One of the more interesting antics of those ministers, usually "Pastor Rank" at the time of their departure from WCG and starting up their own version of it as Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry and Ron Weinland has done, is how quickly the rise through their own ranks. They usually skip right over the title of Evangelist and declare themselves Apostles. The fact is that no one actually ordained them so. They just tend to declare it based on their mighty works and self absorbed views of who they think they are. They see themselves spoken of in the scriptures. Delusional but common practice that gives them the authority they seem to need to do all manner of mischief and wreak all sorts of havoc in the church and the world of delusional theology.
Bob Thiel added a new dimension to the practice by choosing rather to be a Prophet than an Apostle and taking his cue from the phrase "...and give Bob a double portion of your spirit" when seeking a simple anointing for some minor malady as I am lead to believe. In my world, twice nothing is still nothing. But if Bob wants to be a prophet, then let it be so if makes him happy and feel important.
Becoming an Apostle, leading one's own splinter seems to be an event that follows what I can only call the "beat down period". This is where the man wanting the elevate himself, spends an inordinate amount of time prepping his members for the big announcement. Dave Pack did it with long and twisty sermons that lead to his final declaration of Apostleship. Knowing how much Dave hates working with others preferring them to work for him, I have always suspected Dave would declare himself both of the Two Witnesses to keep it all tidy and under his control. I believe he so far feels they will come out of RCG, but I can't imagine who he'd let fill that role as they, no doubt, would take the limelight from himself. Not to worry. The only thing any Two Witnesses coming out of RCG would accomplish was to make fools out of themselves and Dave.
The phenomenon of declaring oneself an Apostle and leaving the question as to "well who died and made you King" as we used to drip sarcastically at others when we were children and feeling bossed around, unanswered is not new. They ordained themselves. They took a look at what they have done and still want to do and that's about all it takes. Perhaps they are sincere. Perhaps the ego of it all appeals or even the tithes. I try not to read hearts. Not my problem. They tend to work for no man and have a history of not being a team player in the first place. It seems a bit or a lot of narcissism goes with their declaration of Apostleship as well. It certainly has to take a narcissist to see themselves spoken of in the scriptures. The symptoms of it certainly fit.
Such was the Apostle Paul as well. Who ordained Paul an Apostle? How did he jump from murderous Saul and persecutor of Christians and the Church skipping all the steps in between like, "humble member", "deacon", "local elder", "pastor", "evangelist" to Apostle?
Also when Paul says, in Corinthians 9 " Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? (1 Cor. 9:1 KJV), he can only mean either as in his hallucinatory vision of Jesus in the Damascus Road story or in the sense that "have I not seen" can also mean "Have I not experienced", alluding to his calling and recognition of Jesus as Savior etc. Paul never saw the physical Jesus at least that we know or he found worth recounting.
Did Other Apostles Ordain Paul as an Apostle? Part 2: The Case against Paul's Human Ordination
The case against the LDS claim that other apostles had ordained Paul to be an apostle is actually quite simple. (1) Both Acts and Paul predicate Paul's apostolic ministry to the Gentiles on Christ's appearance to Paul (Acts 9, 22, 26; 1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:15-16). (2) Paul’s description of his meetings with apostles following his conversion (Gal. 1-2) proves that the other apostles never ordained him. (3) Paul states explicitly that his apostleship was neither directly nor indirectly conferred on him by mortals (Gal. 1:1). I shall elaborate on these points in this post, giving special attention to the arguments of LDS scholar Richard Lloyd Anderson, who tries in his book Understanding Paul to show that Paul was subject to the direction of the Jerusalem apostles and ordained under their authority.
Christ's Appearance to Paul
Acts and Paul both predicate Paul's position as an apostle of Christ on the appearance of Christ to Paul that converted him from a persecutor to a proponent of the Christian faith. Acts presents a detailed account of this event, and reports two speeches by Paul in which he delivers similarly detailed, parallel accounts (Acts 9:1-19; 22:1-21; 26:2-23). While Saul (as he was then known) was on the road to Damascus to go persecute Christians, the Lord appeared to Saul and identified himself as Jesus (Acts 9:1-6; 22:5-10; 26:9-15). Paul reported that Jesus had appeared to him in order to make him his minister and witness to the Gentiles:
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me†(Acts 26:16-18 KJV).
This is, of course, what Paul spent the rest of his life doing. It describes his activities as an apostle of Christ, the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13).
Paul also describes his conversion from opponent to apostle in his epistle to the Galatians, also pointing out that he had been actively persecuting the church until it pleased God…to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen (Gal. 1:15-16 KJV). Here again, Paul predicated his role as apostle to the Gentiles on Christ’s appearance to him.
I mentioned in my previous post Paul's comment about his position as an apostle equal to those of the Jerusalem apostles in 1 Corinthians: Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?†(1 Cor. 9:1 KJV).[1] Paul points out here that he had seen Jesus Christ because it was the basis for his position as an apostle. It is striking that neither here nor anywhere else, when defending his apostleship, does Paul appeal to his ordination by other apostles. Instead, he grounds his office of apostle on the fact that Christ had appeared to him.
