His conclusions.
"Many biblical scholars have long thought that the gospel of Mark lacks a coherent ending, and that there may have been a final chapter, lost centuries ago. Powell contends it wasn't lost at all, but was taken off the Gospel of Mark and moved to the Gospel of John, where it is known today as John 21, a curious last chapter that has long been considered awkward and redundant where it is.
Sometime during the First Century, the ending of Mark's gospel was appended to John's for political reasons within the church, Powell believes.
"The gospel of John was written to demonstrate that Peter was not to be trusted as a leader of the church," Powell said. "I believe Mark was written as a rebuttal to John. In their original form, these gospels are quite at odds."
John 21 describes an encounter between Jesus and Peter, one of the original apostles, after the Resurrection. Jesus forgives Peter and tells him to take an active role--in the leadership of the church, an admonition that Catholics believe made Peter the first pope."
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-29/local/me-56074_1_radical-notion
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-29/local/me-56074_1_radical-notion
One of the most interesting realities found in the Gospels is that the Gospel of Mark has no good ending to the story of Jesus crucifixion, while the Gospel of John has TWO.
The true ending of Mark is found at Mark 16:8 which says...
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."
Scholars agree that the rest of Mark was added later to correct this obvious problem of no real good ending that reflects the events in the Gospel of Mark. There is no real account of the resurrection, women telling anyone and certainly no story that has the disciples meeting Jesus for the very first time after the resurrection in Galilee. It also seems a story concerning Peter is missing, but it is interesting that the Angel makes a point of telling the women to tell the disicples AND PETER to be there. Since Peter was a disicple, it is obvious that Mark has a need for Peter specifically to be there. Why and why does the Gospel of Mark have no story ending this way with Peter specifically needing to be in Galilee to meet Jesus? There is none.
Mark 14:27 notes...
27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. 28 But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. 29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I. 30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."
So here we have, in Mark, Jesus telling them that they will all be scattered but he will meet them for the FIRST time in Galilee after he is risen. Peter is told that, inspite of his bravado, he will deny knowing Jesus three times before the rooster crows twice.
What's going on here. A story that promises the disciples that after he rises, Jesus will meet them in Galilee, not in Jerusalem, for the first time, and yet, does not include such an ending having the women come to the tomb, not find Jesus body, panic and flee telling NO ONE. Not much inspiration of resurrection here! Mark plainly has a missing ending. Where is it?
First of all the idea that Jesus would meet the disciples for the first time after his resurrection is not unique to Mark. Matthew also has this tradition but also has an ending that includes it.
Matthew 28 says...
8 "And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. 10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me."
So as in Mark, there is not sighting in Jerusalem, but the women here at least afraid, did tell the disciples that Jesus said they were to go to Galilee to meet him the first time, minus Judas. Remember Mark said to be sure to bring Peter.
Matthew goes on to say...
16 "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted."
So, in fact, Matthew has a story of all these things happening as Mark said too, but Mark did not tell how it ended as Matthew did. Mark had no positive ending to his Gospel.
Luke edits the story a bit because he wants his story to take place immediately in Jerusalem after the resurrection and not in Galilee as Mark and Matthew said.
Luke 24 says...
5 "And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee."
So here we see how Luke cleverly said in effect, not that Jesus said he'd meet them in Galilee after he was risen, but that the disciples should remember that Jesus told them in Galilee that they would see him risen in Jerusalem. Luke had stories in Jerusalem the others did not have that needed to be told evidently and going right to Galilee would not help him do that.
Now the interesting part. Mark has no ending to his Gospel, but the Gospel of John has TWO.
The first ending of John is in chapter 20.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
But then we start again in John 21 with...
"After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee."
Here we have a story, a second ending of John that starts "after these things." After what things? Certainly not the things of John 20 as they don't fit. The "again" in verse 1, I believe to have been added to make this look like a second or third appearing when in fact it is the real first meeting but not in John as John doesn't need it. I believe that the 21st chapter of John is the original missing ending of Mark. "After these things" is really the women leaving the tomb perplexed and fearful, telling no one about Jesus rising. John 21 shows a disheartened group of men who simply went back to fishing not having seen Jesus at all! How soon they forgot the events and sightings of Jesus in John 20! The reason is that this ending is the second nonesensical ending of John that is really the missing ending of Mark!
John has no fishing motiff until this last chapter, where Mark is nothing but a fishing motiff. John had an ending already and doesn't need this second one. Mark needs this chapter to make sense of his whole Gospel non-ending!
Remember how the Angel made a point of telling the women to tell the disciples AND PETER to show up in Galilee? Well of all things, this second end of John has a story about Peter being restored by Jesus to the fold. Three times , in Mark, he denied Jesus and now three times, in John, PETER, is sent to feed the sheep, meaning the Church and followers of Jesus. This also fits very well as an ending of Mark story as Mark made of point of being sure Peter was in Galilee where John doesn't need it.
John 21 says...
15 "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs." In other words, Peter is forgiven and restored. It was important for Peter to be here in Galilee as Mark said, but never reported.
Let's just see how it fits.
Mark ends...
16:2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. 3 And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? 4 And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. 5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid."
Now add John 21 and contine...
1 "After these things Jesus shewed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias; and on this wise shewed he himself. 2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee....15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
John, the editor makes this an event that happens "again" or "the third time," but these are added to make it solve the problems it's being appended to John causes as it shows the disciples disheartened, dejected, depressed and just going back to fishing as if Jesus didn't rise and they forgot the sightings of John 20.
