TheInvisibleDan

Have you seen those new-fangled windshield wipers on the recent car commercials which automatically activate upon raindrops hitting the windshield? I thought of that idea 25-30 years ago. And what did I do about it at the time? Nothin'. Damn. Oh well. We search the past to look into the future.

Forgive me for intruding, but is this not an old Way "preconceived notion" in and of itself? Namely, that "all scripture interprets itself"? Such a position would also seem to presume the old Way "given" of the infallibility of "The Scriptures", which view, if subjected to an "honest" examination through certain considerations oft raised in the approach of "higher criticism" (which not a few zealous Bible-believers tend to avoid like the plague) may not lead to a conclusion neither sought for nor expected. Danny

"hygienetic".... oh cripes, I'm getting as bad as George Bush.

Oh yeah, I remember Chuck Harder...I can still hear that corny "For the People" theme playing in my head. In my area a local FM station broadcast his show every afternoon. I was an avid listener for about a couple of years but then after awhile, the fascination wore off at the plethora of dark, hidden conspiracies ruining the country and upon the depressing realization of being unable to really do much about it. But there were a few fascinating shows, like ones dealing with the supposed, Roswell "alien autopsy" footage which ultimately proved to be fake of course. But it was a fun ride while it lasted. I even still have the autopsy video and a book containing all the secret government "Majestic 12" documents that I ordered from them (lol). Danny

Couldn't help but notice the other day while I was in the shower that I had been circumcised, which apparently happened when I was an infant (glad I can't remember that). So I guess that makes me a true Jew? whoo-hoo! What? It was only for hygienetic purposes, like the shower? "Rabbi Dan"

Perhaps LCM heard this theory off his short-wave radio. Any die-hard conspiracy theorist wouldn't have gone without a short-wave radio in the early 90s. Especially one who avoids the internet.

Tim McVeigh is alive and presently residing in South America. Perhaps in the same hut as Jim Jones. :blink:

Some people just talk tough - thank goodness that's all they can do nowadays. I find references to "the Christ-God" pre-dating the Trinitarian formula to be far more interesting, such as the recent discovery of a mosaic floor to an anceint church in Palestine, dedicated to "the Christ God". The notion that Christ was viewed God was well understood apart from the metaphysical acrobatics of the late formula, which I realize many view as the best thing since sliced bread, but which quite frankly does little for me by virtue of its rather glaring transparancy. In my opinion, its conveys little practical about the actual "nature" of God, and blows just as much hot air as certain of the Unitarian position in this regard. Danny

Halliburton! :blink:

Why would twi "pre-screen" their free doulous labor? Aside from the seven-day infomercial they put on once a year, they didn't sink anything substantial toward the actual work that was accomplished that year through our blood, sweat and tears, outside of lending us a few classes and tapes to promote and sell their version of "the Word of God", to funnel more business toward their direction. What a perfect scam. But as I mentioned earlier, it most likely would have turned out a whole different game had they had the "commitment" to pay us for our work, in the same way other churches support their missionaries. Danny

From the above website: "James Trimm was given numerous opportunities to turn and return, instead he has chosen the path of Faraoh and repeatedly hardened his heart. " (emphasis my own) sigh. If one is going to attack the academic credentials of another, will they at least employ a dictionary or a spell checker?

The Way providing some kind of medical insurance for their WOWs would have been nice. For that matter, paying us some kind of weekly or monthly stipend would have freed us up considerably to concentrate on our divine mission - such would not have been unreasonable, and they had the resources to do so had the two sides to their brains functioned correctly. Shortly after I arrived in Charlotte NC, I developed a ball-busting hernia which I had little choice but to live with for the remainder of the year, despite all the healing prayers to no avail. And when I did find a part time job (after literally starving for two weeks), it was one one where I had to get up at 3 Am each morning to walk to work 2 miles to get there (with a wooden leg no less - and yes - sometimes in the snow -lol). How much energy did I have by the afternoon, when I got out of work? Not a helluva alot. Oh yeah, I got through the year, thanks only to God. But what did I accomplish in terms of actual "outreach"? Not much, amidst trying to survive like everyone else. Had the Way actually provided at least some minimum of financial support to the WOWs whom they merely slapped together and "shipped out", I think the experiences and the results would have been far more impressive. Had this organisation made the "commitment" ( a commitment EQUAL to the weight of that which was required of us)of providing some kind of financial support to their representatives, perhaps they would become conscience enough to have attempted a far better job pre-screening folks to weed out the psychos, to better insure the success of their investment. Other ministries and churches support the work of their missionaries. They provide their missionaries with some kind of stipend, as to free them up to pursue their missionary work. But the Way, for the most part, did not. The WOW program was a fine idea, but it was poorly thought through and implemented. Danny

