"Yeah....just why do I do that?"
"I appreciate "Banned By HWA", but I must say that some of the articles, especially this one and Diehl's "religion"(not to say I don't enjoy reading some of Diehl's repeated philosophy), get a touch long-winded....
Yes, Dennis writes interesting articles, but he seems to repeat himself over and over again. No matter what the subject is, he goes back to the astrology aspect, or Paul being a fake. "
I agree...
The last Festival sermon I was able to give was before about 8000 in Myrtle Beach in the late 90's. Those were the days when the ministers were assigned sermon topics to prevent us straying too far afield I suppose. Somehow I was always able to take the assigned topic and twist it into what I felt i wanted and need to say anyway. I don't do assigned sermons anymore than I "to be played in all the churches" my local congregations to death with boredom from Pasadena. Anyway, the topic of my last Festival sermon was "The Politics of the New Testament" and was basically showing that all the key players in the NT, Peter, James, John and Paul were not all speaking the same thing and had issues with each other expressed in fascinating ways in the text if one knew how to read it and what to look for. Much if not most of what I repeat here was in that sermon. My point, and not seeing the dark clouds of church disintegration on the horizon yet, was merely endeavoring to show the church that as today so it was then. Leaders differ and have been arguing over the meaning of Jesus since before the body cooled. Paul and the Gentile view he taught won and James and the Jewish Church evaporated into history.
WCG was a Jewish Christian Church that never knew how to view Paul accurately. Both concepts are in the texts.
I got a standing ovation for the sermon and that was a no no back then if you remember. It was a real high to see such response as I later learned that a few things i said pushed the buttons of those over me and would be used against me to terminate me. I know now I wanted out but didn't have the guts to walk away. I had to be pushed. I was not going to be a hand waving, Jesus smooching freak for them and they knew it. My Epistle of Paul teacher who was the main speaker that year was enthralled and took me out to dinner after the sermon to talk more about it. I have shared most of that sermon save for the Astro-theological origins of the core Jesus story here on this site.
And while I know I have already said this before, my exit interview, which I did not realize was one until a few weeks later left me a bit stunned when I was told, sitting in Barnes and Noble, "Dennis, we know you know a lot about Jesus, but we don't think you know Jesus." In my mind that meant, "We know you know enough to make people think and question the status quo but we don't think you are going to be a team player and tell people they need to soak themselves in Jesus." I grew up soaking in Jesus which is why WCG caught my attention when they seemed to focus not on the squishy Jesus but what he said and taught. Anyone can see, if they wish, that Jesus and Paul did not have the same message.
So I ask myself, just why do I repeat myself on these topics? I agree totally with the opening observation about the repetative nature of my postings. Why do I do that? Here is my best answer.
I crave open and honest discussion with intelligent folk on these topics. I keep thinking that someone will engage me on these observations about Paul and such but as you know, it is rare. The "as above, so below" aspect of the story of all godmen and sun gods as the 12 month journey through the signs of the zodiac just captivated me and it just seems true to me.
There was no one more religiously curious than me as a kid. I got yelled at by ministers for too many questions and pitched out of catechism classes a time or two for 'well why does it say this here and then this over here?" I haven't changed much.
I'll keep this short. I think the implications of what theologians call, "The Problem of Paul," are just short of stunning, as are some of the other larger issues that I have finally taken a good look at and drawn big conclusions about Christian literalism and Evangelical Fundamentalism. They are more harmful than helpful and they hurt more than help people in the long run.
I have always studied origins. It mattered not whether it was human origins or the origin of scripture and religions that really expect great sacrifice from their followers. I want to know where things REALLY come from and their REAL origins. It's just how I think. I don't want to believe what is not true and do not wish to practice that which is not necessary especially if it causes people personal pain thinking they have to do the right thing. I hate unfairness and I have always defended the underdog. It's just how I am. I certainly don't and never wanted to tell others what they had to do or be or think or practice if it was not necessary. When I taught it, I believed it. When I didn't believe it, I stopped teaching it and fell back to the "what the hell do i do now," point of view. Transitions are messy and it took time for me to realize the implications of my own study in religion while I was teaching religion.
Ok, ok,...I really mean this to be short. The bottom line is that I don't mean to repeat myself but I know I am looking to engage in discussion on these fascinating topics. I don't even care if I am not agreed with but it's not enough to just say, "Diehl is an idiot." Tell me you're view on the problem of this or that. Actually most don't have a view and have never thought of it as a problem so I do understand. I realize I am probably expecting something from this site that the site is really not designed for.
