TheInvisibleDan

Would you guys bet your Betamax machines on this?

Outside of the condenscending tone of the writer (e.g.,Bible fundies are clueless dolts put off by decors resembling Norman Bate's motel office), I enjoyed the fascinating material that this article did raise. Danny

It will only work if her heart grows three times its size. In which case she'll either become an enlightened Grinch who will feed that poor family - or her heart will burst out of its chest, which would make one hell of a bloody mess.

So Jesus will return, driving a Porsche - or will it be in a Limo with a hot tub?

She doesn't hold any 'bake sales'.

That was a very interesting article, Def. Thanks for posting it. My impression thus far of any attempts to date the gnostic writings is the same dilemma that I see also for the NT manuscripts - what has been passed down to us are copies, dating mostly to the third-fourth centuries? (with the exception of a second century fragment of this or that) - and how old are the Nag Hammadi manuscripts? Apparently about the same age as many of our existing NT manuscripts (circ. 4th century). In discussing this passage in the Marcionite Gospel, Tertullian refers to these female groupies who "clung" to Jesus as "wealthy women", a very intriguing description. Jesus must have been quite a charmer. Danny

Whatever became of Timothy? I came across the following info from the "Eastman's Bible Dictionary" online: Interestingly enough, I had read something years ago (unfortunately I cannot recall the book or its author) wherein the writer considered the unsettling thought that "the Church of Ephesus" chastised in "Revelation" for being so "luke-warm" was headed by Timothy at the time, being an indication of Timothy's failure in that regard... Since the work of P.N Harrison, the "Pastoral Epistles" addressed to Timothy and Titus are generally regarded by many NT scholars as pseudonymous fictions. Paul didn't write them. I would date them to about 150 A.D., being that they deal primarily with circumstances arising in the mid-second century. Danny

Yes, there we are again - another "second fiddle" role, "Joshua". LCM, the eternal "Ed McMahon".Wierwille took the good leading roles,-both "Moses" and "Paul"! "Timmy-Josh" was still equal to neither - so LCM tried to become "God", sitting amidst the temple of God, transforming himself into a flaming Craig of fire, fueled from his frustration that all the good human roles had already been taken up.

LCM wasn't very successful as ... "Timothy in Tights" He was unable to attain true Timothiness. He wanted to play "Paul" but "Victor PAUL" already took that role. So he had to settle on the role of the little, junior dinky sidekick, "Timmy". It's like the old version of the whiny "Robin" from the classic Batman series. "Little Timmy" couldn't carry the show alone, despite donning a new set of colorful capes, threads and high boots. They all paled by comparison to Victor's cool Batman suit, and could do nothing to resurrect the former glory.

So it simply boils down to the question - "to whom addressed" (Thank you Dr.Bullinger). And that's probably correct. Danny

That's pretty cool. There can be so many possible meanings. O those crafty scriptures, they sure can mess with our heads. I'm aware that some even interpret "I was alive without law once" as an allusion to reincarnation. Who knows... Danny

Not necessarily the case - Christianity started out as cool, James Dean-like antihero movement until smashing into that fateful telephone pole of the-heathen-culture-at-large, which tamed it down quite a bit. But many of the gospels may have started out quite skinny in their youth, putting on more and more weight as they got older. Some gospels had gotten quite fat. And once one puts on the pounds, it sure is tougher to lose. And sometime councils and leaders are wrong, and make mistakes, and commit great evils, and may even honor upon themselves the title of "good leadership", and would convinceth thou to bow down thine knees and doeth likewise. Danny

That's why I find David Lynch movies so intriguing. They're "psychological" dramas which feature different characters generated by (or within) a person's mind. A person who amidst great trial or tribulation disengages from his old primary identity to become a new character in a new world, which fragile world is gradually intruded by snippets of memories of the old life which threaten to cast down the ideal illusion. Danny

That's not very credible, when one considers that gnosticism (or groups emanating an incredible approximation thereof) were apparently existing at the time (or even before) the New Testament material was written; Simon Magus (in Acts chapter 8) is often cited by the church fathers as having spawned gnosticism. Paul is thought by scholars to be fighting a form of gnosticism at Corinth (1 Corinthians 2-3;8;15); John is thought by scholars to be battling a gnostic-like rival movement headed by some guy named Cerinthus. And let's not overlook "Luke", whose reason (in his introduction): In other words, the author deemed it necessary to write his gospel due to a proliferation of gospels in circulation at the time, which apparently didn't satisfy him (except for borrowing certain parts of Mark or "Q"). One should wonder: what were these other gospels? "rough drafts"? If the NT writers were battling gnostics (or gnostic-like groups), then could these heresies have produced their own writings, their own gospels? Why would the gnostics have waited 200 years to lift a pen? Gnostics were anything but procrastinators. After all, a gnostic compiled the earliest known NT canon, which did much to light a fire under the buts of their proto-orthodox rivals, to get them going on their writing compilation projects. Danny

