TheInvisibleDan

Thank you Dana, for your thoughts on "soul" life, which doesn't really appear to depart significantly from what we had picked up from the Way in the past (e.g., their "Renewed Mind" class). I cannot help wondering though - did we actually learn about "spiritual life" in the Way - did the Way really have such a grasp in this area as might be assumed? There's no doubt that many - depending on their involvement in the organization - denied their own souls in pursuit of "spiritual" things - but was this the intended outcome, or had many of us ended up merely neglecting or even exchanging our "soul life" for the "soul-interests" of the organization? I have read many posts throughout this forum to the effect of folks, upon leaving the organization, rediscovering and learning again simply how to "be themselves" - warts and all. Danny

The cute "little apocalypses" in the Synoptics do. Danny

"Why not?" Let your voice be heard. Danny

lol! partying biblical characters gone wild.

I think that assessment holds true, and very appropriate to bear in mind with the following proposal. As I concluded in my last post, I think there was a particular "work" of Jesus that may have pushed and tried the limits of John's "moralist" sensibilities, which resulted in him becoming "scandalized" or offended (Luke/Marcion 7:21f.). The "work" or incident that I actually had in mind (according to reconstructions of the hypothetical "Q" source-document, which I think may have been arranged in Marcion's text as well) was in the section immediately preceding the material concerning John in Luke 7:21f, namely that of Jesus' healing of the Roman centurion's young "servant" (Luke 7:2ff). I'm not certain how John the Baptist would have felt about the "messiah" helping out an occupying enemy; perhaps that alone would have sufficed toward pushing his buttons, especially while he was prison. But then, by my own suspicion in reviewing the text with subsequent confirmation by others, I stumbled across the possibility that this may have been no mere "servant" who cooked and cleaned and dusted for the centurion; here we have a young "slave" who "was dear" (or "loved") by the centurion - in short, might we specifically be concerned here with a "sex-slave"? If so, not only had Jesus helped an enemy soldier - but did so by healing this soldier's "love-slave". And a young one at that (perhaps even a mere teenager). I can imagine, John the Baptist being a moralist, that he would have found this vastly unsettling (esp. when considering that John was imprisoned for lashing out concerning Herod's questionable marital arrangements having to do with his niece). A supposed "messiah" helping an enemy Roman soldier and his boy sex-slave could have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Danny

Yes indeed. It's good to see others appreciating this fact. Who's to assume that "the leadership" that ultimately determined "who was Christ was" in their doctrinal conception was correct - while all others which did not march in step with their scope of opinion - "heresies"? Danny

A superb point, though I think the writer of the Fourth Gospel is stating such here from his "theological" standpoint; I was kicking about in my mind more the political circumstances or reasons that had provoked Herod to imprison John which, as we might gather from the Synoptics, had seemingly little to do with Jesus but more to do with a controversy concerning Herod's niece. I've encountered the proposal on a couple occassions while reviewing commentaries on the Fourth Gospel, that one intent (among many) behind the writer penning this gospel was to draw and appeal to those still in the Baptist's movement, who had not surrendered their conviction of following John as their main figure. They had not automatically given up John to follow Jesus. Nor was everyone involved in John's movement apparently inclined to do so. Just as today - some give up their involvement in one group to follow another movement; others don't, and remain in their group and its doctrine. *** While "John" and others of the "OT prophecy fulfilment school" presented their Gospels through their theological standpoints, others holding contrary views likewise did the same in their presentations of Jesus' sayings. This is no better illustrated than by Marcion's Gospel text. But in his gospel, rather than John the Baptist serving as a precursor to Jesus, he was depicted as a prophet of the "Old Testament" God who experienced great difficulty in understanding Jesus because in many respects, he did not fit the "messianic" profile. Of the section in Luke 7 we touched on, Marcion's version read as follows, the first line of which (attested by Tertullian, Adamantius and Epiphanius) is not present (or omitted?) in our Lukan redaction: "John [the Baptist] was scandalized! ["offended", "outraged"] Upon hearing of his works while in prison, he sent two of his disciples to inquire "Are you the one who is expected? Or should we await another?" Yet even without the line, "John was offended", this passage should give us cause to wonder: why would John, upon specifically hearing the reports of Jesus' "works", have dispatched his disciples to inquire (or resolve any doubts concerning?) whether or not Jesus was "the one who is expected"? Perhaps John needed a bit of encouragement while in prison, to calm some shakey knees amidst the intensity of the situation...yet, such a question seems to have been provoked upon hearing about "the works" of Jesus. And speaking of "senseless" - what message does Jesus send back to John after doing further of the same kinds of "works" before John's disciples - "Blessed is he if he is not offended (or, "scandalized") by me" *** However, I think there was a specific "work" or miracle that Jesus performed that provoked John to question Jesus. One which troubled John so greatly, being something that would still raise a few eyebrows even today. Danny