As most of you know, the whole experience introduced me to various forms of depression and personal anxiety on any number of issues, but that seems to have been part of the price of moving on. I'm doing the best I can for who I am and my nature and temperament. I know myself very well now more than ever. Kinda creepy...ha.
I miss teaching and tackling topics that others only think about. I have been told all my life by members and ministers, "Dennis, you say things I am only thinking," "You are ahead of your time," and "That was fascinating..." My debate with Art Mokarrow last year was very stimulating to me and a real opportunity to speak up to my old WCG and COG types. Art invited the fox into the hen house and I had a ball. My WCG minister buddies in the audience wanted more after the debate and were very much in agreement with me on many points they had always thought personally about.
My last comment to several was, "Do you agree with a lot of this?...oh yes, And you teach it now?....oh no. But you still get your paycheck? .....oh....yeah...." We parted with that kind of knowing half smile only ministers know the meaning of....
37 comments:
Yet another example of Northcote Parkinson's first law.
Dennis,
At this time in my life I could say I wish I had been there in Myrle Beach to hear your last festival sermon. But in the late 1990s I had already removed myself from that "reprobate" organization you were still a part of and I would have probably rejected everything you said. In 1995 I became a part of the continuation of the "true church".
Also, I had never heard of you until this time last year when I read a couple of articles you wrote which were published in the Journal. I became intrigued with your point of view.
The things you wrote were in line with the things I had been already been learning on my own. I know there are those who either reject the Astrotheology / Anthropomorphism basis of the bible OR they will not even consider the possibility of one little part being correct. But of course, that is their choice and I have no reason to criticise anyone for their understanding. However, it seems to me that those who reject this concept are quick to ridicule and condemn those that, at least, consider the possibility of Astrotheology as the basis of the bible.
A few years ago the "preacher" said those who study outside of "church" sources are taking the easy way. I could not have disagreed more. The path and journey I was and still am on was and is one of the most difficult things I have ever done. I had to admit I was wrong in the things that I had believed and took a stand for and those that taught me those things were incorrect as well. About 6-7 years ago I quit having my skull opened up to have "church knowledge" poured in and began thinking for myself after 35 years of being a sheople. The things I now understand did not come easily or quickly.
For others who read this, I have this comment. This is not a pat Dennis on the back and tell him he is doing a great job. I don't know the man, have never met the man nor have I ever heard him speak.
I will say - some of the things he writes are the things I have discovered and accepted for myself. There are more of us out there who were, in times past, a part of that "true church" who now understand these same concepts, but not necessarily in agreement on every point. It is afterall, still a journey of growing toward better understanding.
Homer, the last decade has been the most difficult time in my life, personally and in every way. Staying in the box one is given at birth is the easy way out. Believing what others tell you with an uncritical mind is the easy way out. Not hurting the feelings of others at all costs is the easy way out. Hopping from one Church of God splinter to the next as they tumble and fall, is the easy way out. Letting those who never asked a critical question of the Bible or would ever read a book outside the ones they write themselves is the easy way out.
Never saying "I was mistaken," "I was wrong," "I never really understood that properly," is the easy way out.
Never being authentic, genuine or realistic is the easy way out...
but you'll be on anti-depressants the rest of your life ;
which in hindsite, for me, was also the easy way out...
Reality is your friend...Face it.
"Letting those who never asked a critical question of the Bible or would ever read a book outside the ones they write themselves, tell you how it all is, is the easy way out."
I meant to say...
Dennis, the lies are repeated over and over. The truth has also to be repeated over and over so people get it and don't drift back into the comfortable old patterns and subconscious recordings.
I keep hammering on the fact that the Bible and god are fictions. If it isn't hammered on, the human tendency to just accept the comfortable old myths and they will begin to reassert themselves and take over again.
There are a good many who don't like either your approach or mine. They'd like for us to just shut up. I'm not going to and I don't think you're going to either.
Don't let those who would just like for you (and me) to shut up win. What you have to contribute is much too valuable. And, in my opinion, it belongs on this site and as many others as possible.
If anybody doesn't like it, my attitude is "stuff it."
"I crave open and honest discussion with intelligent folk on these topics."
Here's an open comment for you.
This "Jesus" character you keep talking about is the biggest figment of the deceived imagination discussed here on HWA-haters.
This is not an, 'oh, he's a sacred names freak' comment. This is an absolutely etymological, historically accurate fact.
"Jesus" is just another of the many euphemisms employed by the god of this world to give honor to himself and hoodwink the masses into idolatry and deception.
You already know the passages I would refer to, so I won't.
This is not conspiracy or fringe stuff, it is one of the most CERTAIN PROOFS of the little flock, firstfruits, purpose of parables, hidden mysteries of the Creator which exists.