In all probability, the 21st Chapter of the Gospel of John is the missing ending of Mark! Now Mark, as Gospel with no good ending, has one that fits and John that needs only one ending and not two is restored to normal.
Why? Because John's Gospel always portrays Peter as a Judas. Judas betrayed, Peter denied. No difference. Don't follow Peter. But the Petrine community of believers won out over John and so to clean up the Gospel of John and make it seem like John really and finally promotes and forgive Peter, Mark's convenient ending was added to the Book. This leads to Mark having no good ending after Mark 16:8 and the cursory and tidy it up ending was added which scholars admit was added and not in the oldest copies of Mark.
Note: Agnostic/Atheist or not, the origins and politics of the New Testament have always fascinated me and given the Bible a human quality. Much of what I saw taking place in WCG and all Churches was the very same , "follow me, not them" as one sees in the books of the New Testament when one has the eyes and willingness to see it. Truly there is nothing new, in the world of men competing for pre-eminence over others who claim to understand who and what Jesus was and their place in the story, under the sun.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the great Sci Fi series, about an apocalyptic alien takeover of the Earth called"Colony" , has been cancelled and will not have a concluding season. No good ending at all, AND THATS A SIN!
ReplyDeleteNicely shallow, irrelevant and meaningless comment Tonto
ReplyDeleteAffectionally
Ke-mo sah-bee
Ke-mo sah-bee (/ˌkiːmoʊˈsɑːbiː/; often spelled kemo sabe, kemosabe or kimosabe) is the term of endearment used by the fictional Native American sidekick Tonto in the American television and radio programs The Lone Ranger. It has become a common catchphrase.
Nicely shallow, irrelevant and meaningless comment Tonto
ReplyDeleteAffectionately Yours
Ke-mo sah-bee
Ke-mo sah-bee (/ˌkiːmoʊˈsɑːbiː/; often spelled kemo sabe, kemosabe or kimosabe) is the term of endearment used by the fictional Native American sidekick Tonto in the American television and radio programs The Lone Ranger. It has become a common catchphrase.
Note: If comment occurs twice it is because I did not notice it was on "anonymous" the first time posted. :)
Dennis - there a number of scholars who did not feel they had acquired all the world's wisdom by age 22.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for WCG - none of this was encouraged at AC - and attempts to increase understanding were periodically shot down - both by HWA and the Tkaches - basically - my way or the highway. At least the Joes never consigned anyone to the lake of fire (as far as I know).
Interesting speculation. Actually, it would be surprising if there were not more sequencing errors in the 27 books, considering that the original documents were passed around, copied, and cherished amongst the early Christians for hundreds of years prior to Athanasius’s letter of 367 which lists those 27 books (including the oft cited disputed books collectively known as the Antilegomena), and uses the word “canonized” perhaps for the first time.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to picture St. John as disbelieving or working against Matt. 16:18, reputed to be Jesus’ own words. Such private misgivings would tend to invalidate John more than it would cast doubt upon Peter. It would also render Revelation, which is part of the Antilegomena, to be even more questionable.
BB
"'The gospel of John was written to demonstrate that Peter was not to be trusted as a leader of the church,' Powell said. 'I believe Mark was written as a rebuttal to John. In their original form, these gospels are quite at odds.'"
ReplyDeleteThe big problem with this thesis is that the vast majority of scholars are in agreement that GMark predates GJohn by ~30-40 years.
TLA that's absolutely true. I feel it is appropriate here on Banned, and Gary invites me to, to show just how untrained in the origins, intent, politic and history of the Bible both Ministers and members are (because of the ministry and the leadership). I certainly was not trained in any professionally responsive way at AC. It is why I use the term "Mere Bible Readers". The entire COG ministry, and frankly, most fundamentalists and literalist pastors and laity fall into this category of depth of belief and understanding about the book they revere.
ReplyDeleteI post this and other "let's take a look at this in the Bible" subjects, not to convince. That is the results of personal study and desire to step outside boxes. I do it to show just what these men and members never come in contact with or even know how to consider. Herbert Armstrong, Joe Tkach were not qualified, nor was I when a pastor, to pronounce the true anything of scripture. It is also where I have come to use the phrases "Making the Bible mean what it never meant" and "Pious conviction with marginal information".
Some few will bitch about "this is not the place for such postings." I disagree. While Gary handles the COG antics, I appreciate the opportunity as having been "one of them" as some love to label, to show the shallow nature of the COG theology and general lack of understanding of the history and problems with the "God breathed word." It is not scoffing. It is not disrespectful. It is simply what critical scholars, paid even in some cases by theological schools and churches do to make every effort at being "Honest to God."
The problem often is that when the shallow trained and mere bible reading youth who get sent to a real theological institution for whatever reason meet their first year professors on NT Studies, they often run home crying to mom and dad that they are being told things they were not told about the Bible in Sunday School or by well meaning but equally untrained or critically thinking parents.
This is my way of showing the lurking member and minister that there is a whole other way of understanding the Bible, and it is not theirs. Consequently, they should be careful what they teach their followers....Dave, Gerald, Bob, James and Ron...plus the wannabes
"...when one has the eyes and willingness to see it."
ReplyDeleteWhich I do now, and thanks for sharing fellow primate. Even though I am no longer religious, it still fascinates me on how it all might figure into the big picture of things.
"Truly there is nothing new, in the world of men competing for pre-eminence over others who claim to understand who and what Jesus was and their place in the story, under the sun."
Under the sun. That phrase is so fitting, because that is how I choose to view most religions now. All religions seem to share this common 'golden' thread. That thread being the precession of the equinoxes. "Hamlet's Mill" is a good introduction to it.