The importance of this point cannot be overstated. If the LDS view were correct, the simplest and most compelling way for Paul to have asserted his apostleship would be to appeal to his ordination to that office. He would merely need to remind people that the apostles had ordained him. Indeed, suppose for the sake of argument that all of the new apostles were ordained in public ceremonies in which the existing apostles laid hands on them. Had there been such an institutional process for becoming an apostle, there would not have been any controversy at Corinth or elsewhere about Paul’s apostolic credentials. What made it possible for many people to question his claim to be an apostle is that his appointment to that office did not come from the other apostles. The argument here is not merely a fallacious appeal to silence, but an argument contrasting Paul's silence about his supposed ordination with what Paul actually does say concerning the basis for his claim to be an apostle......
The Author Concludes...
"I conclude, then, that the LDS claim that the Jerusalem apostles ordained Paul has no realistic hope of being correct. His first meeting was an informal visit with Peter, during which time Paul saw none of the other apostles except James the Lords brother. His second meeting was initiated by Paul to make sure that the Jerusalem apostles did not undermine his apostolic ministry; the result of that meeting was that the pillar apostles acknowledged that God was already working mightily through Paul in apostolic ministry to the Gentiles and sent him on his way with their support. This evidence confirms what Paul in any case states emphatically at the beginning of his epistle to the Galatians:
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead) (Gal. 1:1 KJV).
The apparent redundancy not of men, neither by man, is an emphatic way of excluding any possible dependency of Paul's position as apostle on other mortal human beings. He was an apostle, not of men, that is, no group of human beings commissioned him; and neither by man,that is, no mortal human functioned as an agent to confer Pauls office on him. Thus, neither directly (not of men) nor indirectly (neither by man) did other apostles ordain Paul to his office of apostle. He received his apostleship directly from God the Father through Jesus Christ himself."
I am sure that those who have climbed from their positions in WCG to their now more lofty authoritative and impressive authoritarian titles have used Paul's rise to justify their own. Herbert Armstrong did it almost weekly in study after study reminding us as students that no man taught him anything but that he got it all from God. Sure fine whatever you say.
David C Pack is no Apostle. Gerald Flurry is no Apostle. Ron Weinland is no Apostle and Bob Thiel is no Prophet. How one gets to be on of those is another topic I suppose but Bob's just feeling he is seems close to how they all get there.
50 comments:
How did Paul see Jesus? In vision. Jesus never lived.
Of course, none of the manuscripts we have are originals. Things were added and deleted along the way. The only thing we know for sure is that the new testament is fake. About half the books are known forgeries (as Bart Ehrman will tell you). The story of Jesus was copied from the Mystery religions then put in the context of Palestine 2,000 years ago to make it seem like the life of a real person. A few historical works (e.g. Josephus) were altered to make Jesus seem authentic, but most historical works "surprisingly" totally ignore him and his stupendous miracles and the large masses who supposedly followed him. Get a book on the topic and read it for yourself. Don't listen to people who say false things about books they probably haven't even read.
Judas was an Apostle. Why do WCG/splinter members get so wrapped up in whether or not their leader might or might not be an Apostle? Judas' example shows that being an Apostle is no guarantee of doctrinal correctness or personal holiness.
Arent we warned agains ranks and hierarchy in the scriptures? ... and where is the military sounding title "Pastor GENERAL" found in scripture?
Ive been stuck at "Lay Member Private First Class" for many years.
How do I move up the ladder to "Pastor Staff Sergeant" , "Pastor Ensign", or even just "Lay Member Corporal"??
“One of the more interesting antics of those ministers, usually "Pastor Rank" at the time of their departure from WCG and starting up their own version of it as Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry and Ron Weinland has done, is how quickly the rise through their own ranks. They usually skip right over the title of Evangelist and declare themselves Apostles”--DCD
Gerald Flurry wanted to be what he called “That Prophet” of Deuteronomy 18:18-19. He was so hooked on wanting to be a prophet that he edited and changed HWA's last book called Mystery of the Ages so it would not expose his doctrinal changes. It did not occur to Gerald Flurry for about the first twenty years of his PCG cult that HWA had taught that the church was led by an apostle rather than by a prophet. He tried subscribing to Stratfor to help him guess the future, since God does not talk to him, but it did not help. He needs to be cagey because any time he guesses, he guesses wrong.
David Pack first promoted himself to Apostle, but then wanted to be Joshua the High Priest, and then Elijah the Prophet, and then That Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18-19, and is now working on his own promotion to Messiah. His August 31, 2013 prophetic guess totally failed, even when rescheduled, in spite of all his so-called “proofs” for it.
Ronald Weinland wanted himself and his wife to be the Two Witnesses in the biblical book of Revelation. His prophetic guesses and date setting always totally failed. He was a silly fiction writer who was not even trying hard to guess right.