You're welcome Jerry, though I must apologize to you and others for somehow writing over my previous post, which laid the groundwork for my observations on William Branham. Now I'm gonna have to do it all over again. But alas, not tonight... --> Danny

(Recreated lost post, abbreviated version) Jerry wrote: To which I suggested Psalms 104:4/Hebrews ch.1:7, on the form of angels - Angels were also considered as having a connection to the "gifts" or "manifestations" in 1 Cor. 12-14, which is one reason Paul brings up in the middle of that discussion, "Though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels", in addition to mentioning the Corinthians' "zeal" for "spirits" (plural Pneumata, 1 Cor.14:12) and the unusual "the spirits of the prophets" being in submission to the prophets, to which I added the possibility that these may have included angels subjected to Christ through His triumph on the cross (cf. Col.2:14). The idea that "spiritual angels" imparted "knowledge" and "wisdom" and other such "gifts" to their human hosts is one that also can be seen throughout the OT Pseudepigrapha and the writings of the Dea Sea Scrolls. Such is a brief outline of what I accidently erased last night when I posted this followup: I wanted to add to the previous post that the notion that angels played some part in the gifts or manifestations of the "Holy Spirit" appears to have more recent counterparts. Namely, to be observed in the expressions of the charismatic preacher William Branham. It is quite interesting to see the inference to this ancient notion about angels emerge from this charismatic country preacher, who to the best of our knowledge, didn't gather this stuff from articles in scholarly journals; the following are excerpts of these ideas from a website devoted to Branham: William Branham, BTW, seems to have been the one who came up with the idea that "cancer is a devil spirit" which Wierwille had obviously heard at some point in his life. And according to the last statement, Branham didn't "heal" - the power from his Angel enabled him to do that. It's interesting to observe old ideas re-emerging from time to time. Danny

Do you mean to suggest that people actually do not read the canonical literature to "find hidden truths"? Or that the *allure* of contemplating "conspiracies" is not one also reflected to some degree among even modern Christians, in the idea of a "Satan" or a "devil" out to thwart the righteous Christian walk? You mean that they also are trying to find things that are not there? Jeesh! Incredible when we consider that a many a Christians (as well as adherents of other faiths) actually believe in things they can't even see. --> Danny

Mark, There's still much we do not know in regards to the actual process which the writers of this sacred literature underwent. I oft wonder if the methodology of "prophets" in the ancient world was akin to that of the ancient Greek Sybils. In any event, your questions brought to mind a certain possibility, in view of the belief that Enoch was "translated" by God that he might not see death; if I recall correctly, there's a section in "Enoch" in which is described Enoch's transformation into an angel. I recall Otto Everling discussing this in "Paulinische Angelologie und Damonologie" which I'll have to review again to see if I can relocate this reference. Consider this: might "Enoch" -now transformed into an angel - be "moving" or inspiring the prophets or writers behind this ancient work? Angels were oft regarded - especially in the Old Testament literature - as those actual spirits (or "holy spirit(s)") "upon" the prophets. Angels were the source, and the "mediators" between god and man. Angels were thought to have played a crucial role in the empowerment and execution of the so-called "spiritual gifts" - and indications of this belief can still be seen throughout 1 Cor.12-14, the Qumran ("dead Sea Scroll") literature as well as other extra-canonical works. Perhaps Enoch -now a spirit-angel - served as the source or mediator for the writers behind the work which bears his name. This is something the writers themselves may have certainly believed. Danny

It's just my take on it, CM; nothing to be engraven in stone. Of course I could be mistaken; wouldn't be the first time. :)--> Danny

