TheInvisibleDan

Garth, I also stated in the paragraph immediately following: The orthodox Christianities that won out over their gnostic competitors combined the OT and NT "gods" into the same deity. The "Stranger" or "alien god" of the gnostics - which had little if nothing to do with the creation of the world - became transformed and "established" into the Creator of the world, thereby preserving the popular attitude in Greek and Roman culture of the providence/authority/ perfection of creation. One needs to bear in mind that with ancient Christians, we're dealing with diverse movements, which were hardly homogenous in their ideas. Garth, When you say "the Christian Church", what do you mean or assume by that? The Catholic Church at Rome? The Marcionite Church (presumedly based at Sinop)? Or any other number of ancient Christian movements we may add to this list, including that behind the recently published "Gospel of Judas"? Danny

These types of debates never fail to make me wonder anew the reasoning why early Christians were regarded throughout the Roman empire as akin to "athiests". This would be especially understandable if elements of "gnostic" ideas comprised the make-up of a many early Christian movements, which were an assault upon the deeply engrained Roman and Greek ideas of a perfect and perfectly ordered "cosmos" - wherein one believed that one's lot or destiny in life - whether rich or poor, male or female, free or slave, race, etc. was divinely pre-determined in the universe by the powers that be throughout all creation. But then Christians appeared claiming otherwise; overthrowing such cherished beliefs. No. This creation no longer controls us. No, the powers that be are overthrown by a greater power than they - a power unknown to this world. No, - to hell with your gods - we no longer will be governed by them nor the laws of their universe. "This world is not our home, we're just a passing through..." I think much of this dramatic effect eventually became watered down in orthodox Christianities, when such ideas offensive to the Roman citizenship at large became toned down for public consumption. It's interesting how expressions concerning the topic of creation characteritically pre-occupied a many gnostic documents, as with the recent publicised "Gospel of Judas". Perhaps one indication of a larger public debate that transpired in that era. Early Christians did not believe in the gods of the Roman empire = the gods of the universe. They were regarded as athiests. Danny

Goey: A very thorough and enjoyable post Goey. I can't really think at the moment of other links to add - much of the material I've read on the topic has been offline. However, I don't think anyone can go wrong by going to any search engine and typing into the search box "authorship of Pastoral Epistles", which will bring up an entire spectrum of possibilities. CM: I think it's possible, though it seems to me a more compelling case (perhaps influenced in no small part by even past Way views on the topic) that Ephesians/Colossians represents a radical development of Pauline ideas, or, to bring up the theory Goey mentioned, that those writings might have been penned by an "amanuensis" to Paul. The style of Ephesians and Colossians (esp. the long, running sentences of Eph.) also have peculiar grammatical differences from the largely uncontested Pauline material of Romans/1 & 2 Corinthians/ Galatians. Of course the possibility remains that these too could have been penned by a writer (or writers) other than Paul after his death - but in my opinion, by someone who had a better grasp (or a different understanding, if you will) of Pauline ideas than the writer(s) behind the Pastorial material. One may consider the possibility of the "deutero-Pauline" material as having originally come from different "schools" of "camps" (rival camps?) of Pauline interpreters. Perhaps Eph./Col. originated in circles more open to gnostic ideas than from whence emerged the Pastoral material. [ though we must also be aware of the theories that Paul used "gnostic" language to battle "[proto]gnostic" opponents in Eph. Col. - whereas another argument can be made that the original gnostic leanings of Eph./Col. were reworked (toned down) by orthodox opponents to render them suitable to their theology and canon]. It certainly is interesting to contemplate the different theories out there, and to explore the process these writings may have undergone in those early centuries. I don't think any of the material attributed to Paul - whether orthodox or gnostic - ought be considered akin to a carbon duplicate transmitted from the first century. These writings have a fascinating, largely unknown history behind them, for which we have little to lose in attempting to reconstruct their development. Without trying, we'll never know. Danny

"minister to him"? Funny, but in my experience I've never heard anyone else outside of the Way International use that expression (though perhaps others here have). hmmm...oh well. Entertaining posts anyways. Danny