Bob Thiel, of course, as a little kook, wanted to be a prophet. But neither the demons nor the pagans nor the FAKE NEWS on television that he looked to helped him guess who would win the US presidential election. A fifty-fifty guess and he got it wrong. Bummer.
All the worst kooks around want to be prophets. The fact that they are FALSE prophets is shown by the way that all their prophetic guesses always totally fail.
Anonymous at 12:10 PM said...“The only thing we know for sure is that the new testament is fake. About half the books are known forgeries (as Bart Ehrman will tell you). The story of Jesus was copied from the Mystery religions then put in the context of Palestine 2,000 years ago to make it seem like the life of a real person.”
Actually, Bart D. Ehrman strongly refuted the modern idea that, “The story of Jesus was copied from the Mystery religions then put in the context of Palestine 2,000 years ago to make it seem like the life of a real person.” Bart Ehrman found no actual historical evidence to back up that modern idea.
Well, there's that too 1210 :) There are original letters of Paul so far as can be told. They are 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and Romans. The rest are pseudepigrapha (false writings) commonly known as forgeries written in his name but addressing topics too far down the road in church history to be Pauline.
Josephus was altered to include "there was man, if indeed he can be called a man..." paragraph about a Jesus but was redacted into the text as there is precious little about any Jesus outside of the NT and everything helped. Big emotional topic for sure.
Study into the topic of Paul and Jesus is not for the squeamish.
The point is that men declaring themselves apostles without ordination or by another of like persuasion is not new and Paul may have started the whole practice in the NT. One clue or troubling truth is that no Paul is mentioned in the Gospels as confronting Jesus as a Pharisee of the Pharisees and the smartest pencil in the box who studied under Gamliel etc as bragged about. This lends credence to the idea that much of the Gospel story is made up to tell a story for which there were no real facts. Much of Jesus story is made up of OT scriptures and redos of OT stories. (Midrash). Paul's Jesus was actually "Christ" and his story took place in the heavens and not on earth at all according to Paul if you read him correctly.
It's all quite fascinating. Bart Ehrman is very well versed on how we got the NT and it not being what we learned in Sunday School.
Tonto complains,
Ive been stuck at "Lay Member Private First Class" for many years.
How do I move up the ladder to "Pastor Staff Sergeant" , "Pastor Ensign", or even just "Lay Member Corporal"??
The ministry surely considers Tonto to be a MAJOR Annoyance, even though his complaints surely contain at least a COLONEL Of Truth!
Tonto said...
Arent we warned agains ranks and hierarchy in the scriptures?
Not that I can tell. The NT gives various categories, whether they be ranks or offices. The author of Ephesians, (not Paul) said:
Ephesians 4: …10He who descended is the very one who ascended above all the heavens, in order to fill all things. 11And it was He who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to equip the saints for works of ministry, to build up the body of Christ,…"
Evidently it was the risen Christ who gave these offices to men in the church based on different criteria. As you would suspect I personally believe it was men who gave themselves titles and designed the pecking order.
I had a rank there was no biblical basis for evidently (Preaching Elder) which despite pastoring 14 congregations, mostly two and sometimes three at a time in 5 states, never was officially pastoring I guess. lol. Preaching Elder was somewhere between Elder and Pastor.
But there are these titles, ranks, jobs, callings, whatever one wishes to call them. I'm surprised they weren't more Roman military terms but the early church must have felt that a bridge too far. They did have a time, however, balancing their titles with ever present Roman eyes watching.
Good summary 106
How dare you Dennis, to be so disrespectful of my rank of APOSTLE.
No man ordained me to my position, nor did I receive any instruction from a man.
You are a Blasphemer!
PS: my dog is also an apostle.
Dennis
I stopped reading this article when I realised it was a bait and switch. If Dennis wants to keep writing Paul bashing articles, that's fine. I can refuse to read such material. But please be civilised by not sneaking it into every other article, as you have in the past. My right to choose what I read should be respected. Please stay on topic in others articles.
Tonto, we do get the beware of men (Matthew 10:17) , beware of false prophets, (Matthew 7:15) and the congratulations of Revelation Jesus (In vision I guess or hallucination) to the Ephesian Church for outing false apostles Revelation 2: ‘I know what you’ve been doing, your toil, and your endurance. I also know that you cannot tolerate evil people. You have tested those who call themselves apostles, but are not, and have found them to be false."
You know me by now that I suspect, as do other theologians and Biblical historians that it was Paul the Ephesians were being congratulated for ousting as a false Apostle. Paul confirmed that "all in Asia have forsaken me" (2 Timothy 1:15)
Paul: "I am an Apostle"
Ephesian Church: "No you are not"
Revelation Jesus: "Congratulations Church!"
Revelation is basically a Jewish Christian prophecy and a remake encouraging Jewish Christians to hang in there against the Romans surrounding Jerusalem in 70 Ad, of Daniel for the present distress, just as Daniel was written in the 160's BCE to encourage the Jews to hang in against Romans during the Maccabean Revolt. As noted in the past. The Romans won in both cases.