DBP
Dennis:
ReplyDeleteIf there is no God, and Bible is not true, and everything is ultimately meaningless in your nihilistic world view, why do you care if people believe in what you would term as a "myth"?
People live all kinds of fantasys and distractions, from rooting for ball teams, to gambling, attending comic cons, or watching movies and many, many more.
If people find solace in believing in the Bible, even in a "simplistic way", and it offers them relief and forebearance in this Machiavellian life , then ... so what?
Without a God, and no future eternity, your evangelism of atheism, I suspect, , is serving some deep rooted purpose for you. Is it guilt relief, or some type of penance for having allowed yourself to be deceived, as you reckon it?
You could go after any manner of the illusions that people hold, and they are "legion", but it appears that you still enjoy the role of being the "religious enlightener", which you held for your many years of being a pastor as well.
Again, since you are an atheist, would you confess that your previous Christian efforts and your current Atheistic efforts are, in the end, meaningless?
Dennis has said several times that he will stop posting and leave Banned forever.
ReplyDeleteI guess there is not going to be a "good ending" , and that there is "contradictory testimony" about such coming from Mr. Diehl concerning his Banned ending.
Tonto said: "Dennis has said several times that he will stop posting and leave Banned forever."
ReplyDeleteI for one am glad he has not left. I appreciate his viewpoints and his postings. I don't agree all the time, but at least it spurs me on to look into new ways of thinking about things.
Plus, why should you care? You have changed your characters off an on over time so much that no one knows who they are really talking to.
Tonto, answering you has proven to be mostly a waste of time on my part in the past. Your questions are not sincere and are merely taunts for a laugh. But I do thank you for giving me the opportunity to practice the fine art of unfuckwithability.
ReplyDeleteMy only question is if you actually read the content of the post and had any thoughts on it. If not, just hang in until something else you might like and understand comes up. This post will drift off the page soon enough.
Tonto, what if there is a God and the Bible is not true?
ReplyDeleteAt 10:52 AM, Tonto wrote:
ReplyDeleteIf there is no God, and Bible is not true, and everything is ultimately meaningless in your nihilistic world view, why do you care if people believe in what you would term as a "myth"? People live all kinds of fantasys and distractions, from rooting for ball teams, to gambling, attending comic cons, or watching movies and many, many more. If people find solace in believing in the Bible, even in a "simplistic way", and it offers them relief and forebearance in this Machiavellian life , then ... so what?
Do you understand the implication of what you just wrote? You wrote that there are circumstances in which a lie is preferable to the truth. You wrote that if there is no God, fantasies/lies are preferable to reality/truth. This tells me a lot about your moral development, as there are plenty of Christians and atheists alike who have learned that reality and truth are always preferable to fantasy and lies. You, on the other hand, write that lies are preferable to the truth if those lies offer "relief and forbearance."
Tonto, if you believe that lies may be preferable for some higher purpose, how can I trust what you are telling me now? Christianity is supposed to convert a person's heart. Someone who admits that he would lie (and maybe murder, etc.) if there were no threat of divine punishment is admitting that he thinks Jesus is preventing him from getting away with something beneficial. Christians, however, just like rational atheists, understand that truth is always ultimately preferable to fantasy and lies. Any ''relief and forbearance" granted by a fantasy or a lie is short-lived and counterproductive. Yet there you are, justifying a belief in fantasy if it will provide relief an forbearance. How awful!
I hesitate to make a comment here any more due to the attitude that Dennis has. First I will say that the time I spent with the WWCOG was not wasted because most of the people I associated with had a believe in God and were dedicated to living by their understanding of what God desired a human being to live. They accepted the Bible as the inspired word of God and accepted Jesus Christ as the living word. They did not try to find ways to avoid living by the word nor were they interested in disproving the biblical way of life. I personally have studied many books that theologians have written explaining all of the difficulties Dennis points out, but as the Christian believers generally point out I believe looking at the positive side the scripture will contribute to building a life that has qualities that would make eternal life something to hope for. To produce things that destroys that hope reveals an attitude of destruction that does not have love of any kind. ASB
ReplyDeleteGo back and re-read ASB's comments from 2:16 PM, but substitute ISIS for WWCOG and Quran for Bible. Now are you so keen on promoting "hope" as a value higher than truth?
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult sometimes to assign correct vowels when attempting to write non-written languages. Though most posters here may not realize this, the first Native American to publish his writings in English was Occom (not the razor dude!)
ReplyDeleteAll this to say that our own Tonto may be descended from a tribe whose language relied exclusively on the spoken word. So while he represents the sounds of his name as “Tonto”, it may actually be better represented as “Taunto” (one who taunts). Or, he could also be a German attempting to be “cool”.
BB
I thought Tonto was just Connie, lol
DeleteANON AT 2:00 PM-
ReplyDeleteI am a Christian believer. My point was in examining DENNIS' point of view and motivations. IF, in his reality, there is no God, no Biblical truth and the like, then my question is that nothing really matters, and dreams, lies and fantasys are all you are left with.
Since Dennis is an atheist, why does he care so much about what others may practice that they enjoy or find solace in, even if it is Christianity and the Bible? That is my point. I would expect an atheist to be a wee bit more libertarian about it all.
Even the Apostle Paul said in 1Cor 15:32 that If the dead are not raised, x“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. The book of Ecclesiastes also speaks of the frivolity of life as well without God.
So again I have to ask, why does Dennis have such an "agenda" against people believing in the Bible and in God? He seems threatened by it, when IN DENNIS' WORLD VIEW , it should just be scene as harmless escapism.