And they're very good and valid approaches. I agree. We all are indeed each biased, and such can "get in the way" of one's "understanding". Any information picked up along the way is bound to contribute toward the shaping of one's opinions. And it can be all the more interesting when one changes from one postion to another. I accepted the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles for many years with very little question. If however, one sought to explore and question the authorship or authenticity of the Pastoral epistles, how might one attempt it in an objective manner? Well, there's the question of style and grammar. From a literary question, do the Pastoral epistles resemble those oft uncontested epistles attributed to Paul ( Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians)? What results from even a cursory examination and comparison of the Pastorals with the uncontested material? What similarities do they share in words and expressions - and what differences? Does one get the general impression or "feel" that it is the same author behind all this material? We may - if only temporarily - suspend the question of theology in this part of the examination (though ultimately I wouldn't recommend it when we consider further possible reasons behind their writing). In fact, the earliest study to call into question the authorship of the Pastoral epistles did so primarily on the basis of Greek grammar and syntax (P.N. Harrison, "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles"). A more recent study is Kenneth J. Neumann's "The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis" (SBL Dissertation Series 120, 1990 SBL). Admittedly, such studies tend to make for ponderous reading (lol), but they can be helpful in consulting when weighing the results of ones observations. If one reaches a position of questioning the claim of Pauline authorhip on the basis of style, what other questions will we allow ourselves? Do the doctrinal expressions and ideas really ring with those we find in earlier material attributed to Paul? What possible reasons would one under the pseudonym of "Paul" have had for penning such material to begin with? What historical circumstances may have surrounded the creation of this material? Are there cases in history of the practice of pseudonymous writings, whether under the name of Paul or anyone else For instance, consider the example you raised: With which I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree. I also think it does specifically refer to OT scripture. But ask yourself the question: what could have compelled the writer to even state this? Was there someone (or many others) at the time stating contrary to that position, that the OT was not "God-breathed", and "beneficial"? Did they deny that the OT was useful for Christians? What folks could these have been? What may one gather from history? To my observation (thus far, at least), the gnostics and the marcionites are striking candidates there. And quite consistent when considering other details about those whom the writer is warning: 1 Tim. 4:3 "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created..." (what group(s) do we know from history had abstained from marriage and meats?) of course, it was important for the writer to add "which God hath created" (= the Creator god denied by Marcion and the gnostics) - because naturally, "every creation of God is good" - but what person or group was out and about denying such? These appear to me such plain - to the point of banal - statements for the writer to make. If there are other possible (more appropriate) "candidates" besides those which meet the questions which I've raised, I would be quite interested in learning about them. In the end, Goey, I think you're right. Neither I nor anyone else can "convince" or "prove" or "disprove" a position to the satisfaction of another, especially if their position derives primarily from that of "the faith". :) Danny

CK appears to subscribe to the assumption that a many of us at one time held - that the Bible by itself speaks for itself. I recall during my WOW year (82-83) making posters for each session of the "foundational" class we were running. For the session on "The Bible Interprets Itself", I copiled an illustration presenting an open Bible with a cartoon balloon arising from a verse, which read "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation...". Corny, but it was quite reflective of what I believed at the time. But I also had enough common sense at the time to NOT insert the mediatorship of a tiny floating Wierwille head in-between the open Bible and the cartoon balloon magnifying the passage. I took seriously the "ideal" that the purpose of the PFAL class was to teach one how to study the Bible for themselves, despite its many errors and shortcomings. Apparently this concept became lost somewhere. But the notion of enabling and empowering each individual to research the scriptures for themselves in order to develop, prove (or disprove) concepts on their own without requiring another human intermediary still has much going for it, IMHO. I think it is true to a considerable degree what Wierwille said - that one cannot go beyond what one is taught. But I would add - including Wierwille's teachings, if one confines themselves to such. There are vast treasures in libraries throughout the country waiting to be mined. What a shame that those who already have "all the answers" in one brief, 35-hour class deprive themselves for no good reason. Interestingly, today was my last day on an old job, before beginning a new job this coming Moday with a fortune 500 company which will pay me so much more than I've been making at the old job (s). My old employers tried to hang onto me, by offering a couple more dollars an hour, with the argument "Why change jobs? You already know how to do in this one, yet you'll have to go through all the trouble of learning the other one, and driving a little further" "But I don't mind learning new things and besides, the new job pays more." Danny

Socks, (lol) I think your bar joke sums it all up well. Something got lost in the "translation" somewhere ...or the interpretation. Oh well. so it goes with these forums sometimes. Danny

Sir Guess, Very cool thoughts on the progressive 'nature' (for lack of a better word at the moment) of the "manifestations". You have such a gift for words. Danny