This is my present truth and current outlook
It would be nice if the Wadsworth Ohio Church or the Edmond Oklahoma Church would follow the Ephesian Church example and have a lookey see at just how accurate and informed their Apostles are or aren't. And show them the door....
Of course, all silliness aside, we all know that the GENERAL in Pastor General is not the top military rank. Rather, it is the opposite of SPECIFIC. HWA's church had many pastors, but only one pastor whose authority superseded local pastors and encompassed the whole church, thus the PASTOR GENERAL.
Which raises the question... in the status/hierarchy conscious WCG, why did there not emerge a rank of DEACON GENERAL? I guess the lack of such a rank goes to show that deacons didn't really have any authority of their own but served entirely at the whim of each local Pastor.
" My right to choose what I read should be respected. Please stay on topic in others article
It is on topic. This is precisely how a Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry, Ron Weinland, Bob Thiel and originally Herbert Armstrong justified ordaining themselves and shunning the input of others. It is the example they can use to strike out on their own, taking no counsel nor learning nothing from those before them. It is why Dave can just make fantasy theology up with himself as the main character in the play.
Like it or not, Paul snatched Christianity from Peter, James and John and their Jewish version sunk into history overtaken by Paul's gentile version which we have mostly to this day save for the Churches of God that see the Jewish version to be more original. It is actually.
The answer to the question as to who ordained Dave Pack and Apostle and how did that happen is found in the Lone Ranger example of Paul. It is in plain view and in black and white in the pages of the NT. Now Dave, Gerald, Ron and Bob may take the idea that "they are just like Paul then." But it is no compliment. Just because Paul is a NT figure it is not out of line to note his attitude on who he thinks he is and why he takes no counsel from the "reputed pillars", Peter, James and John. This is a playbook used to this day for anyone that comes along to declare themselves God's chosen Apostle. It is done all the time in every Evangelical loon that graces a pulpit and especially on TV.
At any rate, no bait and switch. It is just how and why these men came to finally tell their followers, "....and yes brethren, I too am an Apostle" when they simply are no such thing.
But you are correct. You can pass until something more current is posted on the current state of Apostolic and Prophetic mutterings in the Churches of God. I'm the commercial break.
Dennis wrote:
t is just how and why these men came to finally tell their followers, "....and yes brethren, I too am an Apostle" when they simply are no such thing.
OK, so they followed Paul's example. Now they're apostles. Judas, too, was an apostle, so what is gained by proclaiming one's Apostlehood? When Pack says, "I am an Apostle" he may be claiming Paul's heritage, but he is also claiming Judas' heritage. History proves (and so does theology) that you can be an Apostle while also being an apostate. Jesus doesn't proclaim, "My sheep will see your Apostle card." He says His sheep will hear His voice. There is no scriptural mandate to follow an apostate Apostle.
Actually, it is not really surprising that these ACOG "leaders" would ordain themselves "apostles". I mean, they are all insufferable assholes, after all. Sooner or later, one of them will ordain himself as the "Chief Apostle"
Bob Thiel is very much like Calvin Kappernack, whom everyone would just as soon finally went away.
BB
Blogger Tonto said...
Arent we warned agains ranks and hierarchy in the scriptures? ... and where is the military sounding title "Pastor GENERAL" found in scripture?
Ive been stuck at "Lay Member Private First Class" for many years.
How do I move up the ladder to "Pastor Staff Sergeant" , "Pastor Ensign", or even just "Lay Member Corporal"??
November 19, 2019 at 12:52 PM
********************
I've been interested in learning the origin of HWA's religious title "pastor general" for some time now and thus far the following is what I've learned, which might interest you and others.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary the origin of "pastor" is: "Late Middle English from Anglo-Norman French pastour, from Latin pastor ‘shepherd’, from past- ‘fed, grazed’, from the verb pascere." For "general" the OEDexplains its origin thus: "Middle English via Old French from Latin generalis, from genus, gener- ‘class, race, kind’. The noun primarily denotes a person having overall authority: the sense ‘army commander’ is an abbreviation of captain general, from French capitaine général ‘commander-in-chief’" and also explains: "[often in titles] Chief or principal. ‘the Director General of the BBC’ ‘the general manager’." For me, and others, this along with the alternate translation of "Chief Shepherd" (1 Peter 5:4) as "pastor general"--which is a title of Christ's not any man--is sufficient to judge against HWA's title as sacrilegious as the Catholic religious titles of "father" and "Pope", and by extension "Mr" (an abbreviation of "Master"). I believe such religious titles for the Christian brotherhood were taught against by Christ our true Master and Pastor-General.
"Bob Thiel is very much like Calvin Kappernack, whom everyone would just as soon finally went away."
Amen!
The writings of Paul have inspired generations for centuries- the comparison to Pack, Flurry, et al falls flat.