And is it not marvelous in our eyes?
All the world deceived and cannot understand or accept the revealed NAMES of Elohim, EVEN if you tell them, NO ONE WILL BELIEVE it unless the Spirit allows it.
"All the world deceived and cannot understand or accept the revealed NAMES of Elohim,"
As long as you also understand El originally was the Canaanite God adopted by the Israelites and that the Elohim are the lesser gods and part of the Council of the gods, which inclded Satan (In the story, not in reality IMHO)
Thomas Payne noted it was not fair to expect humans to believe in something as important as a God based on the writings of others. If one does not see the God or hear the god and can rule out schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy etc, it is just hearsay.
As far as i can tell, a now 2000 year old text quoting what someone exactly said etc is mere hearsay. How could i ever know it really happened and the people spoken about were really who they claimed to be ?
Please don't say "Faith.." Faith is what one clings to before they get the facts. Faith always succumbs to facts
Allen C. Dexter said...
"Dennis, the lies are repeated over and over. The truth has also to be repeated over and over so people get it and don't drift back into the comfortable old patterns and subconscious recordings."
MY COMMENT: That's true(What is TRUTH?), but if I wrote over and over again a hundred paragraphs on this site, right now, on why tithing is wrong, or a thousand paragraphs about the fallacies of the Jewish calendar and the "holy days", and did so practically every month, I bet you would be the first one to squack.Did you ever hear of beating a dead horse?
"There are a good many who don't like either your approach or mine. They'd like for us to just shut up. I'm not going to and I don't think you're going to either."
MY COMMENT: On THIS site? I don't think so.
"Don't let those who would just like for you (and me) to shut up win. What you have to contribute is much too valuable. And, in my opinion, it belongs on this site and as many others as possible."
MY COMMENT: Read my first comment again.
"If anybody doesn't like it, my attitude is "stuff it."
MY COMMENT: Oh my! You're no different than they are. That's a shame.
DennisCDiehl said...
"Faith is what one clings to before they get the facts. Faith always succumbs to facts."
MY COMMENT: Faith is what one clings to AFTER they get the facts too.:-)
Sorta of a big leap from Paul disagreed with James and John, etc to whatever astrotheology is.
Are you equating jesus with the Greek and Roman Pantheons, different from the Demiurge or the creator god, but important none the less.
"showing that all the key players in the NT, Peter, James, John and Paul were not all speaking the same thing and had issues with each other expressed in fascinating ways in the text if one knew how to read it and what to look for."
If "one knew how to read it and what to look for" seems quite a subjective way to study the Bible.
Is it not possible to study the Bible letting the Bible interpret itself. Stated another way, let the context guide the reader?
I can't see this division you write of. Each one of the "key players" went to their death as martyrs for the same beliefs and died following the teachings of their leader Jesus Christ..save John. At the end of the day the ultimate test of true unity.
If they were "growing" in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ at different rates then, aren't we who are followers of Christ today doing just the same.
"Is it not possible to study the Bible letting the Bible interpret itself. Stated another way, let the context guide the reader?"
Anything is possible. The problem is we can never really know the true context. Paul often talks of problems either personally or in the teachings of others, but never tells us outright what they are so we can know the context. Winner writes the story and all. He says he struggles with sins and such but would be nice to know the context and which ones perhaps. He wouldn't tell us the context of his, "I knew a man, whether in the body or out who was caught up to third heaven....." when all suspect it was him. He heard amazing things but then says he can't tell us what they were. Hey, no fair! Then don't tell the story. Sounds like Dave Pack telling us, "I have exciting things to tell you, but I can't quite tell you now. Paul says all
Paul laments "all Asia has forsaken me... " but again, why? We don't know and he won't give the context save he hoped God would be kind to them for no matter their rejection. Never crosses his mind that if "all" tell you to hit the road, YOU might really be a problem.
In many cases the NT tells us about false brethren but gives us little clues as to why they were false. Was it just circumcision etc? Did he mean Peter, James and John the Jewish Christian types? Who knows?
Paul rages on Peter for parting company with him at the table with gentiles when James showed up. Paul makes it seem Peter's duplicity but I strongly suspect it was obvious to Peter in the story that Paul was not adhering to the Noahide principles James outlined in Acts 15 and the meat was not pork or unclean, but offered to idols. Paul never followed the Acts 15 rules and in I Cor. makes fun of those who think idol meat is tainted and says he has superior knowledge etc. He was no team player and it showed. Peter was correct but Paul wrote the story his way. Out of context.