I object! I... ob-ject.... me... ob-ject... objecting... am I.... Sorry to subject you to that... :)-->

Oops. Correction: "our little brother".

Raf, stop picking on your little brother Mikey. So he believes in his "Easter Bunny" still. (haw haw, awe shucks) (there were, after all, ancient peoples who believed that even snakes were gods.) My Santa Claus is undoubtedly the one true Santa...(dastardly lol).... Danny

Wherein is believed a general resurrection of both OT folks and Christians at the same time? But was John actually beheaded for that reason? Danny

Thanks you Shaz, for the correction on the lutzes. I was a mere vowel away from driving a triple axle Lex. Danny

Welcome to GS, Dana. Would be interesting to hear a little bit of your take on "soul life". I'm personally intrigued by the fact that early Christians do appear to have placed great emphasis upon the "salvation" of the "soul", something that wasn't really underscored in the Way, as I recall. I've never really thought myself as a "victim" though I understand the same cannot be said for others who really did become victimized by the organization. Momentus has garnered mixed reviews here. Some find it healing; others have been seemingly traumatized by it. I recall a few years ago, while on CES' mailing list, recieving an invitation and some forms from some stranger in New York, which didn't particularly inspire me either way at the time. Danny

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles. What lends a certain weight to the theory of John the Baptist and Jesus having possibly been rivals (though I haven't encountered the notion that their rivalry actually led to one murdering the other),- in contrast to some of other zany beliefs you noted - is the existence of the Mandaean sect that exalts John the Baptist over Jesus. E.S. Drower had translated many of the Aramaic Mandaean scriptures that indeed confirms the belief of this sect, which claims its descendants to have emigrated from Palestine following the fall of Jerusalem. Then there are some peculiar lines preserved in our scriptures which might suggest traces of such a rivalry, as for example, Luke 7:28 - "I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." It's a rather bizarre way to speak of one's supposed pre-cursor. As if to say, "he's the greatest guy born into this world but he doesn't even amount to the lowest in God's kingdom." Danny

As I recall, Burton Mack (but I can't the title of his book) had recently expounded upon the notion that Jesus and John the Baptist were rivals. And then, there is the gnostic Mandaean sect (located somewhere in Iraq), an Aramaic speaking group to which John the Baptist represented their heavenly, savior figure over "the Roman Christ" as they called him in their scriptures ("Ginza"). Then there is a consideration of how the ancient Marcionites' viewed John the Baptist. But this will have to wait for later, if you're interested. Danny

Goey, You are very good as well, my friend. I've enjoyed the excellent points you raised, and will continue to contemplate. Your point about the theological bias of Strong and Vine especially, which intrigues me the more I consider it. I wonder, what is it in particular that compelled these men as well as others to assign a 'softer' meaning to "phobos", as you have well noted and asked? If they're not doing so from a pure academic standpoint (quite possible), are they being mislead, or misleading themselves (perhaps via traces of the old Marcionism inherent in the combined body of Christian ideas and documents passed down to us). In any event, it's fascinating (and even a little strange) to observe the direction toward which some of these ideas go, and contemplate the possible reasons why they gravitate in those directions. God help me, I wish I understood better some of the reasons. thank you. Danny