I was given a candlemaking kit while growing up in the early 70s. It comprised of wax, crayons, and two round tin molds for the iconic "happy face" :) design and the peace sign. As I recall, I needed a double boiler to melt the white wax, and to mix in the crayons for color. I didn't put them together right - they fell apart (lol). Wish I still had that kit around. Danny

In this era of internet communication, it's almost unbelievable. If they actually believed that they held "the truth" , they wouldn't hide it under a bushel, but would shout it from these cyber rooftops.

The melting polar ice caps will thaw and awaken a giant fire lizard, which will proceed to stomp on all the major capitals throughout the world. Benevolent space aliens will come to our aid, helping us to defeat the lizard, in the process providing us a cure for the common cold. The future doesn't look all that bad to me....

I think my "born again" gene or meme became activated while watching the Jeffrey Hunter space-alien version of Jesus in "King of kings" when I was a wee youngling. Or trying to follow that fast-walking 'n talking Spanish Jesus accompanied by Bach and Negro-slave Spirituals in "The Gospel According to St. Matthew". Or amidst the mid-70s haze of seeing the "Jesus Christ Superstar" film shown at my high school. Or perhaps it was when I was 11, when my brother and I fished at a large pond where we encountered a be-flanneled and bespectacled silver-haired New England who talked to us seemingly forever about nothing else but his love for Christ. That he did it with such warmth and zeal is all I can remember, outside of his invitation to us to come to his church, and to tap him on the shoulder once we got there to let him know we arrived (we never went). But of any specific, vivid memory of the very moment of reciting aloud Romans 10:9-10, as invoking a secret recipe that instantly tosses a kicking newborn spirit-seedling something or other into my mortal oven - - nope, it's not happening. Romans 10:9-10 is simply not a defining milestone for me personally. Danny

Hi Jerry -in terms of the later, canonical version of "Luke", your sharp observations certainly do apply, gathered from my familiarity with the earlier Marcionite version of this gospel these past few years. This disjointedness you describe is especially apparent in such cases as the reversal of the Capernaum and Nazareth episodes (=Luke 4); amidst the saying spoken by Jesus to those in the synagogue at Nazareth ("Physician, first heal yourself...all that you did in Capernaum - do here likewise!"), it makes little sense in the canonical version which commences Jesus' ministry at Nazareth (followed by Capernaum), while in the Marcionite version Jesus commences with healings at Capernaum before proceeding to Nazareth. That's just the tip of the iceburg (lol). A 19th century scholar exclaimed his bewilderment as to why - had he the four canonical gospels before him to choose from - Marcion had not picked the Fourth gospel! There certainly is a lot contained within that writing which appears to reverberate Pauline/Marcionite ideas, which has caused me on a many occassions to wonder the same thing as this scholar and others. Interestingly, I haven't encountered the same emphasis or underscoring of any connection to the "Luke" figure in the Marcionite tradition as with the orthodox. In fact, the salutations at the end of Colossians which mention "Luke the physician" appears only as "Luke" with the Marcionite text. The Marcionite canon did not contain "Acts"; they had an entirely different history and tradition concerning Paul. The Marcionites in "Adamantius" apparently believed that Paul had been present at Jesus' crucifixion and had even penned "The Gospel". I've been entertaining the possibility that Paul may have been among "the seventy" new disciples that Jesus had chosen in Luke 10, to offset the failure of "the twelve", being blinded by the old religion. As you said, it's all "one big puzzle". But it makes our explorations all that more fun. Danny P.S. Thanks Belle - glad you don't mind my rambling. :)