"I can't see this division you write of. Each one of the "key players" went to their death as martyrs for the same beliefs and died following the teachings of their leader Jesus Christ..save John. At the end of the day the ultimate test of true unity."
I could spend hours showing it to you in the texts and in subtle ways lost on we readers today. Study "Intercalation"
As for the "died following the teachings of their leader," we don't know the context of those deaths. It is all tradition and hearsay and all made up hundreds of years after the fact when the mother church needed great stories. Acts won't even tell us how Paul died and takes us right up to his arrest and stuck at home...and then nothing. What happened and WHY was Paul killed? Or was he??? He was a Roman suck up so why did they kill him? What did he do or say to get killed? We are never told and I think someone knew. Was it embarassing? We don't know. All we have heard is '...and they cut off his head..." uh huh...why!
People have died all through history for their religions no matter if true, provable or they knew the leader personally. It proves only that they are sincere, not that they are right.
Well Dennis,
I, for one, think that your examples of how "Context" is missing allowing all manner of interpretations is fantastic.
I have heard of many discrepancies and contradictions within the texts, but somehow never heard of these examples you have provided here.
This whole "Faith" thing is such a cop out. One can believe anything to be true and never need to explain why it is to be believed at the pain of death.
Faith can leave the field wide open until the facts are known for sure. But so long as one claims only faith is needed, even the facts cannot dissuade that one.
So Steve, if you have faith that the earth is flat, and retain that belief even though the facts prove this to be untrue, then all your "Faith" - "after the facts" cannot make it true.
While this might not be a site of choice for some, it does have a section on what is "known" about the deaths of the lead players in the NT story.
I don't say Jesus as a person never existed. I am not confident of the portrayal in the text especially as the unacceptable parts are cleaned up as the story unfolds in the Gospels original order etc.
There are other more conservative sites that seem to say the say things but draw more traditional conclusions.
There is no doubt however that for all the pseudopigraphic gospels about these men lives, real or imagined, we don't know what happened to them which leads some to suspect they weren't real either as presented.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html
PS and we often hear it said that the Apostles would not have died for a lie. The problem is that we don't know how the Apostles died, or under what circumstances, or if they could have saved themselves by recanting Jesus etc. If we can't say how they died in fact, we can't argue they would not die for a lie.
Also, people die for wrong causes all the time. It's not that they don't believe them but the belief itself is not proof of its veracity.
Anyway, it's all very interesting. The bottom line is that Paul, who never met Jesus etc and blah blah blah gets to write all the major doctrine and truth about Jesus even calling it "the Gospel which i have given," cursing those who don't accept it. This of course after saying, "when cursed, we bless and curse not.." ha!
Paul is the author of the NT and the current teachings of the churches for the most part. The 12, who supposedly ate, slept , walked and talked with Jesus fade out and contribute next to nothing. Jesus actually contributes next to nothing as he writes nothing from which we must assume either he could not write or was goofy enough to leave it to others to write about him, which seems dangerous and a recipe for inaccuracies.
I picture a returning Jesus saying....'hey...I neve said that!!"
amen
Reality said...
"So Steve, if you have faith that the earth is flat, and retain that belief even though the facts prove this to be untrue, then all your "Faith" - "after the facts" cannot make it true."
MY COMMENT: I think you misunderstood. What I was saying is that even if a religious person(in a COG, as an example)has the facts presented to them, and it will shake their entire foundation, they will still close their eyes to the facts and go on their merry way, head buried in sand.
I'm sorry Steve.
I misunderstood what you said altogether.
I just need to read more carefully. I really should have known that this was not what you were saying.
Very sorry.
"The problem is we can never really know the true context."
Yet the New Testament was canonized by men, men that believers must accept as those directed by God in their endeavor.
If the believer is to accept and believe this, then all that is included in the New Testament, as a whole, must be either accepted as "gospel" as a whole, or rejected on the same basis.
If this body of accepted writings can not be read, defined and clarified strictly within their own context. Must the believer reject the entire collection of New Testament canon? and then possibly likewise the Old Testament canon as well?
"Yet the New Testament was canonized by men, men that believers must accept as those directed by God in their endeavor."
I personally can't accept the ideas of "believers must" anything. I just can't. If it was directed by God, it has it's issues, challenges, errors, contradictions and all to many man made foibles included in the texts that confuse and have left us with the chaos of modern christian denominations, splinters, and slivers. A confusing mess if it was all meant to be so clear.
FOUR Gospels were chosen because there are four winds and four corners of the Earth etc. Not exactly a real reason for just four and four that greatly disagree with each other.