I have to wonder about Dennis... that if he had not been laid off, and was still drawing a decent enough salary, if he just would have stayed around the WCG/GCI up and until this current day.
Sorry Byker, but the German word for "taunt" is spott. So if I was a German trying to be cool, my name should be SPOTTO!
ReplyDeleteTonto is a Potawatomi name, although Tonto on the Lone Ranger is Comanche.
BTW- I like the song "Kemo Sabe" by the one hit wonder band "Electric Indian" that came out in 1969 and made the top 20...
https://youtu.be/Ri_SXIgxLcw
Hope I didn’t offend you, Tonts. The atmosphere was gettng pretty thick around these parts, and I thought a little more humor might help diffuse it. Peace, bother!
DeleteBB
Why do we atheists care? Because we know history. We know the horrors religious fanaticism bring on the world, including the horror of our present so-called presidency. Religion is not harmless. It threatens to destroy the world, and no stupid made up god is going to do a damn thing about it! I just can't fathom you die hard Armstrongites. It's like your brains have turned to total mush.
ReplyDeleteTonto, you seem incapable of understanding that atheism doesn't equate falsehoods with "harmless escapism." Atheism seeks goodness as a moral imperative; most religious believers are BULLIED into goodness over threats of hell: "Love Daddy, or he will burn you!"
ReplyDeleteYou personally don't believe in Odin, or in Krishna, or in Allah, or in Ahura Mazda, or in Chac Mool, or in Zeus. In fact, you are almost as much of an atheist as Dennis is. Dennis just disbelieves in ONE more god than you disbelieve in. Think about the reasons why you don't believe in Allah or Krishna. Are you threatened by Allah or Krishna? Are you a fool for disbelieving in them? Well, what if Dennis disbelieves in YHVH for the same reasons why you disbelieve in Allah and Krishna?
Dennis is right, that’s what bothers you so much. It’s hard to come to terms with the realization that everything you believe about the bearded guy in the sky who watches everything and who is magic is really the the scheme of a bunch of men who conned the sincere unenlightened people since the days that storytelling began. Time to open you mind and consider everything. Or, if it’s more comfortable for you, just keep believing.
ReplyDeleteAnnon said: Go back and re-read ASB's comments from 2:16 PM, but substitute ISIS for WWCOG and Quran for Bible. Now are you so keen on promoting "hope" as a value higher than truth?
ReplyDeleteMy Comment: The person making this comment does not believe in God or understand the Christian faith. If we can not take the bible as the inspired word and trust the theologians who still support the Christian Faith we are throwing out a faith in a living God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Faith and Hope are required since truth is being disputed and challenged. ASB
Tonto asked
ReplyDelete"Since Dennis is an atheist, why does he care so much about what others may practice that they enjoy or find solace in, even if it is Christianity and the Bible? That is my point. I would expect an atheist to be a wee bit more libertarian about it all."
Answer: I have answered these types of things along the way and often it seems but let me answer as clearly as I can. Also you can aske me the question directly and not as if I am not in the room.
The Bible interests me no matter the atheism. The best agnostics and atheists you can find are those who used to soak in the scriptures as former pastors and professors of religion. Or as they say the best way to become an atheist is to know the Bible intimately. I have a need I believe to know what I did not understand about a Book I was supposed to completely understand and probably in my youth thought I did.
"Even the Apostle Paul said in 1Cor 15:32 that If the dead are not raised, x“Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. The book of Ecclesiastes also speaks of the frivolity of life as well without God."
Answer: That's Paul view of perhaps how he'd act if he were free of it all. That is not necessarily how most think about it. I don't act frivolously nor do I think it's all useless. I love that I am stardust. That informs me nicely and I don't mind returning to the stuff of the Universe. "From dust you have come and to dust you shall return" and all that. I like that I am not only in the Universe, but the Universe is in me. I like that I was not born INTO the Universe, but sprang OUT OF it. That's poetic and literally true as well. I'd love there to be an all knowing, all loving, all compassionate God, I think. I'd like to think I would see my nephew, sister, parents and friends again. If Paul can see in a mirror darkly then so can I and so can you. If there is a face to face in the future, great! I think whatever that face is will like me and not be all offended that I did not buy into the cultic mountain god on an obscure mountain in an obscure land over an obscure people thousands of years ago. Lots to say obviously but not believing in Bible God does not make you a drunken sailor.
con't….
ReplyDelete"So again I have to ask, why does Dennis have such an "agenda" against people believing in the Bible and in God? He seems threatened by it, when IN DENNIS' WORLD VIEW , it should just be scene as harmless escapism. "
I am threatened by nothing. I have no agenda. Deviant religion and pastors such as a Dave Pack, Gerald Flurry and Ron Weinland are hardly harmless. Many in the COG ministry hurt people with their mistaken views and belief that they do understand the background of the Bible. If they could just understand that Revelation is not something to base one's life on or to scare the shit out of the members with, that of itself would be progress. I have written of Revelation often and elsewhere.
"I have to wonder about Dennis... that if he had not been laid off, and was still drawing a decent enough salary, if he just would have stayed around the WCG/GCI up and until this current day."
And I suppose I have to wonder about you. I was well on the way out for a couple years before moving on. That's how messy ministerial career transitions work. That is commonly understood in all denominations. I was involved with Dan Barker and his Clergy project which helped men and women in ministry who woke up to the facts of Bible literalism being mistaken etc out of ministry with as little collateral damage to their families as possible. Divorce is almost a give in most cases and I helped some come to realize that and accept that outgrowing ministry was messy, depressing, anxiety ridden and costly. I knw several in the COG's who stay because they have no way out and the way out is more than they can stand. Several of my friends in ministry have killed themselves rather than try to move out and on from the mistake they came to understand as their ministry and beliefs.