Dennis 11/19/2019 @ 6:45 PM said: "Like it or not, Paul snatched Christianity from Peter, James and John and their Jewish version sunk into history overtaken by Paul's gentile version which we have mostly to this day save for the Churches of God that see the Jewish version to be more original. It is actually."
Musing on what you've written for several years now Dennis re Paul I'm coming to the view that if 1) Paul was a false apostle and preached lawlessness or 2) Paul’s genuine writings have been totally twisted to promote lawlessness since he really always was in the Jewish camp of Christianity with the other Jewish apostles. Then the only solution I see for Christians is to obey God’s law as best as they can more fully in the spirit, but at the same time without neglecting the letter since when foreigners migrated to Israel they became Israelites and under the law while Bible prophecies state the whole world will be under the law at the time of Israel’s restoration under Christ. So why then in the space in between is there so much lawlessness and confusion about God’s law and what true Christianity is? And so does this mean I’m supposed to be a “Jewish Christian” and grow my sideburns, wear clothing with tassels, circumcise my penis, eat kosher, bathe after I have a wet dream or touch a woman who’s menstruating, etc.?
Calvin Kappernack,
very nice, BB
are you as wasted as nck when he drunk-posts?
631 said "Which raises the question... in the status/hierarchy conscious WCG, why did there not emerge a rank of DEACON GENERAL? I guess the lack of such a rank goes to show that deacons didn't really have any authority of their own but served entirely at the whim of each local Pastor."
There were two mentalities I found concerning deacon ordination.
The first was that a man or woman, as a deaconess, was simply a very fine, stable and always there to help out person in the congregation who may be both personally encouraged to be recognized for years of ongoing service to everyone. It seemed more a function of their likeability among the members and someone who got the physical things of church coordinated and done. The downside was that leave them be allowed them to be what they always were and to ordain them was to artificially set them aside in the eyes of some who didn't like them or thought they should be ordained instead and weren't etc. The ordained ran the risk of losing a few friends or being treated differently even though they did not ask, expect or want that to happen. They were just salt of the earth people who helped often and consistently make things work better in the local church.
The second group were indeed the more authoritarian and can't mind his own business minister elves. They kept tab on people for the minister. They knew who had been naughty and who had been nice and reported it all to the minister. They often were taken on personal visits to members with the minister so they knew the personal problems etc of their "friends" and their friends had come to distrust them and see them as more for the minister than having their best interests in mind. This was the situation I found in my last church assignment in SC where I replaced Gerald Weston. The deacons were HIS deacons and used to being included in all the drama and personal lives of the members. When he left, they still were loyal to him. I rarely if ever took deacons on visits because of the "really none of their business" factor. My view was I won't be here forever but they will and these people are their friends and church mates. It was not necessary that they knew their personal challenges etc. I took that as my responsibility.
con't
When I came to SC, pretty much against my wishes personally, and at the time when the Tkach era was beginning, I was pretty depressed. (Long boring story) I was no Southern boy. I inherited Gerald Weston's Brown Shirts. For the first time in my life I distrusted deacons and they me. They were generally unfriendly and over time I my naïve views of "all one body we" came to be seen as not so true anymore. They ran to Gerald and kept him informed of everything I may not have been, thought, preached or did along the way. They weren't particularly supportive. There was consternation that I did not take them visiting and keep them in the local loop of people's "problems". I let back into the church quite a few people Gerald had disfellowshipped for alcohol problems, smoking and life problems to their horror. We got them help as they wanted to be in church.
One man who returned from disfellowship for the struggle with alcoholism, I found out at the funeral, drove to see me, drove around my block, panicked I assume because he feared more criticism though he knew me by then, and drove home to commit suicide. Very sad to us all for taking the long term solution for a short term problem.
In one sermon, an elder ranted, with me on the front row, "You know this church is not being taken care of" By then I had pretty much had it anyway and started to get up and introduce the new minister, this guy, to the church and walk out the door forever. Only a deep grip on my knee by my wife with the message "don't do it" prevented it at that time. I wish I had.
It was also obvious that to be a deacon here under GW you had to be the more moneyed and successful type. No room for those without great means who served the church they loved but struggled with job and income it seemed to me.
At any rate, the point of the posting is still that self ordination, which we see all the time in the COG's by men who seem to need title and rank finds its example in The Apostle Paul and Galatians 1 and 2, considered Paul's most obviously Paul's letter by theologians. I did not write the article by others who see it the same way, that I offered as an "Adult Sabbath School" topic.
I use that term because these are topics for those who might wish to explore areas of theology, history and science that were never brought up and some are the proverbial Elephant in the Room topics.
I do understand the unease with most over taking Bible characters to task as we would anyone else, selves included. Once you make it into the Bible, you are untouchable because all sorts of apologetics can be woven to make it all good again. Not so easy in real life. Also, we only have what we are presented with in the Book and "the winners get to write the book" as we say.
