TheInvisibleDan

Just tried going onto this chat thing but I was speaking to myself. :blink: Danny

I ran into this a few years ago. You might try this: Click on your Windows "Volume Control" > "Options" > "Properties" and in the properties box, you'll be given the choice of "Adjust Volume" for "Playback" or "Recording"...click on "Recording" and then "OK". Then open up the recording prog that you"re going to use to record your cassettes. Also, be certain to select "line" (or "line in") for your recording and not "mic". Danny

My wife told me once the actor most likely to play me: Nicholas Cage with his "Raising Arizona" doo. :blink:

Socks, I had originally finished it with tung oil, and it is probably long overdue for a few more coats. Omigosh, go for the "Telecaster" kit! You won't regret it. It's about the same price I paid for a Paia Theremin kit (for anyone wondering what the heck is a "Theremin", http://www.thereminworld.com/article.asp?id=17 ). I just finished putting together the circuit board, and am now designing a cabinet and some antennae for it. It will be interesting to finally hear what this thing sounds like, and how it plays. Danny

Thanks Socks. Yes, I still have it! I need to redo the wiring and do a bit more finishing work, now that I'm slightly older (and perhaps somewhat wiser). As soon as I finish building the Theremin I've been working on the past month. And, providing my marriage survives my latest power tool purchases (I just bought my first router & a few other things) as well as others I have in mind (drill press, tablesaw, new variable jigsaw, sundry clamps). God, how I miss that old high school woodshop! Danny

1978 vintage 'Mahar-Guitar" (a.k.a., "The Mahogany Goose" which made its brief flight circ.1980). with a set of 1957 Les Paul pickups ($75). A second hand set of Grotsch (sp?) tuners ($20). And a cheesy imitation Rikenbacher pickguard (free). It was my high school woodshop project (the fuzzy pics do it justice). Glad I'm upgrading my wood tools. :) Danny

"Troglodyte"...with an anal retentive dash of Joan Crawford.

God.

I recall John Hendricks from 1983-84 in Charlotte NC and regarded him then a genuinely nice guy. Don't know much about the status of his group after he passed away awhile ago. Danny

And oddly enough, excluding the notion of one in Christ being "neither male nor female"...which makes me wonder how much (if at all) this may have shaped ideas in early Christianity concerning celibacy and becoming "eunuchs" worthy of the Kingdom of God...or even docetic notions (yes, we appear as such and such in the flesh but we're really not as we seem...). Seems I recall a few years ago seeing a book listed to the effect, "Was Jesus a Woman" but the exact title & author escapes me at the moment. Danny

Yeah, I found out that I had all that fun, middle-aged stuff a few months ago - high cholesterol, high blood pressure. Runs in my family. And so do heart attacks and strokes (my grandfather whom I never met, more or less became a vegetable for the remainder of his life; my great grandmother had a heart attack at home and experienced one of those weird out-of-body experiences). So I take lisinprol for my blood pressure every day and (less frequently - maybe every two or three days) "lovastatin" for the grease flowing through the bloodstream. Excy, until you do achieve that certain, ultimate "right-eating" Nirvana by climbing to the top of the organic food pyramid and all that other idealistic happy horsecrap (yeah yeah yeah, such as I oft hear from my older, flakey, hypochondriac "organic health nut" sister, who ironically complains more about what is and isn't transpiring in her body than any other person I know - don't be a fool - take the blood pressure meds prescribed and see how it goes. My mother has been taking 'em for years and though a bit frail at 82, she's still kickin' and sharp as a tack. But it's doubtful she would be without the meds, considering the health history of my weird family tree. Danny

ROTFLMAO! With all that guzzling down of a diversity of "spirits" that would certainly render them "Strong in the Stench".

Yeah, so much for that "unconditional," neverending love, forgiveness and "Peace Train" crap.