I would not be in WCG or any of the splinters. I was offered to join several splinters and even just take my last church on my own with the people. I took Greenville up to 450 people in my time there. Tkach whittled it down to 95 when I left. After I left it dropped to 16 or so and now of course it all history.
Personally in the mess of transition and a recognition that WCG was falling apart with the miracle Jesus performed in the church, as Ron Kelly to me, probably killed my minister brother in law. I did have a time of drinking too much, depression and boatloads of anxiety. I ruined a relationship or two in the recovery and I don't expect you to understand any of this with your glib observations. I could have taken my life a time or two , or at least had the proverbial thoughts that that might help in some weird way. That, however, is a very long term solution to a very short term problem. My mantra was "All fires are destined to go out. Hang in there."
So no, I don't care what anyone believes, but I have a boatload of experience and perhaps providing a little bigger box for some to consider might save them from similar messy transitions or the dangerous consequences of following Dave Pack or Gerald Flurry or listening to anything their "ministers" have to say, as if they knew. They don't.
Does that help or do you really not care what my answers might be as they will never be good enough for you?
con't
ReplyDeleteAnd please remember. This transition was 22 years ago now. Just 4 years short of my time in the ministry. I have had my own therapeutic massage practice now for all that time. I had my own practice for 12 years, taught it in a couple colleges and schools and worked for others before moving here to Portland to unsuccessfully date someone who was badly damaged by the church both growing up and as an adult. I understand first hand what it can do and it was disappointing to me to see it up close and personal. I have a very successful practice here along the Willamette and roam the streets HWA did back in the day when he invested a whole six months in learning all he needed to be who he became. It is an ironic twist for me to drive by where he was baptized, go to the same library he did in the day and drive by the house where GTA was born in Karma Fairy laughing at me and it's ok....
I'm still trying to figure out what affrighted means.
ReplyDelete3:38 you are wasting our time.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI'm still trying to figure out what affrighted means.
It's the past tense of "Askeerd" as in "He was affrighted but now he's only askeered"
Anon 5:50 PM seems not to understand that Muslims believe in God with the same fervency with which Christians believe in God.
ReplyDeleteChristians and Muslims both have hope for their eternal future. By Tonto's argument, both should be satisfied with that hope, and it shouldn't matter that one hope is true and the other false. If truth matters, and we need to reject either Christianity or Islam as false, then why not accept that atheists use this same standard when comparing atheism, Christianity, and Islam? Tonto earlier wrote that it is wrong to attack people's hopes by showing them to be false, but there is no difference between a Christian trying to debunk a Muslim's hope and an atheist trying to debunk a Christian's hope.
It's really sad how Dennis' writings are all about how the bible is wrong. Those who believe in the bible are going to dismiss his theories out right and fellow atheists will all just agree with him.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you start and atheist blog and post there? This blog is about armstronism and the curchea of god.
Dennis you come across as desperate to be relevant by harping on atheist doctrines.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"It's really sad how Dennis' writings are all about how the bible is wrong. Those who believe in the bible are going to dismiss his theories out right and fellow atheists will all just agree with him."
Answer: My writings are about how the Bible is not as simplistic and "easy to be understood" as Church of God types pretend it is. These are not my theories. Anything I post is generally understood theological or historical reality which is something Church of God and Bible literalists come in contact with
"Why don't you start and atheist blog and post there? This blog is about armstronism and the curchea of god."
My postings have everything to do with the Churches of God and how they do or don't view scripture properly as most either mainstream Christian teachers do or those of the higher criticism crowd have come to see. The Churches of God and Herbert Armstrong lived in a very small theological box of their own creation. Knowing that little box well, I feel a bit driven to expand it so people don't get hurt by narrow minded foolishness.
Dennis you come across as desperate to be relevant by harping on atheist doctrines.
Atheists don't have doctrines and I simply wish to be helpful to those passing through the Church of God experience by showing that there is much more to the study of the scriptures than reading them with a loud voice or cobbling them together in ways that make a Dave Pack able, with a straight face to con his faithful with his foolishness. If there ever is a Foolish Shepherd, it is Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry making the Bible mean what it never meant since the 1970's.
What is the most disheartening fact here is that out of 32 comments, not one is actually about the topic of why does Mark have no good ending and John has two, which is a commonly understood to be mysteriously true in theological circles. Comment always go quickly off the rails in a dozen meaningless directions. That is very telling to me as to how threatened many feel when presented with a different way to view scripture than the ones they hold near and dear.
ReplyDelete"Atheists don't have docyrines..."
ReplyDeleteYes they do... It can be summed up by "god doesn't exist".
Dennis you are a world class manipulator. You spend you time talking to religious people online trying to convince them that their religious beliefs are wrong and youe non religious beliefs are correct.
Your behaviour is sneaky and you twist other peoples words just like you accuse cog ministers of doing.
You need to look in the mirror. When I first read your comments and posts it was about mens errors in leadership. And you slowly creeped into anti-religious rants. All under the guise that you are free from the evil HWA.
HWA wrote endless articles espousing his nonsense... You are just like him now. On a mission worth dedicating your life to your own personal truth.
Dear Dennis, I appreciate your posts. I left this whole WCG debackle 40 years ago. I am glad I didn't marry a minister because I am sure then my journey would have been a lot more difficult.
ReplyDeleteFrom my own experience I have found it a lot easier and better to date people who were never in the WCG. I have also noticed that others who left, including some ministers, seem to be a lot happier in second marriages and relationships if they dated people not ever involved in the church. Even people from other churches (more normal and traditional churches) are preferable to exWCGers.