Matthew copies verbatim 96% of Mark and Luke 58% of Mark. Why would eyewitnesses do this? Were they lazy? If their stories were the same, why bother with four? Mark is not written as an eyewitness account either. Nowhere does he say, "And then Jesus and I and the rest went south..." "And then Jesus said to me...." No gospel is an eyewitness no matter what we have been told. The evidence is contrary to that.
I don't reject the texts. They are just texts. They made the cut. Someone said, 'these will do" There were many others to choose from. Some attributed to specific authors are not, in fact, written by those men in reality. We now know this. The Penteteuch was not written by Moses and not by one man. It's a long story. Daniel was not written during the time it portrays for the reasons we were taught in sunday school. It has purpose, but it is not a book about prophecy in reality unless one counts writing "prophecy' based on history already past. The book was written in the 160's to encourage the Maccabeans and not five hundred years earlier looking ahead etc. The reason it is so accurate is that the events prophecied had already happened and the author knew the outcomes. It only gets vague in chapter 12 where the near future is not yet known. Long story.
The Bible is a fascinating and interesting Book. More than I ever knew but strongly suspected. It has purpose. It is just not to be read like a newspaper and screw up the lives of sincere people lead by dillusional ministers who have not done their homework in life about their profession and are mere Bible readers, good speakers (well not Ron Weinland) , story tellers, nice guys and women and well meaning.
I am not real pleased about how it all is , IMHO, over what I grew up with, was taught and taught myself until I couldn't.
People who eventually conclude that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God probably arrive there by numerous paths.
For me I came to question the New Testament first. I wondered why we even imagined that God wanted a book compiled purporting to be His Word when He would be totally capable of producing His Word Himself so that there would be no question what He wanted us to know.
If He did direct someone to make a book, why were only those particular writings selected while there were numerous writings extant such as the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, Nag Hamaddi Library, Dead Sea Scrolls etc. (even though many of these texts were hidden away for a while)? And that is just speaking of the newer testament? Did God direct these men to mesh together old writings maybe 500 years old together with newer texts and name the whole collection" The Holy Bible"? Why would such different writings be combined into a single book anyway? Then neverending questions begin to surface.
Why did Mary assume Christ to be the gardener? Was it the clothes he wore? Where did he get any clothes in the first place? What did he wear when he went up to Heaven? Did he just kind of waft up slowly or did he fly away in a flash? Too many things left unanswered that would definitely be addressed if normal people were telling such an important story.
After a good long while, I finally began to question the Old Testament itself. Things just don't make sense. There are many many questions which have arisen for lots of people. I have a few of my own such as:
If the flood story is true and all of the animals were inside the Ark, and then were released, how did the kangaroo hop all the way down to Australia without leaving any little Joyies along the way. It is too far for them to have hopped all the way in a few days so there should be signs or bones of some along the way.
Then there are the Koala bears which only eat eucalyptus leaves. What did they eat between Mt. Ararat (if that is really where the Ark landed) and Australia?
How about the clumbsy elephants getting off the high mountain and down to areas like India, Africa etc.? I don't think anyone has ever uncovered elephant bones up on Mt. Ararat or anywhere in the vicinity in case at least a few slipped and fell. They just aren't that agile of creatures.
Anyway, I am pleased to have a place to air these dumb sounding questions.
"Matthew copies verbatim 96% of Mark and Luke 58% of Mark. Why would eyewitnesses do this? Were they lazy? If their stories were the same, why bother with four? Mark is not written as an eyewitness account either."
Maybe it is reversed. Mark copies from Matthew. He had to, because he was not one of the disciples. Luke had to draw on the writings of others also because he was not among the first disciples that learned directly from Christ. Of the four gospel writers only Matthew and John were disciples, the others, John Mark and Luke came along after Christ's death.
Luke wrote the Gospel that carries his name and Acts for a Roman official named Theopholis. He took great pains to gather the accounts of Christ's life accurately, it would seem.
It seems too fantastic that even a single event would be recorded and preserved two thousand years later that harmonizes between two let alone three of the gospel accounts.
I some ways, what you write takes more faith to accept that just taking the gospel accounts literally.
Reality....bingo +++ a whole lot more
Michael, good questions of course but have been answered by scholars these days in the not former ways so much.
First of all there is no evidence that the names of the Apostles on the Books are really the men the proport to be. The originals were annonymous. Long story but easily researched.
Research "Luke's" "Theopolis" and you might see it may be a book written way later than perceived. Many of Luke's tales of Paul are not Paul's story according to Paul. Paul knows nothing of Luke's conversion story on the Damascus road as Paul said he was called from the womb and the tale is never mentioned outside of luke's three divergent and contradictory accounts.