Thank you Sunesis. It's always a pleasure reading your posts as well. Last night I was thinking about your post which I cited earlier, and just happened to have one of those "Hey, wait a minute..." moments (in the middle of the night at that) when thinking about those passages in 1 Peter (lol). I had always assumed the same as you - that the "spirits in prison" of 1st Peter were the "angels" described in 2nd Peter - till I re-read the passages. I think I had gathered this impression more from past teachings I've heard on this (i.e., Earl Burton in his version of the "Intermediate Class" years ago, if I'm recalling correctly). I don't think there's any question of angels being connected with the flood in 2nd Peter and Enoch. But the passages in 1 Peter raise doubts in my mind -I think in those passages we may not be concerned with the angels who caused the flood, but the "spirits" who were wiped out by it. That does sound pretty interesting. If you ever recall the title to this work, please let me know. As if we don't have enough problems down here already (lol). I went through a whacky phase a few years ago of collecting books on the subject of supposed UFO Crashes. One book, "UFO Crash at Aztec", had a bizarre pic in it of how dinosaurs would have appeared today had they not died out and continued evolving - which of course, resembled those black-eyed "greys" so popular nowadays (lol). I agree - it is good to keep an open mind, and contemplate the possibilities - and entertaining as well. That's okay - you're in good company :)--> On a final note - Mark: on the authorship of Enoch - at least to me personally, it's a moot point as to whether Enoch can actually be proven to have written this work or not. For that matter, we can't always be absolutely certain that the various writings of the New Testament were actually written by the names to which they are attributed. What interests me more is the actual content of ideas found in such works as Enoch, and how deeply these ideas lived within and influenced the culture from which these writings originated. These extra-canonical writings are immensely invaluable toward helping us understand how people thought in antiquity. I have little doubt that Jesus and "Paul" and "Peter" were familiar with "The Book of Enoch" as well as other works in circulation at the time. with warmest regards, Danny

Sunesis- I beg to differ on the interpretation of this passage in 1 Peter 3:19, which we were led to believe refers to the "spirits" of angels who caused the flood, or their giant progeny: Without filtering these passages through Bullinger or Wierwille's "Are-the-Dead-Alive-No-They're-Not" - which we all here have been so accustomed - or re-reading ideas from 2nd Peter back into this section here - you may be as surprised as I... 1.)Christ preached to spirits [or "souls"] in prison [or "hades"]. BUllinger makes much ado about "preach" here being a proclamation of "triumph". Well, breaking down the gates of Hades to liberate the captive spirits or souls from death's "prison" was quite a triumphant story among early Christians. That's how many interpreted, "leading captivity captive" (as sometimes rendered "he led a train of prisoners...) -Eph.4. 2.) In verse 18, "Christ died for the unjust" - even for those "unbelieving" "spirits" who, while in the flesh, laughed at Noah when he was building his ark.And then again, perhaps some folks missed their opportunity to get on board along with the unicorns. 3.) In any event, these passages seemed to be concerned not with the angels who caused the flood - but with the spirits of all humanity which became wiped out by the flood. This possibility gains much strength when reading just a little further (1 Peter 4:6), which there I don't think the writer intended figuratively (i.e., Eph.2): Besides, let us ask ourselves - how much respect can we really maintain for one who tells us on the one hand to "love your enemies" - while on the other - he descends into hell and gloats at miserable spirits in chains of darkness? That may sound like a former president of twi - or perhaps even those who mocked the Lord on the cross - but that sure as hell sounds nothing like Jesus to me. I do not think it's in His nature to do that. But even I should be incorrect in the identity of the "spirits" in question, then I trust Jesus' preaching to them would have toward their salvation. Danny

There's perhaps no better work on this idea of angels cohabitating with humans than the Book of Enoch, as well as the Book of Jubilees, which have been brought up from time to time. Therein one will encounter many of the same ideas encountered by (and drawn from) the NT writers themselves. Danny

SO they're still running this flopped "WAP" class for the two or three people they still might get a year? amazing. One would have thought the WAP class would have been withdrawn after they gave LCM the boot. Or that they might have concentrated solely on becoming a preservation society for VPW's stuff, and marketing it to the offshoots and VP worshipers and what not.

This is where the context begins. Jerry, this is not where the context begins. Go back at least 3 verses - the subject is "the Gospel, the power of God for salvation"(v.16). The "truth" that certain wicked men were suppressing or "holding captive" in verse 18, against which this "wrath" or "anger" was originally directed. Most likely those "pillars" mentioned in Galatians. Which inexplicitly and quite sloppily becomes altered against those heathen who should have learned God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" from "the creation" anyway (!) rendering "the truth" of "the gospel" via preaching mentioned earlier quite superfluous. This section has been reworked by editors long after Paul's death. Danny

I recall hearing the "20,000" figure for at least one the ROAs during the first half of the 80s. I have little reason to doubt that figure, given the big crowds and the long lines, as some have already mentioned. But after 87, with leaders being fired and them going public, it was all downhill from there.