What was Leonard's claim? I suppose a snowstorm, imaginary or otherwise, wouldn't have impressed too many folks living in Canada. Danny

On the subject of the epistle of II Peter, Bart Ehrman ("The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings", p.421) writes: "For a variety of reasons, there is less debate about the authorship of 2 Peter than any other pseudepigraphon in the New Testament. The vast majority of critical scholars agree that whoever wrote it, it was not Jesus' disciple Simon Peter...the writing style of the book is so radically different from that of 1 Peter that linguists are virtually unanimous in thinking that if Simon Peter was responsible for the former book, he could not have written this one. Even more to the point, a major portion of this letter has been taken over from the book of Jude and incorporated into chapter 2. If Jude can be dated near the end of the first century, 2 Peter must be somewhat later...There is not a solitary reference to it until around 220 C.E., and it does not appear to have been widely circulated for at least another century after that. It was no doubt included in the canon because the orthodox fathers of the fourth century accepted the claims of its author to be Peter, and because it served their purposes in opposing those who promote false teaching." Of interest, the work was not included in the earlier copies of the Syriac Pe$*@!ta canon (along with the epistles of 2 & 3 John, Jude, and even Revelation). Danny

Whitedove, This was not "his theory" -but my own opinion that you quoted from my post. I hope you don't allow my personal opinion get in the way of a fine read. But what are the "records of the life of Jesus" separated from their historical social, economic and political context ? Herzog's book does a fine job toward reconstructing the cultural, social and economic context at the time of Jesus, in an attempt to shed further understanding on His parables. It's immensely fruitful to understand what life was like for those who listened to Jesus. To put yourself in their sandals (or at least for those who had something to wear on their feet).His purpose "not to bring about social change", being a mere "byproduct"? That's hardly the case when reviewing Jesus' edicts in Luke ( Lk.6:20ff), where we encounter such expressions of especial concern with "social" relations between human beings, as "Blessed are the poor...Blessed are those hungering now...woe to you who are rich...love your enemies...be pitiful as your Father is also pitiful, etc.; not to overlook the fact that He communed with those oft regarded the outcasts of society (in many cases, those rejected by the various forms and movements of Judaism at the time, - Mark - as unworthy of being "in the presence of Yahweh" and of his "holy angels" because they were sick, blind, lame, deaf, frail, or even menstruating (see "Jesus, Table-Fellowship and Qumran" by James D. G. Dunn, in "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls", J. Charlesworth, editor). Contrast Leviticus 21:17-24, the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 7.4-6; 4QCDb; 11QTemple 45.12-14) with Luke 14:12-21. Does "the word of God" = the Bible here necessarily? Not to overlook the peculiarity of this section which sets the scene but doesn't deliver the goods in providing any specific record of what He precisely taught there. It's incomplete not to mention pointless in its present form. But this may have been the original beginning to Jesus' "Sermon by the Shore", after which should follow Luke 5:20ff. But that's only my theory for now. And how is His primary spiritual point or wish ultimately manifested or translated outside of how human beings are to treat one another, react to one another,...?"Let Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven..."? It's too bad the Way didn't learn this simple lesson, outside of all their vast, fat-headed gnosis. Unfortunately, Bullinger himself is dead, and you have an entire century of research and studies that he never had available to him. But you're in a position to learn far more than what Bullinger knew without even breaking a sweat at that, by merely visiting your local libraries, or ordering a couple books from an online bookstore. As for all the lip service the Way gave to cultural "orientalisms" and figures of speech and all that, Herzog's work succeeds in seemingly accomplishing and even surpassing what Lamsa and Pillai and others had only talked about. Danny

