus.
.
To the ancient Greeks, it was no big deal to say that some
famous person or hero was a 'Son of God' (in the sense of
demi-god, half-human and half-divine). And it was inevitable
that Jesus would be seen this way. Once this step was taken,
the pressure of mounting piety would eventually elevate the
demi-god to full divine status. Thus was Jesus' original
insight of God as Father transformed into a theological-god
that was three gods in one god. 1=3? 3=1? Oh yes! Never mind
the obvious contradictions! It was said to be a mystery, and
we, poor sods, are just too Stupid & Sinful to understand it.
.
Right!
.
... Show me where in the Bible the word 'trinity' can be
found, and *THEN* we'll have some basis for claiming that
this is a biblical doctrine. Otherwise I'll just stick to
biblical teachings that can actually be found within the
sacred texts, rather than those allegedly biblical doctrines
that are placed therein by mindlessly pious interpreters who
obviously know better than the inspired authors themselves,
since they alone know what God *really* meant to say!
.
Please Lord, save the Faith from pious fundies who, in their
colossal arrogance, think that they *KNOW* the mind of God!
.
- one who discards post-biblical nonsense - textman ;>
x
+
On How to Spank a Fundy
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #3 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 30oct02 /
.
"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
They will seek me diligently, but will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge,
And did not choose the fear of the LORD.
They would not accept my counsel,
They spurned all my reproof" (Proverbs 1:28-30).
.
>> textman previously wrote: Is Jesus Like God? <snip>
.
> On 23oct the rabid and demented fundy who dares to call
> himself 'scholar' (antiaging@ineedhits-mail.com) wrote:
> Hebrews 1:2-3 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his
> Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
> he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory,
> and the express image of his person, and upholding all things
> by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our
> sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ...
.
textman replies: A few things to note here. Firstly, 'these
last days' were two thousand years ago! Accordingly, believers
should not be tempted to put a literal spin on such sayings.
Secondly, note that God made the worlds (why the plural here?)
by way of the Son, an idea that is later used in John's
prologue to the gospel. Thirdly, 'brightness of his glory'
suggests light, which in turn suggests truth; while the 'image
of his person' suggests that Jesus reflects the substantial
essence of the Heavenly Father (ie. his loving personality),
and should not be taken as support of the idea that Jesus is
the incarnation or manifestation of the Father. That the Son
is a unique person distinct from the High Majesty is made
plain in two ways: (1) 'the word of his power' rather than
'the power of his word' suggests that the Son is God's
creative word. (2) 'sat down on the right hand' shows that
the Son is both with God, but also subordinate to God. All in
all then, we seem to be perfectly justified in understanding
this passage from Hebrews in terms of our Johannine-based
Logos christology. In other words, there is nothing here
that can be taken as support for fundy extremism.
.
> Jesus is the express image of God the Father's person.
.
Right. Provided, of course, that we do not understand by
'image' something like 'clone' or 'duplicate' or 'copy'.
Jesus can be his own person while still imaging the Father.
.
> John 14:9-10 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long
> time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
> he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
.
Right. Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity.
Through him the nature and person of God are revealed
to the eyes of faith ... but ONLY to the eyes of faith!
.
> and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest
> thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
.
In other words, without faith you cannot see that God and
Jesus are connected in various ways (ie. will, intention,
purpose, etc); but this should not be misunderstood to mean
that they are a unity (ie. in the sense of being a single
unit). For example, the saying that "I and the Father are one"
(John 10:30) can easily be taken (by careless readers) to mean
that God and Jesus are a single unit, that therefore they
are the SAME person and being, although appearing to us in
different modes. In this line of thought, Jesus IS the Father,
is the direct incarnation and manifestation of God! But
believers should not be persuaded by such seemingly sensible
reasoning (that so well flatters pious emotions), but rather
they should ask themselves what the inspired author meant by
these words, not what some brain-damaged fundy supposes them
to mean. In other words, the full and true meaning of any
verse from John must be understood within the context of the
prophetic gospel as a whole, and without succumbing to the
temptation to import notions and ideas that are utterly alien
to John's own manner of thinking.
.
> the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself:
> but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
.
The source of the power of the divine Logos is God the Father.
.
> Definition of fundamentalist: A fundamentalist believes
> in these fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith:
> The infallibillity and literal truth of the Bible as
> God's inspired Word.
.
So then fundies DO believe that the Holy Bible is perfect and
infallible because they are unable to distinguish between the
Eternal Logos and the scriptures. For them the Logos is a
*material* reality, whereas the scriptures proclaim the Word
as a *spiritual* reality. In other words, the scriptures
nowhere require us to hold this absurd belief in the inerrancy
and infallibility of the scriptures; but the fundies would
have us believe that our salvation depends upon our holding
this recently invented belief, and indeed that we cannot even
claim to be Christians unless we affirm this gross bibliolatry!
.
> [This can only apply to the real Bible, since the market is
> flooded with fake modern Bible versions that have had the
> words changed. The real Bible in English is the King James
> Version.]
.
A version that ALSO changes words without justification. 4X:
the change from 'Jacob' to 'James', which was accomplished
chiefly in order to please the King of England; and the change
from 'slave' to 'servant' (in the same verse, Jm1:1) which was
done so as to avoid giving offense to the ignorant (who do not
know that the Christian meaning of 'slave' is 'prophet').
.
> The Virgin Birth and complete Deity of Jesus Christ.
.