Sadly, Dennis, your own comment at 7:56 screams bloody murder that you've bombed. Seems from a lot of the comments over the past weeks like there's a growing revolt in some quarters against your topics which tend to support non-belief. They quite predictably cause believers to change the subject, crack jokes, or tune out.
ReplyDeleteDennis said >Comment always go quickly off the rails in a dozen meaningless directions. That is very telling to me as to how threatened many feel when presented with a different way to view scripture than the ones they hold near and dear.<
ReplyDeleteNo, its because the subject is not of interest. People are more interested in attacking you.
When I read articles on various sites, then come back to the Bible, I always have the feeling that it was written for people with a few years of primary school education. So no, there is no "pretending" that the bible is "simplistic" and "easy to be understood." It IS simplistic and easy to be understood. No 'truely' educated big people (neo Marxist apostates) are needed to understand the bible. We don't need no stinking mental seeing eye dogs like Dennis Diehl telling us what the bible 'really' means.
ReplyDeleteI can't help notice how Dennis expects us to ignore that the bible is easy to understand (and similar), simply because he says so, the logic fallacy of argument from authority. So yes, he is still a Herb minister, expecting us commoners to blindly believe his pope like edicts. Defacto Pope Dennis Diehl.
Back when I was an agnostic or atheist, and first on the forums and blogs, I was seeing things through rose colored glasses. I had assumed that most of the people still involved in Armstrongism were living in unnecessary fear and misery, and just looking for an opportunity to be free of the whole mess if we could only present them with the right information and opportunity. At that time, I also didn't visualize them as only leaving the WCG (the splinters were just emerging, and we were calling that WCG+), the only logical path seemed to be leaving what I thought was "religious superstition" totally and completely. In the early 2000's, we did not have many Armstrongites joining in for the discussions. It was mostly ex-members. At some point, perhaps about ten years ago, current members became regular participants, defending their beliefs, and refusing to roll over and go away. Eventually, I came to realize that we were dealing with something that is not unlike presenting smokers with a barrage of information regarding adverse health effects of smoking. If you've ever had a relative whom you really wished would stop smoking, you know that harping on it causes people to defend it in their own minds, and perhaps even worsen their habit patterns. That is just plain human nature. It becomes a sacred cow or Linus blanket, and if you value that relative, it is actually best to avoid pushing their buttons in that way.
ReplyDeleteThere is a place for faith and belief, and it has been proven to bring some positives and benefits into peoples' lives. Most religions espouse the same universal good values which have been discovered and practiced to some extent by all of the world's great civilizations. They present moral and ethical imperatives, and provide counterbalance to the relatively small percentage of the people who are causing societal problems and evils.
We can say much about a cult or scam, but in the minds of the participants, that is their religion, and they are involved in it for a reason. Participants don't distinguish it as a cult or scam in their minds. They actually substitute and or equate their founders and leaders with God and Jesus. It does not compute for them when we point out that they are following a man.
For some of the Christians on this site, the absolute worst case scenario would be for Dennis to convince a Christian to become an atheist. First of all, I've never witnessed anything similar to that occurring on a blog or forum. But, even if it did, would that be the end of the world? I don't think so. It has been my experience that in order to come down and normalize from Armstrongism, one almost needs a fallow period or buffer in which religion must be put on the shelf, before one can begin thinking objectively and logically enough to revisit God, Jesus, the Bible, fellow man, and world view. That buffer can require years or decades, and becomes part of our personal journey. Teenagers go through many rites of passage as part of life's authentication processes. We adults are not all that different from teenagers. We're just in a slightly different stage of advancement in the learning process.
BB
Dennis - I found your post interesting - something I will follow up on later - maybe this weekend.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to worry about comments from true believers since true believers know that love towards neighbor is one of the big 2 commandments.
Whether you believe in the Bible or not - this is the most powerful thing we can learn from the Bible - the importance of love for our fellow man and woman.
Lol, with all this GOD IS REAL BIBLE IS TRUE bickering, one would expect the original post to be... well, far less mundane than it is. Its a tiny bit of textual criticism regarding an old puzzle (the Gospel of Marks ending), which ultimately, true, half true or not at all true, does what damage to GOD AND THE BIBLE? None. Geez.
ReplyDeleteChrist said "follow me" 23 times in the new testament. Dennis Diehl by contrast, asks the readers to instead follow him and his atheistic, bible rejecting beliefs. And that's many more than 23 times.
ReplyDeleteThere is really only one Gospel to speak of: the first one. The others were heavily dependent on it! "shocking!" (as Herb would say)
ReplyDeleteWell, not so shocking, because the writer of the first Gospel was also heavily dependent on external sources (the writings of Paul, Hebrew, Greek mythology...) for "inspiration"
But that's allowable because Paul in turn "borrowed" his ideas from the "Jerusalem Pillars"(Peter, James, John...)
It was okay because they all had "005-License to Borrow"
But Paul had even more liberty: "006-License to Change" what he didn't like!
Herbert "W" Armstrong: H.S.D., S.M.P.L., L.T.B. man of letters, university founder...
ReplyDelete(High School Dropout, Six Months Public Library, License To Borrow)
Strangely, his 'Magnum-Opus' The United States & British Commonwealth in Prophecy had no footnotes! Strange for a 'founder of a higher education institution'?
If it had footnotes, and was submitted to other universities for peer review, it would have, first, been flagged for plagiarism (License to Borrow), then made the object of scorn and derision!
HWA was a sinner. Period. He lied and stole from people. Standing on a soap box to declare this truth is worthy of praise. But then to twist the topic into anti god and anti religious propaganda is despicable.