Hi White Dove! But Herzog's statement here bears repeating: "The parable is not a story about abstract social types but a story about representatives of two social classes, the urban elites and the desperate expendables, those who nearly had everything and those who had almost nothing. " Jesus' primary point was not one of bringing attention to "The Word of God" and a doctrine of the resurrection - rather, He may have been using "The Word of God" and "the doctrine" of the resurrection to illustrate and address the pressing social situation of His day and his world, namely, the chasm between rich and poor. The arrogance of the rich man and his complacency of his wealth and privilege is apparent even while he is in Hades - he tells Abraham to have poor Lazarus "do this", have Lazarus "do that" - as if he still occupied a class above Lazarus(!) The chasm between rich and poor was not an abstract in Jesus' day! From the back cover description of Herzog's work: "In this ground-breaking book, William Herzog shows that the focus of the parables was not a vision of the glory of the reign of God but on the gory details of how oppression served the interests of the ruling class. The parables were a form of social analysis, as well as theological reflection...He draws upon an analysis of the social setting of the parables, inclusing the macrosociology of advanced agrarian societies, the characteristics of bureaucratic and aristocratic empires, the nature of Mediterranean societies, the way economies worked in antiquity, peasant studies, the nature of village life and of politics and patron-client relations in the ancient world, and the role and meaning of legal systems. In doing so, he demonstrates that the parables were not just earthly stories with heavenly meanings but earthy stories with heavy meanings." For all that, it's not a very difficult book to read (no Hebrew or Greek mumbo-jumbo to swim through). All too often we're accustomed to interpreting Jesus' parables according to whatever "theology" one holds- but to interpret it against "real life" of the time is an extraordinary step! As I said in an earlier post on another thread - ultimately it's not theology or "faith" which convinces me as to the historicity of Jesus - not the Marcionites, not the Catholics, not the Wayfers, - not Romans 1:1-4 or Romans 10:9 or some long-winded creed from one group or another -it's the parables themselves. Danny

It's unfortunate that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) is only employed in these "life-after-death" discussions, because there's more in that parable that concerned the present situation in first century Palestine (and certainly can still apply today). William R. Herzog, in a chapter entitled "The Unbridgeable Chasm" (from Parables as Subversive Speech, p.128): "The parable is not a story about abstract social types but a story about representatives of two social classes, the urban elites and the desperate expendables, those who nearly had everything and those who had almost nothing. In this case, wealth may indeed lead to Hades, for such wealth could be obtained only by the systematic exploitation of the poor, and it could be maintained only by their continual oppression. The urban elites who lived at the expense of the poor twisted the Torah and Temple to serve their ends. They read the Prophets for their comfort and Moses to study the purities lest they should become unclean. Their wealth and its use in conspicuous consumption, their rapacious greed and its extraction of any surplus from the poor, their pursuit of power and privilege with its accompanying suppression of the people of the land, all these characteristics of the rich man's class reveal that its wealth is no sign of blessing but a curse on the land. The rich man is not overtly condemned for his wealth, and the parable probably assumes that he is pious and Torah-observant because those were the characteristics of the ruling elites in Jerusalem and other urban areas. But his fate after death and his subsequent refusal to perceive Lazarus as kin describe the nearly insurmountable barriers erected by his class and its privilege." There is so much more detail in this chapter to which I can't do justice without violating the "fair use" law concerning copyrighted material; please do yourselves a favor - get this fantastic book! It presents a stunning glimpse into another dimension to Jesus' expressions that concerned the grave inequalities of His day - He was crucified as much for the content of His parables - if not more- as anything else He uttered. Danny

I suspect that may well be the case here; the names do sound a tad Greek for that part of the world. An interesting piece of trivia nonetheless. The earliest fragments of the "Diatessaron" are passed down to us primarily through St. Ephraem's commentary (through Armenian and Syriac copies) on that work. There are some later texts of the Diatessaron preserved in Persian and Arabic. Danny

Yeah, I've gotten a lot of those fake "paypals" ones too, along with stuff from all the wealthy folks living in Nigeria desperate to give away their riches (lol). Danny