Goey, Thank you for the links to the excellent articles. It's a fantastic ideal. But it's interesting to consider that Paul was a former Pharisee (Philip.4). According to some traditions (i.e., Papias), "John" was a former high priest. James even appears to have held an esteemed position in Jerusalem relating to the temple, and perhaps even prior to involvement with the Christian movement (cf. Josephus). It appears not uncommon that those who held positions of authority in the Jewish religion came to occupy similar positions within the Christian movement. In fact, some Christian places of worship still called themselves "synagogues" well into the 3rd century; a study of how the Dead Sea Scroll sect and other movements of Judaism organized themselves might be especially enlightening on this topic. The complaint was even leveled by one 2nd century Christian writer (Tertullian) against those occupying positions of authority in a rival church who also happened to occupy secular positions of authority in town government (among other secular jobs). Perhaps Tertullian expected to be supported by his church (lol). No sirreee, he was onto bigger things -there would be no "tent-making" for that writer! In any event, it appears to me at the moment that those who were gifted or adept at "leadership" positions prior to becoming Christians - in many cases transferred their talents and experiences with them into Christian offices, for better and for worst. Of course, not everyone considered as having an "office" in the body of Christ had secular credentials. Pliny the Younger, in writing of the Christians in Pontus, had interrogated "two slave-women whom they [other Christians] called "Ministers" (or "deaconesses" according to one translation). This was circ. 110 A.D. I tend to think ecclesiastical structure developing within the early churches as having been necessitated as a survival mechanism; Christianity needed to unify/ concentrate all its resources in order to compete in that volatile environment of other religions, and against even other Christian rivals. The more successful Christian groups were those which became extremely well-organized; they had to be; and unfortunately, where desperate times call for desperate measures, establishing strong representative "heads" of authority were required in order to orchestrate and steer the different members of the Church toward common goals. In other words, even it meant doing as the Romans did. It's quite possible that Christianity would not have survived any other way outside of the ecclesiastical structure that developed within it. I've even had difficulty in imagining Christianity surviving the many centuries in a far more gentler, perhaps purer ideal. But perhaps now it can. Danny

Deep stuff, Jerry. A minor thought in passing thought concerning something you mentioned: Of all the gospels to consider, Matthew is perhaps the least ideal "starting point" toward understanding or harmonizing Paul's conceptions,- in fact, I would actually expect more contradictions - because the writer of Matthew most likely regarded Paul from his standpoint a "lawbreaker" or transgressor(Matt.5:18-19): It's easy to see where this might be an inference to Paul, who referred to himself as "the least" (of the apostles) - as one who taught the abolishment of the law, and taught others to do likewise. I would mention also the theory that the Gospel of Matthew (in its earlier form) may have been the production of the Jewish-Christians or "Ebionites", which seemed most emphatically anti-Pauline. The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand - most definitely and most characteristically Pauline! In comparison to Matthew, it's like night and day. I would even go so far as to say - had the dispensationalists appreciated the strong thread of Paulinism throughout "Luke" - they would have had to rethink their theories concerning the relation of "the gospel" to "the apostle". I don't think it would be an exaggeration to view "Luke" (or the earlier Marcionite edition contained therein) as "Paul's gospel". Have you considered the experiment of weighing Paul's genuine epistles on the sole scale of Luke's gospel? I think you may be pleasantly surprised. There will still be contradictions, but you will also encounter far more affinities with Luke than with Matthew. Please forgive me of my ramblings - it's getting late (lol). Danny

Mark, I like it a lot. And I like to add that I've nothing but the highest regard for the Roman Catholic Christians whom I've had the pleasure of meeting and even working alongside this past year. Of the latter (a husband, wife and her brother) their conduct was professional and fair - they were a pleasure to work with, and since the closing down of our workplace a month ago, I miss them dearly. Of "burying the dead", I can attest of the unexpected passing of my sister's husband this past year, who attended a small Roman Catholic church in Pitcher, NY; the Church graciously covered the expense and ceremony of his funeral. And of the army chaplain who recently conducted my late father's service at the VA cemetary, who did so with great warmth. And I also admire the community efforts made by members of my wife's Unitarian-Universalist church. Their ideas may be eclectic to some, but their heart is in the right place. There are a lot of fine people across the denominational and religious lines, who exemplify some of the excellent qualities you raised, providing much inspiration and encouragement. Danny