It takes faith of any kind to believe the contents of any book as literally true, especially one so old and cobbled together by so many people for so many divergent reasons including politics and rivalries looking for winners.
Ultimately, if understanding and doing what the Book says to be saved, born again or included is so vitally important, it is a poor way to send the message but the one at the time of course. We all wish a Deity would just really really show up and explain it all to us in person. Who could argue with that. However, in this day of holograpic imagerey, I believe if that happened, I'd take a good hard look and a long long time to even consider such a thing in modern skies. Men are devious!
I think I prefer a quiet voice in the night like Samuel heard as a child..."Samuel...samuel....but then, knowing what I know, I'd have to go see the doc to be sure I was not schizophrenic...
I wanted the Bible to be true at many levels. I just studied it more after not being a minister than when I was one and here i am.
Michael, good questions of course but have been answered by scholars these days in the not former ways so much.
First of all there is no evidence that the names of the Apostles on the Books are really the men the proport to be. The originals were annonymous. Long story but easily researched.
Research "Luke's" "Theopolis" and you might see it may be a book written way later than perceived. Many of Luke's tales of Paul are not Paul's story according to Paul. Paul knows nothing of Luke's conversion story on the Damascus road as Paul said he was called from the womb and the tale is never mentioned outside of luke's three divergent and contradictory accounts.
It takes faith of any kind to believe the contents of any book as literally true, especially one so old and cobbled together by so many people for so many divergent reasons including politics and rivalries looking for winners.
Ultimately, if understanding and doing what the Book says to be saved, born again or included is so vitally important, it is a poor way to send the message but the one at the time of course. We all wish a Deity would just really really show up and explain it all to us in person. Who could argue with that. However, in this day of holograpic imagerey, I believe if that happened, I'd take a good hard look and a long long time to even consider such a thing in modern skies. Men are devious!
I think I prefer a quiet voice in the night like Samuel heard as a child..."Samuel...samuel....but then, knowing what I know, I'd have to go see the doc to be sure I was not schizophrenic...
I wanted the Bible to be true at many levels. I just studied it more after not being a minister than when I was one and here i am.
The interesting thing about this all, having been on both sides, is that each side makes almost perfect sense when you are on it. I say almost, because regardless of all the research and other preparation we do, and how it appears to be laying out, there is always just enough reasonable doubt to test one's faith. That's of course if we are willing to be honest with ourselves.
On CSI, the TV programs, we hear phrases such as "follow the evidentiary trail". Our basic problem in doing what we do here is that there are often breaks in that trail, and mankind has had thousands of years available for speculation, analysis, discourse, and formulation of doctrine. So, there is always going to be room for educated guesswork, and contrary to what we were taught, nobody has all the answers. I often wonder whether those speaking most loudly and frequently are actually verbalizing their own internal conflicts. That would be human nature.
I do feel fairly confident about one thing. We can point out what we feel might be conflicts and error throughout scripture, and the discussion could conceivably go on indefinitely. In fact, it has. But these conflicts do not disrupt, undermine, or ruin the beauty and simplicity of the Gospel message.
I have yet to hear someone proclaiming that Jesus' (or Paul's) teachings were bad or harmful if honestly and sincerely practiced in one's life! Now, you can't say the same for Armstrongism---but Armstrongism is a distortion, a defective product.
That is a distinction I certainly was able to make even during my atheist/agnostic stage. One of my nonsequitor pronouncements from those days was that the myth of Jesus provided an awesome example that we would all do well to follow!
BB
"I have yet to hear someone proclaiming that Jesus' (or Paul's) teachings were bad or harmful if honestly and sincerely practiced in one's life!"
I do know what you mean or are getting at, but BB, there are many teachings of Jesus and Paul that don't wash and are neither practical nor meant to be practiced on a daily basis. Jesus also believed he was living in the last days and many of his teachings such as , "take no anxious thought for tomorrow..." "Turn the other cheek," "Give your cloak also...'love me more than fathers and mothers.." and others are only meant in the context of 'time is short", which of course it wasn't but him it was.
Many of Paul's teachings on to marry or not marry, the "role" of women, the place of men etc, were and are very harmful in reality.
Putting fear in the church by killing off a young couple who didn't give all they said they would when who said they had to or that they could not change their minds is another lousy example of control and fantasy in scripture. Aside from motivating members by this stunt to have "great fear" etc, it is lame as I doubt the Romans would have let that one slip by and Peter might have to answer the question , "uh..my mom and dad came to your church and didn't come home...where are they?"
You know my take on the real meaning of the story.
Perhaps I'll put together a list of questionable NT teachings of Paul and Jesus for consideration
"Perhaps I'll put together a list of questionable NT teachings of Paul and Jesus for consideration."