According to "The Acts of Pilate" (a work possibly known by Justin Martyr, and known by Tertullian and Epiphanius) , the names of the "malefactors" crucified with Christ are even given (p.459, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. I, W. Schneemelcher): "...And let Dysmas and Gestas, the two malefactors, be crucified with you" (Ch.x) And Jesus went out from the praetorium, and the two malefactors with him. And when they came to the place, they stripped him and girded him with a linen cloth and put a crown of thorns on his head. Likewise, they hanged up also the two malefactors [Coptic and Armenian add: Dysmas on the right, Gestas on the left]..." Further on we read: "One of the malefactors who were crucified said to him: "If you are the Christ, save yourself and us." But Dysmas answering rebuked him: "Do you not all fear God, since you are in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly. For we are receiving the due reward for our deeds. But this man has done nothing wrong." And he said to Jesus: "Lord, remember me in your kingdom." And Jesus said to him: "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Lk.23:39ff.)." From the "Gospel of Peter" ( NT Apocrypha, p.184): "And they brought two malefactors and crucified the Lord in the midst between them. But he held his peace, as if he felt no pain...But one of the malefactors rebuked them, saying, "We have landed in suffering for the deeds of wickedness which we have committed, but this man, who has become the savior of men, what wrong has he done you?" And they were wroth with him and commanded that his legs should not be broken, so that he might died in torments." Tatian through his Diatessaron (the earliest known compilation of the four canonical gospels into one narrative) betrays no information concerning more than two crucified with Christ. I'de toss in a few excerpts from "the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ" and "The Urantia Book" but I think the older material will suffice for now. :) I seem to recall a movie based on Hugh Schonfield's "The Passover Plot" depicting Christ being crucified among several others (a couple rows of crosses) - with only Roman guards present, sans the mocking crowds or grieving disciples and family members. It was actually quite an unsettling scene, to consider the thought that Christ died amidst such bleak isolation, though I have wondered if such wasn't closer to the way things actually happened. I'll have to re-read Schonfield's work here... Danny

Cynic, Thank you for these very interesting links. Danny

Mark, I understand completely. You're hardly "anti-intellectual" ( no more than I'm anywhere near "intellectual", lol) and I've enjoyed your posts for the breath of fresh air that they are, and respect your position and the thoughtfulness and civility of your replies, regardless of whatever disagreements concerning points of ideals or doctrines we might hold. Pursuing Christ for the help in the process of conformance and transformation is a noble and worthy goal. Danny

Mark: So he does have a good point: if one will accept the Gospel According to St. Luke, then why in the world would one not accept the second part of that writing: the Acts of the Apostles... Well naturally on the side of Ireneaus' perspective - that his tradition (or as, you have stated here in the past according to Roman Catholic belief, The Tradition)- is affirmed the sole true one over all others. And the Marcionites (as any number of other variant Christian movements that existed at the time) were just as convinced about the verity of their particular "tradition" and with all the doctrinal stances and historical claims associated with that. Of course, all we need do is look around ourselves even today (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, "The Way", and now the "Mikionites") to note that very little has changed in this regard. The Patristic Fathers asserted that Marcion had deliberately shortened "the Gospel of Luke"; the Marcionites countered by asserting that the Catholic tradition had added to it. We are presented with two possibilities here. But it has only been these past two centuries where inquiring minds have actively explored the latter possibility, rather than assume as fact along with the Church Fathers their negative expressions against their rival. If nothing else, I would love to see to the case for "Proto-Luke" re-opened among scholarly circles. Was there a common textual source behind 'Luke" that both the Catholics and Marcionites chose, prior to the Catholic (or the Marcionite) form as has come down to us? Scholars have not been hesitant in proposing such theories behind "John" ( the "signs gospel") or even 'Matthew" (the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or Ebionites), amidst all the "Qs" and "Sayings" material tossed about; but it seems that when many of these same critical scholars come to "Luke" - they treat it as if it's always been the polished product as it has come down to us (lol), with no developmental theories proposed for it. Finally, lest we forget - the "Acts of the Apostles" is representative of an entire genre of such "Acts" literature, as we know from the NT apocrypha and even the Nag Hammadi material; the question is, when did such a genre (forgive me, it's probably not the appropriate term, but it's late) come into vogue? When did such literature catch on? Did it enter into circulation about the same time as the gospel literature, or a bit later? What in fact is the earliest Patristic testimony concerning "Acts of the Apostles"? Do we have any evidence for its existence preceding 150 CE? It seems I recall Justin Martyr having especial fondness for "the Acts of Pilate". Just a few more things to consider. :) Danny

Go for it - can't be any worse than mine (lol). Is this material concerning the question of Jesus' age? As I recall, he was under the impression that Jesus was much older (between 50-60?). And as I get older, I grow fond of the idea (lol). Danny