Did the Apostles have a sex life? Did they love someone deeply? Did they hide it? What did 12 young men really do in their lives following Jesus? What did Jesus really do personally to address normal human needs and desires. I know the Book says that "He was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin". Really, how would the author know that. Jesus is not said to have said that. It is a theological "he was sin for us" statement. What do you mean "Tempted in ALL points" I can think of lots of things Jesus would have missed in his life that he never would have had to face.
When it comes to the Apostle Paul, just as a Dave or Gerald, we give him a pass on incredible statements and admissions. Paul said that he had things in his life he did and knew he shouldn't and things he should do but couldn't etc. What were they? Tell us. Some think he struggled with his sexuality because of his strong views against women, his idea that to be single like him is better and that he beat himself literally to keep himself in submission lest he become a castaway. That's serious stuff.. Some feel his thorn in the flesh was simply poor eyesight. Without glasses in the day, that would be a tough one.
Paul is a man who said he was taken to the third heaven, whether in vision or literally he did not know. There he saw things that he can't share. That can't have really happened in my view and if (OR WHEN) a Dave Pack comes up with that one, I doubt we'll all be impressed with his spirituality and high calling. Time for meds and counseling. Yet we give him a pass. Why tell us where you think you went without telling us what you thought you saw. Seems self serving as to his authority ("did YOU get to go to the Third Heaven? I didn't think so. I'm special").
So like the fact that noticing that Jesus has not returned in 2000 years and "soon" must mean something else in scripture than in reality, so it is that questioning what is said by Bible characters or others about them in the same book that don't match is not bashing. It is noticing contradictory or overly fantastic stories that we are asked to accept without question because, well, it's in the Bible.
anytime the ordination to deacon was mentioned, I discouraged it...
"but you are pretty much doing the job now" they would say...
"exactly", I would reply..."and without an official title" I would add...
I have never desired an "office" in the Church....never felt one was needed.
Dennis, I appreciate (and often enjoy) your "Adult Sabbath School" posts, but by now I am sure you have figured out that you aren't going to change the minds of any readers here. People will believe what they want to believe, and will reject contrary evidence in order to maintain their old and comfortable beliefs.
Just look at how the modern "fundamentalist" Christian views Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In Jesus' day, it was common knowledge that the union between man and woman was between a superior and an inferior. Any honest Bible reader will admit that the Bible does not speak against sex between two women. Why not? The answer can be found in another fact that modern "fundamentalist" readers don't like to admit. Scripture condemns the man who lies with another man "as with a woman." Obviously, since a man has no vagina, this "as with a woman" can't be describing a physical aspect of the sex act. So, how does a man have sex with another man "as with a woman"? By taking the position of superiority over another man who takes the inferior position of a woman!
Later on, commentators in the Talmud and elsewhere elaborated on the Bible's proscriptions and inferred a blanket ban on homosexual conduct among males and among females. But that's not what was in the Bible! If an ACOG member is serious about rejecting the Jews' excesses, and going back to the Bible alone, most of the scriptural rationale to forbid homosexuality goes away. Only if we return to the Bible's attitude about women can a man commit the kind of power-imbalance condemned in Scripture. How many ACOG members seriously want to return women to that demeaning status? Yet, if they don't, they are inventing their own modern distortion of the Bible. If, however, an ACOG member believes that it is possible for a man and women to have sex without marking the woman as inferior, then it turns out that it is not forbidden for men to have sex with men, as long as they don't put either man into an inferior position.
Please understand, I'm not arguing that homosexuality is desirable or even permissible. What I am arguing is that modern-day ACOG members misuse the Bible in all sorts of ways that the original writers never intended, yet their ignorance and their modernity (and blissful ignorance of what went before) blind them to the ridiculousness of such misuse.
Great comment 553. Thanks. And too, the Sodom/Lot/"angel" vist story is a hospitality tale and not about s while town off gay men who lot offered his daughters to. You know, "Just Lot" of Hebrews 11 Faith lol
...his Jesus was hallucinatory in nature...his hallucinatory vision of Jesus...
These statements above are at the heart of DD's stance on Paul. It is a materialist viewpoint. I would expect that anything that falls outside of the pale of materialism, for DD, is in the class of a psychological/perceptual aberration. The problem is that among all the philosophies, materialism is the least tenable. While materialism may seem persuasive within narrow and orchestrated bounds, at the limited scope of the test tube, it gives no rational basis for ontology.
DD is not subtly injecting anti-Pauline thought into his writing but, rather, materialism. His efforts are not directed toward Paul but toward god.
Here is the irony. The fact that DD has the mind to compose an essay supporting materialism, no matter how irrational the essay may be at its core, is in itself a renunciation of materialism. Materialism does not plausibly posit a logical and rational mind. Materialist brain activity is just a swarm of random chemical reactions within a framework of cerebral tissue structures. Which is to say that maybe DDs essay is really just a pop-up hallucination.
Some thoughts on the subject of Paul's apostleship:
https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2019/11/paul-as-apostle.html
So NEO, As a Materialist, what label do you hang on yourself? How would you define yourself since you find the need to package and define others? And pleas use a noun in your response.