ReplyDelete8.32 PM
ReplyDeleteWhy bother with such biblical detail of who inspire whom, or who borrowed from whom, or who changed what ever. A genuine atheist has better things to do. Which is true of every atheist on this blog except one. Err, supposed atheist.
Later the Pauline/Petrine Messiah cult, aka Christianity, would acquire great power:
ReplyDelete"007-License to Kill"
Middle Ages Survival Guide:
Don't upset, challenge or taunt them, keep a low profile, attend every Sunday...
Josephus was very proud of his Jewish Warrior soldiers (he also admired the Romans for their organization) But his opinion of the Christian religion was that it rendered its Jewish adherents useless as soldiers.
ReplyDeleteBB
"A Discussion With Bart Ehrman - An Atheist. You can google "Bart Ehrman". You will find that he is an atheist that goes by the headliner, 'The Happy Agnostic.' He used to be a Baptist minister."
ReplyDeleteAnon said: "A genuine atheist has better things to do. Which is true of every atheist on this blog except one. Err, supposed atheist."
"Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He began his teaching career at Rutgers University, and joined the faculty in the Department of Religious Studies at UNC in 1988, where he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department.
Professor Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude. An expert on the New Testament and the history of Early Christianity, has written or edited thirty books, numerous scholarly articles, and dozens of book reviews. In addition to works of scholarship, Professor Ehrman has written several textbooks for undergraduate students and trade books for general audiences. Five of his books have been on the New York Times Bestseller list: Misquoting Jesus; God’s Problem; Jesus Interrupted; Forged; and How Jesus Became God. His books have been translated into twenty-seven languages.
Professor of Theology Bio. Bart Ehrman has nothing better to do and millions are grateful evidently
"Professor of Theology Bio. Bart Ehrman has nothing better to do and millions are grateful evidently"
ReplyDeleteI bet he doesn't bicker with Christians on obscure blogs about how they are wrong and should follow him instead.
If "Professor of Theology" and all the other secular titles, pleased God by studying the bible with a teachable attitude, put out effort to live by the ten commandments, put out effect to grow as a Christian, God would answer his personal prayers. He would then be singing a different song. Since he does not have Gods approval, which is damning considering his vast biblical knowledge, why should I respect him, and bother with his writings.
ReplyDeleteLike the kid said, the king has no cloths. The man is a educated fool.
3.55 PM
ReplyDeleteOf course "Professor of Theology Bart Herman doesn't bicker on obscure Mickey Mouse blogs. After all, it was a kid (not the socialised, better educated adults) who pointed out the that king was wearing no cloths. In fact, the adults still insist that the kings cloths look just fine.
Was the king in you guys’ story a rag merchant or something? Cloths? The story we learned in our schools was about an Emperor who had no clothes. The “e” makes the difference between fabrics and wearing apparel.
ReplyDeleteJust struck me as funny that someone who can’t spell “clothes” would call an internationally recognized expert in the field textual criticism “a (sic) educated fool” Oh well, (brace yourself for an ACOG cliche!), not many wise are called!
BB
"Just struck me as funny that someone who can’t spell “clothes” would call an internationally recognized expert in the field textual criticism “a (sic) educated fool” Oh well, (brace yourself for an ACOG cliche!), not many wise are called!"
ReplyDeleteBaker bob you have just equated a simple mistake to motive. Are you like Dennis? Where you have a veneer of civility and decency covering an inner rage against anyone that rejects what you value?
Stating that an education gives you truth or leadership or power is a fallacy. Its an appeal to authority just like HWA used against people.
Also many of us type in touch screens with auto correct that often fails.
Your true colors are coming through Bob.
BB
ReplyDeleteKing/emperor, cloths/clothes. No one likes a grammar Nazi.
You ignore the substance of my comment and harp on grammar instead. Kinda Pharisaic, no?
'Internationally recognised expert?' No wonder you recently called Herb Mr Armstrong. You should have outgrow argument from authority by now. Especially after being intellectually victimized by the 'recognised experts' in Herbs church. It appears that Dennis isn't wasting his time by trying to hook into this.
There was no substance to your original post, 2:27.
DeleteIt is the intellectuals who generally recognize and reject bogus authority. This is why so many of them were murdered and imprisoned in the Bolshevik Revolution in the early 1900s, and why Herbie patterned his church as an anti-intellectual, authoritarian cult.
In one’s quest for knowledge, it is common or logical sense to look to the educated for knowledge from their specific fields. Listen to your accountant when he advises you regarding your taxes, but go to your cardiologist for help with your heart murmer. Most laymen don’t have sufficient education or intellect to place themselves above either, but an anti-intellectual theologian insists that his followers listen to himself as opposed to either, and the dumb sheep who don’t know how to turn off “auto-correct” listen to him rather than those who really know.
By the way, I’ve encountered independent ACOGgers on the forums and blogs who quite surprisingly like Bart Ehrman, and occasionally use his fund of knowledge in support of their faith. Bart is not a nickname for blind Bartimaeus. There are many things which he does get right. This is where discernment becomes such a valuable skill. Christianity is at it’s best in an environment of freedom, not authoritarian legalism. I first became aware of Bart from Gavin Rumney many years ago. I exercise my freedom by consulting Bart occasionally as a reference, as one might an encyclopedia or dictionary, but not as a personal guru.
As for Dennis? If we were face to face, or on the telephone, he and I would most likely be able to have some good conversation about the weather, people we once both knew, or other non-controversial topics. But, I generally treat people as I treat Jehovah’s Witnesses when the conversation trends towards the stuff they harp on.