Let me further try to clarify why I take a shot at the Pastorals every opportunity they are raised. For one, I think the ideas contained therein comprised so much of the "umpf!" or "authority" underlying Wierwille's "Biblatry" theology. Without this material, I don't believe Wierwille or his organization could have gone as far with the sway that they had captivated over so many for so long. Certainly the belief in the "God-breathed Word" on the basis of this material is not unique to the Way. But I tend to view the Way organization and experiences as a microcosmic example of what can occur when folks take too much for granted that these old documents contain irrefutable truth of which cannot thus be contested. Wherever one may raise legitimate question concerning any matter, there's "Timothy" or "Titus" there to provide fodder against anyone raising what may be conveniently termed as "foolish questions". It is a device tailored to deliberately suppress inquiry, and to dissuade people against hanging out with others who happened to think differently from themselves. It did so in its original function - and continues to do so even today. CES used to have a saying in their "Dialogue" or "Sower" mags - to the effect of "Freedom through Scriptural Accuracy" - but the flipside of this coin oft receives not as much attention: "Freedom from Scriptural Tyranny". The freedom of thought that may be acquired there, in my opinion, is so much more beneficial. People no longer need condemn themselves for not submitting to representatives of a paper god, or better yet - remain enslaved to the paper god itself. If one takes away the infallible authority from the Bible, then what happens to its leaders? How much sooner might many have left the Way, had they actually been "researchers", and learned what the majority of students and professors in Biblical literature outside the old gigantic cult have known the past century and a half? Even those who do not reach or share my views or conclusions may agree with me - there is so much more to this ancient literature than what the Way even barely scratched - we had - and still have - a lot of "catching up" to do with becoming familiar with ideas and material to which we were previously "shut out" by our old Way "schoolmaster", favoring to feed us within our doctrinal fortress rehashed Bullinger/Stiles/Leonard. If one thinks that the only alternatives to not believing in a "god-breathed" Bible are agnosticism and athiesm, they're woefully wrong. My personal faith -such as it is - cannot be narrowed down to a convenient chart on a wall. And I suspect others are also discovering the same. And I also think critical research is no less a "spiritual" endeavor especially when what may result is freedom from a preconceived doctrine which has done so much to actually stifle rather than encourage one's personal path. I think the notion of a god-breathed word is one such stumblingblock. Danny

"Jesus Christ Superstar" was a cool album, and still is. Made quite an impression on me in my Columbian Gold daze. I also have fond Easter memories of watching "Barabbas" on the tv while snarfing down easter eggs and candy. :) Danny

Who is it that once said (to the effect): "Sacred cows make for the tastiest hamburgers"

It's funny Socks, but you were furthest from my mind when I wrote my comments (sorry, I walked into this bar kind of late the other night). I was specifically reacting to those who responded (rather emphatically, I might add) to my posting to the effect that people needed to loosen up in the "sense of humor" department. I'm done apologizing for every jot or tittle I raise in this forum, as I have seemingly done in the past. Screw you guys. Danny

Any number of standard, critical New Testament introductions from the 20th century to the present will do more thoroughly than I desire to attempt here ( both Goodspeed's and Feine-Behm-Kummel's "Introduction to the New Testament"; Ehrman's "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings", to list a few); or dictionary, such as "The Oxford Companion to the Bible". Even these studies raise the issue of the distinctly anti-marcionite/anti-gnostic polemic contained therein, betraying its approx. era of writing (ranging from the end of the first to the mid second century). Even the title to Marcion's lost work "Antithesis" is given a nod therein. The only ones in the dark about this (I dare call it) "common knowledge" are those who continue to believe that the "Word of God" (that is - the orthodox version thereof, in contrast to other versions in circulation at the time the Pastoral epistles were written) is "God-breathed", infallible and therefore, inarguable. Don't ask stupid questions . Your leaders are appointed by God himself - do what they tell you. Stay away from those possessed heretics (including those veggies who don't marry, and get carried away with so-called "Antithesis"). Gimme a break. The more one becomes aware of the controversies of the 2nd century era, namely, between the various Christian movements - the more transparent certain material in our canonical New Testaments will become -one will recognize the actual reasons for their presence. I hope some will consider examining for themselves the works I have cited above. a lynching by you? a lynching by me? a lynching by who? (lol). I'll have very little time for it over the next coupla weeks - I start training for a new job on Monday. In the meantime, there's always my website for anyone interested in the topic of Marcion. Danny

Neither "1 Timothy" or "Titus" were written by the Apostle Paul. You no longer need remain enslaved to this "deutero-Pauline" fictitious material. Danny

I think Way teaching missed the critical connection of "manifestations"/ "gifts" to "angels", which connection appears quite consistent throughout the Pauline/Qumran/Pseudepigrapha/Apocryphal material. E. Earle Ellis (as well as Otto Everling before him) did studies exploring the relationship between the charismatic "gifts" and the "servant" angelic-beings thought to be provided as the sources behind these various powers. In other words (perhaps at the risk of oversimplification), each Christian had nine angels/spirits appointed to him/her as their "servants", or "ministering angels". I've often wondered if these "angels" (or this particular "class") comprised the "spoil" or "booty" of those conquered through Christ's accomplishments on the cross. Were these angels previously hostile to mankind, now "captives" subjected to the service of mankind? There are other possibilites of course. It is interesting to explore what role angels played having to do with the charismatic gifts (how this was precisely understood back then is open to question). Out of all the 20th century charismatic preachers I've read about, William Branham stands out in particular, for his emphasis on the relationship of angels to "gifts". His mindset there appears eerily close to the expressions observed in the ancient literature mentioned above, material which I doubt he had exposure. Danny

lol! Danny

Knowing my father, he probably would have laughed too. Don't you uptight zealots have a demonstration to attend overseas with a few angry Muslims? Don't forget your burkhas... Danny

You guys are really being way too stuffy in "the sense of humor" department. Mark, perhaps the misfire with your whacky pic was that you forgot the Lincoln hat, as well as forgetting to apply a couple of other points significant or peculiar to Way cosmology. Let's try again... That really is Abraham Lincoln's hat, from the Smithsonian...