DD:
Certainly. I am a Christian - or a Christian Theist, if you wish.
I don't have a "need" to package you as a materialist or anything else. If I call a horse a 'horse', does that express some kind of need or is it just generally accepted nomenclature based on evidence?
I think you are some sort of materialist. I have seen no evidence in your writings that would lead me to conclude otherwise. And I think materialism is at the heart of what you write no matter how artfully or diversely presented.
That works NEO. Thanks!At this point I am a materialist. I am evidence based which of course puts faith based belief way down the list of options for me. If one can't show it they cannot know it and all that. Trust and obey is not the path to authenticity
Dennis and NEO, I'm fascinated. Let's consider your points a little more broadly.
Paul claimed to have received a vision. Hundreds of millions accept his claim, while most of mankind dismisses it as a hallucination or a fraud.
Muhammad claimed to have received a vision. Hundreds of millions accept his claim, while most of mankind dismisses it as a hallucination or a fraud.
Dennis is consistent in rejecting both claims. NEO for some reason finds one claim tenable while rejecting the other claim. Maybe NEO is partly a materialist, too?
NEO illogically writes:
The fact that DD has the mind to compose an essay supporting materialism, no matter how irrational the essay may be at its core, is in itself a renunciation of materialism.
Does NEO deny that God created inert materials like pebbles and stones? Does NEO deny that God created the inert materials from which we can build a computer? A materialist believes that mind is what brain does, and the presence of mind has no bearing on the question of God's existence. NEO goes on with his illogical statements when he writes:
Materialist brain activity is just a swarm of random chemical reactions within a framework of cerebral tissue structures.
No. Materialism predicts that organisms with more rational and useful chemical reactions will outlive organisms with random (or even simply less useful) chemical reactions.
Dennis is at least consistent in his materialist approach. NEO confusingly accepts some materialist explanations of the non-material, while rejecting others, and while misunderstanding the whole phenomenon.
DD:
Do not plummet into the pitfall of believing that materialism is evidence based. Materialism cannot plausibly explain the nature of the human mind as I stated earlier, for instance. Yet there is evidence that the nature of the human mind is real. Materialism does not explain Existence or Being yet that there is Existence is very much in evidence.
If you are evidence based, then you must acknowledge the potential errors of this approach such as the existence of evidence even though you may not know about it. For instance, there could be much evidence that Paul cited the words of Jesus but you just don't have access to that data. You don't know what you don't know. Reality does not go away because you don't have the data.
Etc.
NEO No one can be held accountable for data not given. You can't live by every word of God if you don't know what all the words were. I can't base my beliefs on the side of Paul probably did quote Jesus and probably did know him. The actual data given does not support that. The questions O raise about Paul's non human ordination and his own gospel views which were not that of Peter, JAmes or John is supported in the text that us supposed to be living and sharper than a two edged sword. The script doesn't say "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God minus the missing data and is somewhat profitable but you don't know the whole story and God won't share the missing data that might better help with the partial data he inspires"
Sometimes NEO your reasonings sound more like weaselings
Anonymous 3:28
Speaking of illogical...
A computer is not a mind. It is a mechanism that only reflects the advanced mind of its human creator.
You state: "Materialism predicts that organisms with more rational and useful chemical reactions will outlive organisms with random (or even simply less useful) chemical reactions."
No, materialistic natural selection predicts the survival of the fittest. Within that scheme, there is no need for understanding advanced math, for instance. Math is totally trumped by a strong arm and a cudgel. Were this not true, intelligence would have arisen throughout the animal kingdom by now, not just in the hominid line. And further, we must find in a materialist explanation of the mind not just a selection of advantageous electrochemical reactions but the rise of consciousness itself. Electrochemical reactions are not thoughts, someone wrote. To date, nobody has ever observed a thought in formation though materialism would posit this as somehow possible. To believe that cumulative complexity will lead to consciousness is a pleonastic fallacy. Cumulative complexity of electrochemical reactions just leads to more electrochemical reactions. Materialism leads to just more materialism. I am not going to take this any further. Please see the book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" by Dr. Thomas Nagel, a noted atheist analytic philosopher.
"No, materialistic natural selection predicts the survival of the fittest. Within that scheme, there is no need for understanding advanced math, for instance. Math is totally trumped by a strong arm and a cudgel. "
Were does Mozart, Shakespeare and Einstein fit in the Darwin model?
5:53 said: "Any honest Bible reader will admit that the Bible does not speak against sex between two women."
I've read of this view several years ago, but completely disagree with it. Romans 1:26-27, 32 refers to both male and female homosexuality and that this sin incurs the death penalty: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Further,
Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" and Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." If male homosexuality is an "abomination" and incurs the death penalty then logic and nature would dictate that female homosexuality would be too. Just because the male is referred to, and not the female, in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is irrelevant otherwise every Biblical law referring to only the male, or the female, in its prohibition would be, according to this view, approving of the same sin in the other sex. It's illogical, unnatural and inconsistent. It's not unlike the view that incest between a man and his daughter isn't explicitly prohibited in the Bible therefore it's approved of. Yet, as most scholars would argue the reason for this absence is because the prohibition is obvious.