If you or I lived 2,000 years ago, and were part of that writer's particular group, we would no doubt have had a better understanding of what he or she orginally intended. Unfortunately, perhaps over half the intended "interpretation" perished with the writers themselves, and we are left with a framework of bones upon which they attached meanings, about which we debate and speculate. So we duke it out with our respective theological-biased dictionaries and concordances (is there a one out there that is not?). Most definately to make our theology "fit" to our mind's eye! Sure I do this. And you don't? Perhaps you sincerely believe that you don't... :D--> You'll need to rethink your query in view of the scholarly proposals (both ancient and modern), namely concerning the questionable authorship behind "Hebrews". We are concerned with at least two different writers between 2nd Corinthians and Hebrews. "The identity of the author of Hebrews is not known...there are adequate reasons for rejecting Paul as its author. First, the writer's writing style is different from Paul's..."(Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.275). If both these writings did not originate from the same hand, wouldn't an approach or attempt to concordantly "harmonize" or homogenize the vocabulary in the writings of two different writers be fundamentally and intristically flawed? And I won't even get into at this time the problems which exist for the section of chapters 6-7 in Second Corinthians, with which I trust you are already well-informed. Danny

From its earliest beginnings Christianity was comprised of a variety of movements, each having their own theological outlook and ideas, even their own spin on certain words, which often did not "harmonize" or "fit in" with one another. And this all occurring even prior to the canonization of the NT, with all its controversies over what writings should or shouldn't be included. Let's be honest with ourselves. There is no Christian group in existence, either ancient or modern, who hasn't resorted to the practice of interpretation and the "massaging of texts" (according to their particular theological outlook) you describe. Oh there have been some pretty impressive and sincere attempts at arriving to an amazing self-interpreting text and hopefully doctrines that would arise from such attempts, but the neutral, pie-in-the-sky "self-interpreting" theology seemingly still yearned for or expected by and large, does not exist and is next to impossible, IMOHO. The ancient Christian group I've studied for these past few years is only group among many that viewed and filtered matters through their particular lenses. The word "judgment" in association to their purely Good God denoted something entirely different to them than to others. Even the title "Christ" to them, which they spelled differently as "Krestus", denoted primarily to them not "the messiah" but "the Benevolent" (or "kind") one. Again, this is just one Christian group among many. And most intriguingly, the group that published and circulated the earliest known NT canon circ. 130 AD. It's only one of many such examples. But the more urgent reason a Christian group such as the one I mentioned earlier might not construe it to a slavish literalness of words is due to their theological outlook and perception, that something doesn't fit in with the actual character of their God as they perceive Him. They are no more or less dishonest than other interpreters, either ancient or modern. Danny

The world has been turned upside down. Hell has been frozen over, and we're skating triple axle luxes (or whatever they're called) on it. Let us be mocked and laughed at for wearing about our loins the frilly, silly tutus of God's grace, and doing some weird Disney hippo dance. :D--> Danny

Hi Shaz, :)--> Now I need to do penance for that sinful "fruitcake" remark by listening to George Harrison's "Wonderwall" lp. (the first song -according to my daughter - sounds like a buzzing mosquito - which makes her both cringe and laugh). Well-spoken. I agree here. It's been my observation that "righteous" and "righteousness" more than often (at least in practice) translates into "self-righteousness" than the desired ideal padded around the phrase. Becoming the selfish, self-centered desire to please ourselves and not our God - hardly an approach that leads to manifestations of love. It's unfortunately common in all religious movements. I do not think or believe it's in our Lord's nature or Will at all "to do" anything harmful or destructive to us,- we're quite adept of accomplishing that by our own actions, by gods of our own making, and to each other at that. "mercy" had a different emphasis with one of the largest movements of century Christians - understood in the sense of "pity" and compassion" - not in "the withholding of kicking our sinful asses even if we deserved it". In Eznik's transmission of a Marcionite retelling of the creation myth: "And (they say) the good God and Stranger (to the world), who was sitting in the third heaven, seeing that so many people perished and were tortured between the two deceivers, the Lord of Creation and Hyle ["matter"], took pity for those cast into the fire and tortured. He sent his son to go and save them, and to take the likeness of a servant and assume the form of a man among the sons of the God of the Law." "The Righteous" have no need of a physician. There's also an ancient Marcionite tale of the Spirit "Isu", upon his death on the cross, descending into Hades to liberate the souls of the Old Testament era. When the souls of Adam, Noah, Moses, and others (located in the upscale 'Paradise' section of Hades) heard the Stranger, they neither trusted or believed Him. They were extremely fearful of their old god, and thought he was tempting them again. But when the souls of Cain, Balaam, the Pharoah of Egypt, and other notorious losers, creeps, false prophets and murderers (located in the ghetto part of Hades) heard the gospel, - with nothing to lose by remaining in hopeless darkness - they believed, and became liberated and ascended from Hades and into the Light of the Third heaven. A twisted parable of Paulinism run amok? But is it really nay less than the notion of a former murderer and Christian persecutor becoming the spokesman of the God of love, the most revered Christian Saint? (lol) I think he gave much lip-service to "the freedom in Christ", as his actions especially toward the end his earthly life and those of the group he founded seem to indicate. The "ill and repercussions" killed him, as far as I can see. He didn't escape them. May God's pity rescue his soul, despite himself. I don't wish eternal darkness on even my worst enemies. Thank you for your enjoyable post, Shaz. Danny