I'd love to see it. Take your time and make it thorough.
People have been lead to believe that back before Christ, "God's People" followed the Old Testament.
That doesn't work however, because there was no Old Testatment until there was also a New Testatment.
So people only had extant texts to follow - not just up until Christ's death, but about 200 years later. Why such a gap in time if it had been important to follow a new dogma?
There was Pseudepigrapha from both ages like the Book of Enoch along with lots of Gnostic literature and other Jewish literature like The Tanach or Rabbinic writings (not sure when these were written), but none of what became the OT was called The Bible until the Holy Bible came into being
What came to be the OT was just literature by numerous groups of people such as the Ebionites, Elkasaites, Nazarenes and far too many to list if I could even remember them.
DennisCDiehl said..."Perhaps I'll put together a list of questionable NT teachings of Paul and Jesus for consideration."
MY COMMENT: Again? :-) Just kidding, Dennis. I'd love to see it. Does it have to be a thousand paragraphs? :-)
I probably could have simplified all of what I said by just mentioning that "bible" means book of writings.
The problem came during the 3rd century when the Romans or Constantine (I think) decided to pull together some of these books to compile an Old Testament and a New Testament and then combined the testaments (which they made) into one book and called it all The Holy Bible.
Dennis, "the last days" means different things to different people. Not a few Christians believe that the phrase "the last days" covers the time period that all previous history was leading up to: The new era, and new opportunities for mankind which began with Christ's birth, death, and resurrection, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. If we want to make sport of Jesus, of course, we can portray Him not as the Son of God with the latest most advanced information for mankind, but as some sort of simpleton/dupe who had no concept of His own role, or the Father's plan. Given the materials presented in Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, I don't believe that that latter characterization is accurate.
Also, where did you get the idea that the teachings of Jesus which you cited were in the context of time being short? There is most certainly a better explanation than that. Those examples are about breaking, or not allowing to continue, some really bad cycles! Don't pass the grief and violence on to the next guy, don't retaliate. Show love to all. And this is the way you demonstrate that you are making both Jesus Himself and the Father #1 in your life's gameplan, even above your biological parents and family.
What would you advise someone to do regarding marriage? Marriage is not a one-size fits all proposition. Paul presented several different options, and each option was appropriate to different sets of circumstances. Having been married numerous times myself, I've explored that part of my humanity. I'm really happy at this point just having a cat! That is not because I am mysogynistic, however, in fact, quite the opposite is true. But imagine if you took BB's signature away from that statement, and attibuted it to Paul! Boy howdy, would tongues wag! Why just get your razor blade out, and cut Paul's epistles from the New Testament, and throw them out the window!
Many of your comments have indicated that you don't believe in the supernatural aspects of the Bible. Annanias and Saphira were not described as having been killed by human hands. This was an act of God, or His Spirit! Yes, it was a demonstration of power, and yes, it would have a chilling effect on those who might otherwise lie to the apostles. It is not dissimilar to events described in the Old Testament, like Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt, which pillar apparently still existed during Josephus' and the Antenicene Fathers' era, complete with human features!
There are perfectly logical explanations for just about all of these "baffling" theological events which you present to us. As I keep on stating, any good study Bible has notes which explain most of these things which are somehow problematic for you, but not for some of the rest of us. It's not rocket science, either.
BB
Reality, you might want to do a bit more reading and research. I'd recommend that you concentrate your studies on the post-exilic and intertestimental periods. Read Ezra and Nehemiah, read up on the Septuagint, and learn what was actually available by the time of the second (Herod's). If you have time, read Josephus's Antiquities, as well. It is a long read, but it is definitely worth the time you will invest!
BB
Dennis, you said;
"...there are many teachings of Jesus and Paul that don't wash and are neither practical nor meant to be practiced on a daily basis. Jesus also believed he was living in the last days and many of his teachings such as , "take no anxious thought for tomorrow..." "Turn the other cheek," "Give your cloak also...'love me more than fathers and mothers.." and others are only meant in the context of 'time is short", which of course it wasn't but him it was."
In reference to time being short; Jesus said in Matthew 11;13, "All of the law and prophets prophecied until John." I believe this statement gave perspective to time. A former time period (4000 plus years) from Creation until Christ's appointed time. (Gal 4:4 at the appointed time)
There are two ways I look at the "time is short" issue that you state "of course it wasn't."
1) All men have a finite existence and after they die then the resurrection and judgment, (a blink in time). One who is eternal, as Christ was, while speaking would naturally view mortality this way. A very short time.