Ronco said...
"No, materialistic natural selection predicts the survival of the fittest. Within that scheme, there is no need for understanding advanced math, for instance. Math is totally trumped by a strong arm and a cudgel. "
Were does Mozart, Shakespeare and Einstein fit in the Darwin model?
Oh pleasE study Darwinism.
It is not survival of the fittest. But the survival of the one that fits best OR RATHER the most adaptable. That is where Shakespeare advanced math and "dating with flowers and dinner" fits in.
nck
NEO wrote:
Please see the book "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" by Dr. Thomas Nagel, a noted atheist analytic philosopher.
Wow! So you agree with Nagel's stated assertion that it is possible to have an objective system of morality even without a God, even in a purely materialistic and atheistic world? That's quite a concession!
Mr. Diehl commented: "NEO No one can be held accountable for data not given. You can't live by every word of God if you don't know what all the words were. I can't base my beliefs on the side of Paul probably did quote Jesus and probably did know him. The actual data given does not support that. The questions O raise about Paul's non human ordination and his own gospel views which were not that of Peter, JAmes or John is supported in the text that us supposed to be living and sharper than a two edged sword. The script doesn't say "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God minus the missing data and is somewhat profitable but you don't know the whole story and God won't share the missing data that might better help with the partial data he inspires"
Mr. Diehl employs the same reasoning to discredit and dismiss Scripture that Fundamentalists employ to defend and uphold it! It is simply NOT true that we must embrace or reject Scripture - that our only choices are irrelevance or inerrancy.
The Bible was never intended by God or its human authors to be a science or history textbook. It was never meant to provide all of the answers to our questions or serve as an "owner's manual." These reflect OUR notions about the book - not the reality of what it actually is: A collection of writings by men who were inspired to share their reflections on the Divine. Inspiration does not equal inerrancy or make every word that was penned "God's Word."
It is unreasonable to suggest that the Bible has no value because it doesn't provide everything. Moreover, the Bible itself refutes the notion that it is the only source for discerning/knowing/understanding God's will. Science doesn't have all of the answers either - it is a tool we use to try to get at the answers. It seems to me that God/Nature (depending on your perspective) has equipped us to ask questions - to explore. Nothing/no one has provided us with all of the answers, but that fact shouldn't be interpreted as permission to settle into ignorant bliss and simply breathe, eat, defecate and have sex.
In short, there is value in searching for answers. There is value in sharing views. There is value in attempting to understand why we're here and if there is some design or purpose behind it all. And, by the way, a thing can be profitable even if it doesn't provide/meet all of our needs.
As for Paul being the standard for the ACOG's self-declarations of apostleship, the post noted in my above comment demonstrates that Scripture does NOT support using his experience to justify such claims.
Anonymous 6:49
Nagel is saying that there is ethics and there is morality but materialist natural selection is not the answer for its existence. The atheist need to go back to the drawing board.
Anonymous 6:49
From the Wikipedia article on "Mind and Cosmos":
"Nagel argues that the materialist version of evolutionary biology is unable to account for the existence of mind and consciousness, and is therefore at best incomplete."
In other words, I am not conceding anything. And I stand by my original statement about Dennis' misguided materialism.
"Oh pleasE study Darwinism.
It is not survival of the fittest. But the survival of the one that fits best OR RATHER the most adaptable. That is where Shakespeare advanced math and "dating with flowers and dinner" fits in."
nck
That may be enough for you, but it sure doesn't cut it for me...
Dennis:
You cannot specify to god what a sufficient dataset is. And, of course, you cannot be held accountable for something you do not know. I know only about god what god wants me to know.
What if god has given you a sufficient amount of knowledge for you to make the decisions that you need to make. And that your dataset, like mine, does not include a detailed understanding of Paul and how he interfaced with Christ and what knowledge was transferred.
Many Christians believe, as I do, that we will never comprehensively know god. My guess there are many fields of knowledge that we will never know as god knows it. "Knowing in part" is a condition we must get accustomed to.
6:57
I know Ronco. It lacks meaning.
But the topic at hand was if it is possible at all for non Christians to develop ethics that by all standards are considered Christian. The imparting of meaning and purpose I leave to the poets.
Nck
Once I realized a couple of years ago that I had been firmly convinced of COG doctrines that were wrong, I became open to new concepts and ideas
While I don’t agree with Dennis on everything he posts, I have found his ideas and book suggestions very helpful
I hope more of us will use this site as an aid to personal growth
I have found a number of interesting programs on Amazon prime
If you are interested in knowing more about evolution, get the textbook by Carl Zimmer - it is quite eye opening if you have not studied it before
You don't get drunk on maybe three or four beers per week, 11:58! Go back to watching your sandal-crush videos on you-tube!
BB
Post a Comment