Wow, I didn't know this. You learn something new every day. Actually, I did see the great clown deity in a parade this past summer. I took a break from work to watch a bit of the "old home" parade on main street, and lo and behold, a float passed by upon which was seated side-side-side Ronald and the Hamburgler; as the float went toward the direction of the franchise, Ronald uttered through his megaphone the powerful words: "Are those french fries I smell?" It's a peculiar sensation to cringe and laugh at the same time.

lol TGN - Actually, I'm usually quite adroit at hitting my thumb with one of those. :lol: Thanks, Danny

But IMHO, I think both the Trinitarian-Unitarian positions are missing the point entirely. They actually focus little and practically upon the actual nature of God and Jesus Christ, rather choosing to split hairs over whether Jesus was a human, God, Spirit, angel or combination of whatever - literally, metaphorically, historically, philosophically, or whatever. If Christians are unable to come to a universal agreement with what the nature of God is in such terms (who among us really can?) - wouldn't the next best approach -outside of all this pointless, divisive speculation, which has Christians attacking even one anothers' salvation - - to be to consider the actual characteristics of the nature of God, Jesus and Holy Spirit? You know, characteristics of divine nature like love, kindness, benevolence and compassion? Now those are terms whereof anyone might immediately comprehend the nature of God, Christ and Spirit - outside of all the tired, counterproductive arguments and speculations over God, Man, spirit, and what their actual relation is to one another. How about a Christian creed on the nature of God that begins: "We believe that GOD IS LOVE..."? rather than this hurtful crap that leads Christians to questioning one anothers' salvation? That tells me more about the actual nature of God, Christ and Holy Spirit than anything of practical worth I've seen coming from the Trinitarian /Unitarian camps, so obsessed to be "right" that many seemingly overlook the attributes of God's "nature" which really do matter. Danny

Oak, This brings to mind some comments made by A. Powell Davies in his fascinating work, The First Christian: A Study of St. Paul and Christian Origins, Farrar, 1957;pp.1-2: "The traditional story of Christian origins in well known and there are many who do not wish to subject it to closer examination. To these good people the work of scholars seems meddlesome and even destructive...[scholars] are not, as some would have it, attacking Christianity. Most Biblical scholars are members of a church (or synagogue) and many of them are professors devoted to the education of the ministry. What they believe (and their critics apparently do not) is that fidelity to truth is a sacred obligation and that nothing that suppresses truth is genuinely religious. But then, it is objected, even though this be so, should not the findings of scholars be restricted to those who make a special study of such matters - other scholars and the educated clergy? Is it wise to share this knowledge with the uninitiated layman? What this really means is that the layman's faith must be based on ignorance or it may fall apart -an assumption which, when plainly stated, is rather shocking. Actually there is no more reason why the layman's faith should be damaged by knowledge of the truth than the faith of scholars or the clergy. As to the effect of scholarship upon faith, let us take an illustrious example. Albert Schweitzer is a scholar. He rejects the traditional view of Christian origins, and for that matter, even the traditional view of Jesus. But Schweitzer, as is widely known, instead of being a man whose faith has been destroyed by his scholarship is a modern saint who has devoted his life to the welfare of the African tribesmen in remote Lambarene. What proof can there be that no conflict exists between a consecrated life and a scientific view of Christian history?..." Danny

Judging from your post I think you've done exceedingly well, thereby disproving the notion that if "the Word contradicts itself in one place, everything else falls apart". Or something to that effect. It can be quite a painful process surrendering the notion of an entirely, infallible Word. But of all ironies, Jesus' parable of the field of wheat and tares - minus the later allegorical, eschatological interpretation appended to it (thereby restoring to the reader their right to personally and spiritually interpret such for themselves, as parables were originally intended in their function)-- can actually prove quite helpful. There is both truth ("wheat") in the Bible, and that planted alongside it ("tares") in the same "field". In other words, don't eat everything that grows in the "field" of this bible. Infinitely more preferable to the "proof verses" (e.g., 2 Tim.3:16, written by one pretending to be "Paul") that were drilled in us - leading to the mentality of "it's either all of the Word or none of it is". It's up to each reader to exercise their thinking and judgment - to weigh any idea in a passage from "root to fruit"- to determine the nature of an idea, from whence it originates. Whether it's truth, or whether it's baloney. Danny