BB
BB
ReplyDeleteIt's true that there is complexity in argument from authority. We can learn from experts in various fields. But with religion and morality, it's different. Basically no one can be trusted because of the human proclivity of creating 'alternate realities' (some combination of truth and error) which makes them feel comfortable. Plus people are murderously envious of people succeeding in areas where they have failed.
I've read the Wikipedia article about Bart. It's what I expected. As I said, God hasn't answered his prayers, otherwise he would not be a 'agnostic atheist.' I can't help noticing his critics accusation of "the vast maturity of his textual variations are minor, but (he) makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem..' He is also accused of 'prone to profound confusion, botched readings and scholarly fictions.'
He seems like a souped up Dennis Diehl with the accusation of 'constantly pressing an attack on their long held beliefs about God, Jesus and the bible.'
The bible is written in simple language with frequent repetition. So no middle men, 'mental seeing eye dogs' such as Dennis Diehl or Bart Ehrman are neccesary.
I have read several books on abusive cult Christianity, which I found helpful. There is merit in some of these books.
Anon at 12:12 PM, you maintain that the Bible is so simple to read that nobody needs "middle men" to understand it.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that Bible translators have always tried to make the text readable for as many people as possible. They have used basic vocabulary and uncomplicated grammatical structures. So most of us can make some sort of sense out of most sentences. But if reading the Bible were actually as simple as you make it out to be, and if understanding individual sentences were all it took to understand the whole message, everyone would agree about what it says, and all Christians would belong to the same denomination.
Just one catchy little example of how a reader can go wrong without help:
Song of Solomon 2:12 (KJV)
"The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land. . . ."
I'm sure you know what that verse refers to, and yet you recognize that it must sound extremely odd to another reader whose knowledge of early 17th century English is less sophisticated than yours. Each of you has made good grammatical sense out of the sentence, but for the other guy the part about a turtle's voice is nonsensical. If the difference had any doctrinal implications, it might lead to the formation of a new sect.
The message may be simple, but the verification process can be extremely complex, especially for people who spent years or decades having been victimized by the Armstrong scam.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do experience answered prayer on a nearly daily basis. God's answers are simple. Whatever you ask gets a simple yes or no, although for some people it all becomes muddied by their own confirmation bias, which is unfortunately a part of the human condition. There is also a very fine line between answered prayer and imagination.
I've also come to realize that no matter who gives expert witness testimony, the other side will always attempt to impeach that testimony, as dramatically as possible. Usually there is a measure of truth to either side of an argument, and you have to do some distilling to get past the mixture of truth and error.
BB
Retired Prof and BB
ReplyDeleteIn the old testament, God on multiple occasions destroyed and punished nations. This includes the flood and God eventually sending Israel and Judah into slavery. All they had was the ten commandments, and God believed this sufficient to hold them accountable for their actions. There were no middle men with PHDs in theology needed, otherwise God would have sent them, and not punished them for their sins.
The problem then as now, is that people do not act on the limited understanding that they have. If sects were to arise, differences in doctrine would not be 'truly' significant. Eg, whether God is made of 2 or 3 persons does not impact peoples day to day life. Splits occur in churches because of abuse, and the theological differences are usually the pretext given.
Hence when a bible 'savior' such as Bart or a Dennis appears, who are "constantly pressing their attack on their long held (Christian) beliefs about God, Jesus and the bible," they are unnecessary and can be safely avoided. We know that there are a category of people who should be avoided in everyday life. This is also true theologically. This "we can learn something from them" is playing with fire. There are other sincere theologians who challenge church lies and distortion, yet are not out to destroy Christians faith. It's these peoples writings that should be considered.
My mind works differently from that. In everyday life, in sales situations, I need to know the features and advantages of my competitors' products, what they say about their product, and what they are saying about mine. Without that information, I'm totally lost in terms of being able to answer, respond appropriately, and maintain credibility. There is an old saying about keeping your adversaries close to you. I believe that has considerable merit.
ReplyDeleteOver the past months, I've watched the resistance build to Dennis's repeats. He is becoming increasingly frustrated that readers' responses to his articles do not address the core issues which he raises. Although he shares none of the basic personality traits with Bob Thiel or Dave Pack, his frustration with lack of reception is not dissimilar to theirs. His determination in face of this is also very similar to theirs, meaning that he's not going to simply dry up and blow away. However, like Bob and Dave, he's also not going to be winning converts.
My advice to you is that if you feel that Dennis has power to destroy faith, if you actually take his materials that seriously, then ignore his posts. From what I'm reading in the general comments, even the people who use crappy grammar, know nothing of upper and lower case letters, and can't spell or punctuate, are doggedly defending their beliefs and points of view.
BB
Baker bob why are you staring to get personal and atracking people? It seems you frequently step outside the bounds of religious discussion for the express purpose of making others look simple and stupid while making yourself appear intelligent and educated.
ReplyDeleteThese are the same tactics used by HWA to quell decent. You spend more time on these boards than Dennis does, and your personal attacks betray your motives.
Anon 11:58, BB did not attack you (or whoever you are defending). He explained the difference between your approach and his; he did not demand you adopt his. When he did give you advice, it was not phrased to imply that you should abandon your approach, but to recommend a way for you to preserve your approach without too much mental discomfort. A friendly thing to do, not a hostile one.
ReplyDeleteWho did I attack? And, how? Not Dennis. I simply analyzed his stats and the sentiments expressed in his posts.
ReplyDeleteOops, just noticed at least 5 examples of fracturing the English language in your attack. I suppose you thought I was attacking you.
BB