No, I'm also agreeing with Vine (Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words), and as well as James Strong (Strongs Concordance -Online Bible edition). According to Vines, the primary meaning of PHOBOS "first had the meaning of flight, that which is caused by being scared; then, that which may cause flight...." which is then followed by "reverential fear (i) of God, as a controlling motive of the life, not a mere fear of His power and righteouss retribution, but of wholesome dread of displeasing Him, a fear that banishes the terror that shrinks from His presence." Now look over here at this chart from "Strongs" : As well as this one here: I'm not above contemplating the possibility of "new meaning" that might fill the old wineskins of these ancient words. Christians are known to have done that, and even relished in it, Goey. I don't exclude the possibility of phobos carrying other meanings and shades of meaning besides its most literal. Why do you insist that "fear" carry only one meaning, against Strong and Vine? Hey, these are the scholarly geeks... I haven't even needed to touch the works of the "oriental" fruitcakes ... Danny

OM, Hell must be freezing over because again I agree with this and your comments which followed on the different types of "fear". However, I digress that this view actually originated with VP. One need not turn to any esoteric volume to locate the various possible meanings to "fear" in the Bible, which according to a cursory glance of the Strong Hebrew/Greek dictionaries of my "Online Bible" software, can indeed also mean "reverence, awe, and astonishment". When I consider "fear" - aside from the cautionary, parental "don't-play-with-those scissors-or-you'll-poke-out-your-eye" - it's also generally a powerful, involuntary , uncontrollable reaction, emotion or sense that a person does not usually consciously invoke. What person here, for example, would not be trembling with pure astonishment if Jesus was to suddenly materialize before your eyes and start speaking to you? Perhaps many here - if only secretly, or if only in passing- have earnestly yearned for such an extraordinary, personal epiphany to occur their lives? In any event, that we may be concerned with a number of meanings underlyng "fear" is not without validity. Danny

The God of this universe laughed at all our puny questions while stirring His bean soup. Until the arrival of Jack. And the fall of that God was great.

It's my general understanding from a many Christian theologies that every person since Adam born into this world is born and wired into "sin" and the "consequences" thereof anyways. Should one "dread" and "fear" the Deity Who rescues us from such a hopeless situation where we've already been condemned? Many take pleasure in quoting "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son" - yet fewer raise a banner at the ball park that which follows - "For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world , but that the world might be rescued by Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already..." Surely the "goodness" and the "love" of God transcends beyond merely something to be reckoned "warm" and "fuzzy", weak and ineffectual. "By their fruits ye shall know them", yes? "Why do you call out Lord! Lord! and not do a thing I say? No one can serve two lords." (He adds elsewhere that a man will either love the one and fear the other and so on) And I would add no one still doing those sorts of things (rape, murder) - despite his claims of a "Christian" identity - really knows the Good God, nor really possesses any depth of understanding nor appreciation for His love and goodness. I'm off to work now. Perhaps later. "Love" Danny

Unless it's a "bad god". For once I kind of agree with you here (lol).