2) The four or so thousand years that had passed prior to the Messiah coming and a New Covenant being introduced, as prophesied. This new Covenant offered salvation through the Grace of the Father by our faith in Jesus His Son. No longer by deeds of the law of Moses which never offered salvation. Matt. 11:13 Only until John, the prophesied voice crying out in the wilderness preparing the way for the Messiah...of course you know all of this.
I can see clearly what Christ meant. The Holy Spirit softly speaks in my ear continually saying, "...continue on and have faith."
Faith is a gift that is given as is the Holy Spirit. Not something I could ever conjure up.
Dennis, that seems to be the difference in the view I have and the way you view the Bible. You seem to be searching for and compiling reasons not to believe. In spite of my own volition or self-will, I don't know the best term here, I am compelled into belief.
I can see only good coming from the teachings of Paul and Jesus Christ. How can there possibly be any drawback to loving your neighbor as your self? I can understand the marriage issue, since Christianity was becoming illegal and many would need to flee and hide. Not so easy with a wife and a child. Very practical.
And more so when I see the benefits and I fall short and suffer and then desire to get back on track. Finally getting back on track I have a deep peace, something I would never know how to create within myself.
Sounds childish when I read what I write. Yes.
2nd try - hope it doesn't post twice.
Byker Bob,
I have actually spent considerable time studying literature from both the post-exilic and intertestemental periods. Before I even looked beyond the Bible, I had already read most of what you mention like Ezra and Nehemiah, plus commentaries on the Septuagint (which didn't clear up a thing). I know there are teachers who claim that the Old Testament was a closed canon by around 500 BC, but there are also those who show it to be in a flux right up until the beginning collections of the Bible were compiled. I'm sure you already know that books were questioned and added and removed a number of times. Which brings me to another unanswered question:
If the Holy Bible is God's Word to us, was it His word in its original form or after the first redaction (or whatever you call it when books are removed and others added) or was it His perfect Word later when the chronological order was determined and/or when Revelations was added back into the mix? That does not sound inerrant.
I spent a while trying to get through Josephus's volumes while reading some other most helpful articles and books. I never completed it because along the way as I was reading other authors, I found that Josephus is helplessly unreliable. No small wonder either since he was the only one to escape alive to tell the story. Ever wonder why that was? He was a two-faced traitor working for the enemy who allowed him to live while those at Masada and other battles had no chance. He found favor with the emperor Vespasian as well.
Another historian I learned to avoid is Eusibius who wrote, "History of the Ecclesia". He is also complicit as he forges dates, people and places.
A much better resource turned out to be the Pseudepigrapha (even more copies of Ezra II and Ezra III) , Nag Hammadi Library, Antenicean Fathers (haven't read them all) and many authors. One of the more difficult, but documented authors is Raymond E. Brown, "The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave: A commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels".
Much easier reading is "Beyond Belief" by Elaine Pagels (and her other works on the Gnostics); "Cosmology & Eschatology in Jewish & Christian Apocalypticism" by Adela Yarbro Collins (Her husband John Collins is also excellent); Beyond the Essene Hypothesis" by Gabriele Boccaccini and lots more.
Once I decided to actually look into how and when the Bible was produced, I found lots of books by Bart Ehrman. Each of his books seems well documented and easy to follow. The very best literature for me personally lately has been, "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, which is free on the Internet.
I had never studied the Greek philosophers at all, so have recently read some of Homer and just finished Plato's Dialogues on Socrates. This literature really got me to thinking. For one thing, it is written in Greek (as is a lot of the Bible) and it was written nearly 500 years before the Bible. The first thing that jumped out at me, is that the literature is not contested - no one argues over how to translate the Greek (no arguments over what each little word might have meant), nor what it says nor when it was written, nor who wrote it. Amazing!
The next thing is that the story of Socrates is quite a lot like Jesus Christ in that he came to tell the people that they could have a relationship with God without going through the powers of the government or the Greek gods. Anyway, he got sentenced to death for saying those things along with being falsely accused etc.
This is getting way long.
Elaine Pagel's????? Please! You are allowing a woman to influence your understanding of the Bible? All she does is seek to discredit it. I guess this is typical when you are apostates and have tuned to atheism.
A True Beliver,
The last time I looked, Elaine Pagels was not an athiest; however, that could possibly have changed. Just for the record, I certainly am not athiestic. I believe in God, only I do not see Him in the Bible nor in churches.
Even if Elaine Pagels may have become an athiest, that does not discredit her work. What does she write with which you disagree?
As far as I know Pagels is not an atheist, but she is unconverted and does not know God's truth. She seeks to discredit the Bible. The atheists are on this blog!
Are you for real???????
Post a Comment