The virgin birth notion comes from Matthew's gospel, where
the author went to great pains to show that Jesus was the
fulfillment of the scriptures. Thus in Mt.1:22-23 he says:
"This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through
the prophet would be fulfilled: 'Look! The virgin will conceive
and bear a son' ...". But when we turn to the prophet just
referred to, here is what he actually says: "For this reason the
sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look,
the young lady over there is about to conceive, and will give
birth to a son" (Isaiah 7:14). In other words, the entire
virgin birth doctrine is based on a bad translation of the
original Hebrew verse. Thus Matthew was wrong to invent (on
the basis of a faulty translation) this fictitious story of
the virgin birth, and therefore believers are IN NO WAY bound
to uphold it (not even on pain of eternal damnation)!
.
As to the "complete Deity of Jesus Christ", this idea is
even less biblically based than the virgin birth fantasy.
.
> The physical ressurection of Christ and all dead.
.
I affirm the former, but the latter leaves much to be desired.
.
> The atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world,
> that Jesus did when He was crucified.
.
Jesus did not come to die, he came to reveal the Father ("to
witness to the truth", as John puts it). This is an important
point because there are now many believers who seem to think
that the Lord's death is more important than his life! I am
not one of these, for the simple reason that the God of Jesus
Christ is in no way consistent with the blood-thirsty cosmic
monster who demands human sacrifice for some absurd abstract
entity called "the sins of the world"! The early believers
can be forgiven for inventing the disgusting doctrine of the
Atonement (for the crucifixion was a great embarrassment unto
them), but post-modern believers don't have that excuse.
.
> The Second Coming of Christ in bodily form.
.
I have no problem with this doctrine.
.
> Fundamentalists are the real Bible believing Christians.
.
No they aren't. Fundies don't believe in the bible as much
as they believe in their own interpretations of it; which
interpretations they believe to be infallible and inerrant
(according to the depth of their vanity). This is because the
fundies are unable to distinguish between the raw text and its
interpretation, between the spirit of the Word and the letter
thereof, between fantasy and reality, and so forth. As further
proof that fundies do not believe the Bible, consider that the
scriptures proclaim the reality and necessity of the prophets
(even in the NT yet), while the fundies (being entirely
contrary to scripture) blatantly deny it, even as they dare
to claim that their denial is justified by the scriptures!
.
Now look here. We have to be clear in our thinking about this
matter. The essence of the Faith does not reside in creeds
and doctrines, in the magical thinking of priestcraft, in the
blind acceptance of everything that the scriptures proclaim.
No indeed:
.
"It seems to me a most mournful hypothesis, that of quackery
giving birth to any faith even in savage men. Quackery gives
birth to nothing; gives death to all things. We shall not
see into the true heart of anything, if we look merely at
the quackeries of it; if we do not reject the quackeries
altogether; as mere diseases, corruptions, with which our
and all men's sole duty is to have done with them, to sweep
them out of our thoughts, as out of our practice. Man
everywhere is the born enemy of lies."
-- Thomas Carlyle, 'On Heroes and Hero-Worship', p.5-6.
.
The first thing, then, the chief thing - as the Lord has said
- is to have faith in God. And one does not even have to be
a Christian to accomplish this. Jews and Muslims are able
to do this, and even some Hindus and Buddhists. Thus the
vast majority of the world's population are believers to that
extent; and that is all well and good in the eyes of the
Father of Lights. What distinguishes Christian believers from
all the others is our knowledge that God is best revealed
in and through Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and
the life. In being disciples of the Lord of lords, believers
strive to obey his righteous commands, and so become
more and more like him.
.
But this is not a matter of doctrines, dogmas, and beliefs;
for how does the claim that Jesus is God-Incarnate help us to
become more like him? Does it not instead place such a deep and
wide gulf between the Lord and us that it becomes impossible to
ever approach him? Indeed it does. But look at the Salvation
Army. They do not stress doctrines and dogmas. They do not
seek to separate the sheep from the goats on the basis of what
people think or believe. Rather, their first priority is always
to help people in need. And in thus acting out of their faith,
they show us all what the practice of religion truly means.
.
> To be a Christian you must be a believer. Ephesians 2:8-9
> "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
> yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any
> man should boast."
.
Few believers (or even unbelievers) are as boastful
and arrogant as these post-modern scribes.
.
> Mark 16:15-16 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the
> world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
> believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
> believeth not shall be damned." If you don't believe the
> Gospel, then you will be cast into hell to suffer forever.
.
I certainly do not believe the fundy-gospel (which is a modern
invention). But you, sir, must be a very reckless and arrogant
baboon indeed to speak in such a way to the Lord's most
favorite cyber-prophet. I must therefore consider you more than
qualified to speak on behalf of the ignorant idolaters (of whom
you are so obviously one). Well, I've got some 'good news' for
you, pal: God is NOT a Fundy! Never was. Never will be. You
should read more of the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh) where you
will soon discover just exactly what God thinks of "those who
hate knowledge" (ie. fundies). For example:
.
"Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you
is my contention, O priest. You shall stumble by day, the
prophet also shall stumble with you by night; and I will
destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject
you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten
the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The
more they increased, the more they sinned against me; I will
change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of my
people; they are greedy for their iniquity." Hosea 4:4-8/RSV
.
- the partially peeved one - textman ;><
.
P.S. *Spanking!* ... Yes; it's a very GOOD thing.
x
Goto LikeGod #4
textman
*