While in the waiting room of the doctor with whom my wife had an appointment, I read the following on the Gospel of Judas in a copy of "Time" magazine a couple months old, which I thought was interesting: "...the rumor of its publication has stirred intriguing discussion. Queried by the newspaper La Stampa , Vatican historian Monsignor Walter Brandmuller noted that the tractate might shed light on early Christianity even if the text had eventually been found heretical. Vittorio Messori, a layman who has co-writtten books with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI (when he was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is more effusive. "Jesus' words about Judas ["It would have been good for that man if he had not been born"] are tough," he told TIME. But "Judas wasn't guilty. He was necessary. Somebody had to betray Jesus. Judas was the victim of a design bigger than himself." (p.51, TIME, feb.27, 2006) Danny

Goey, I'm glad you're also enjoying the Gospel of Judas. It really is extremely fascinating. Marcion was my introduction to the subject of the formation of the New Testament canon. I agree with Adolf von Harnack - there is perhaps "no better introduction". If the latter possibility be considered - that orthodoxy settled their canon for "fear of heresies..." and/or "the perceived need to control and establish doctrine", how much ought we take for granted their verdict against Marcion, as one who deleted and cut out material from his version of the NT? Or to apply Mark's statement here: "Consider the source". Information we derive on Marcion that comes from his opponents, whose efforts were to depict their rival in the worst possible way. If we assume Marcion applied his editorial hand to the NT material - and I think he most certainly did in some way- can we safely assume any less with the "orthodox" side? I certainly cannot speak for everyone on the question of "authority" when it comes to which "canon" one would choose - but I do find Marcion's canon quite interesting, if only for the possibility that it may well indeed preserve an earlier form of the Pauline epistles (with or w/o Marcionite "embellishments"). I would think every serious Christian and scholar would take interest in this sort of thing, but then again, not everyone takes an interest in the "Theremin" either (lol). Goey, if the opportunity presented itself, -would you look at an earlier form -or version - of texts attributed to the apostle Paul? I bet wild horses wouldn't be able hold you back! I think with Marcion's canon, we are presented this very possibility and opportunity. For that reason I think Marcion's Bible is well worth examining. Yep (lol). Danny

While on the topic concerning the death of Judas, about 3 years ago I worked on editing a thesis for a gentleman in Canada (still unpublished), in which he cited what he viewed as problems with the canonical account, in the process, citing other versions of how Judas died. I quote only a couple snippets here from his interesting work: Danny

In that light then, I don't find it particularly strange that a ship-owner/sea captain (Marcion) compiled and circulated the earliest known New Testament canon. I do find find the "mariner" motifs in the Catholic tradition quite interesting on that account, the symbolism with the earliest crosses being represented by anchors, the Church, a ship, and of course the well-known fish symbol. I've always felt that the success behind the spread of Christianity was that it enjoyed popularity amongst the occupations of sea merchants (in much the same way Mithraism moved among those in the Roman military). Yet there existed other Christian traditions that inform us otherwise. Yes, Roman Catholicism is quite close. Danny

(lol) That's even better.

Some some now, Way teaching here is a "False Education Appearing Real"...taught by even a "False Educator Appearing Real"... "F.E.A.R." can stand for so many things. :)

On the surface, it's easy to see how many today may be offended by the notion of the hopeless, "unrighteous" figures of the Old Testament becoming the subjects of salvation (and veneration). Did these gnostic movements go to the extreme in this regard? Well, considering that the Pauline material is attributed to one depicted as a former persecutor and murderer, one indeed has to wonder. A former murderer being the author of letters which form a considerable body of our Christian canon? - how crazy and weird is that? :blink: It is perhaps along these lines - of unrighteous figures becoming the recipients of God's grace and salvation - of figures without hope and without God in the world -that might enable us to understand the gnostics better. As Jesus Himself had stated: "The healthy have no need of a physician". Which might suffice even without the attached "interpretation" tossed in for good measure, though it appears undoubtably correct. A savior who came into the world not to "save" the "righteous" -but "sinners". How weird is that? Danny