TheInvisibleDan

Thanks to LCM's spin that "shield" should be "discus", I picture this peculiar scene in my mind of soldiers trying to toss their shields like frisbees. Damn.

I think Eph.6:10f may be an adaptation of what was originally a Mithraic piece, recast for attracting soldiers comprising the majority of adherents in the rival religion of Mithraism. So yes, it's "military".

Very fascinating and insightful, WTH. Particularly in light of the possible interpretion behind "logos in John 1:1ff which I've entertained these past few years: that namely, "the word" or "command" in John 1:1ff may be a specific reference to the very first words uttered by Elohim in Genesis 1:3 - "Let there be light" - to which John 1:4 continues, "then the light shined into the darkness." The personal sense from this take between Gen 1:3 and John 1:1 invokes that of the travel and "expansion" of light. Thanks. Danny

My hat off to Chuck and Mark and everyone here for such an interesting thread. I was introduced several years ago to the idea that Christ or Krestus would save all humanity through the works of A.E. Knoch and Concordant Concern Publishers. After years of the old, stale Wayshua teachings, Knoch's stuff was a much-needed breath of fresh air, and while I may not necessarily agree nowadays with his hair-splitting methodology, I can still greatly appreciate the heart of love behind his work. "Salvation" for "all mankind"? It's perfectly in keeping with the benevolent character of Christ/Krestus. It sounds like something Jesus would do. Danny

My personal unalterable standard or "rule" - when weighing and pondering the NT writings, as to what I think is ultimately genuine and what is not: the character of Krestus, as exemplified through His goodness. Danny

From the lost epistle of II Wayshua: Praised be the God Pia-Fay-EL, to the Fateful and Beat Livers of Old Knocks, O Hide all. In the name of our Victor Paul Wherewithal. To the Glowry of Way-shoo-ah Lo-Shon-ta! So soon are ye transferred from here - to over there. Not are ye here -but where? - over there: to a different Pia-Fay-EL which is not another! But even if a mother or a brother should proclaim a different Pia-Fay-EL from what I have taught you so well: [let them] be accursed! I say again [let them] be accursed! (what'chu say?) [let them] be accursed! Beware of Kosmic Kraiggers wearing bedsheets for clothing, who would sear your minds with nought errands worthy of loathing. Victory and Abundance to good sports everywhere in the name of our extremely tiny lord. Amen. and goodnite. :)-->

Where is Dr.Higgins now, I wonder?

Steve, That is interesting. I hope David Anderson sees your post on this, because he came to a similar conclusion a few years ago concerning "Acts" in his "Two Ways of the First Century Church...", that it was originally a legal treatise written on Paul's behalf. It's nice to stumble across some independent corroboration every so often. Danny

Wierwille-worshippers: your heretic has not been dead long enough, and there are too many living witnesses around with a knowledge of his dirty laundry. If you give Wierwille another couple hundred years - his stock may gain considerably in value. Add a few extra points should the world be hit by catastrophes which somehow wipe out the internet. In the meantime, consider adopting any number of homeless heretics from the second century on. The Syrian Cerdo is looking for a home, last I heard, as well as Montanus and Apelles. Danny

Okay, here's a weird rumor I recall hearing from a particularly immature Corp person many years ago. Didn't think of it till now. Wierwille wrote an entire teaching on the Book of "Revelation" - he never went public with it, but locked it in a safe (!) Somehow or other - it must have been the Deevil - some bible teacher on the west coast got "wind" of this teaching, and was teaching the same exact thing. God, why do I remember such stupid things...

It's disappointing how little thought or imagination goes into the manner with which dispensationalists handle or "divide" the gospel writings. If I was still a dispensationalist - if going by the notion of writings being addressed to "Jews, Gentiles or Church of God" - I would prefer, for example, that the idea that "the Gospel of Matthew" was addressed Jews or a Jewish-Christian audience, while the "Gospel of Luke" was addressed to Gentiles or a Gentile-Christian audience. For goodness sakes, the least a Bullinger or a Wierwille could have done is attribute at least one gospel to the gentiles, or to "us" - rather than cut off the gospels altogether, as being written or addressed to someone else.

(lol) Geo, you just brought to mind a peculiar "urban legend" I heard a few years ago... Namely, that athiest/non-Christian pilots were always paired up with any Christian pilots, just in case "the Rapture" occurred while a plane piloted by a Christian was in transit. A weird urban legend, to be sure... Danny

The Jesus in "Luke" is a Democrat: "Blessed are the poor... Blessed are those who hunger..." = actual poor folk, people who are actually hungry. while the Jesus in "Matthew" might be regarded a Republican: "Blessed are the poor in spirit ... blessed are those hungering for righteousness ...", = self-righteous religious folk, pious jerks seeking a spiritual snack. Take your pick... I prefer the Lukan version of Jesus nowadays. Danny

Indeed, WW, very cinematic! It always reminded me of the last scene to that 1940s era movie, Abe Lincoln in Illinois -(that I often confuse with "Young Mr. Lincoln", 1939) which I haven't seen in decades. Abe Lincoln (who sports his newly grown, trademark facial hairs) is standing on the caboose, finishing a speech as the train is slowly pulling away from the station...I bet this picture made quite the impression upon "Young Mr. Wierwille". I wonder if there's anything in that movie about Abe receiving a key to the city? As I said, it's been years...

A few years ago, a friend and I were hired to clean out a 90 year old man's attic, where we stumbled upon a box containing a KKK robe with the cone hat (with leather flaps), along with a few rascist tracts. An interesting peek into the historical, dark underbelly of a small northeastern town, to be sure. Shortly thereafter, my kooky friend came knocking at the door on Halloween, wearing that stupid KKK outfit. Well, some people do dress up as monsters on Halloween, and that was a good one. Needless to say, he didn't go trick 'n treating in any black neighborhoods. Though the fact that there weren't really that many blacks living in that particular town in CT. at the time perhaps makes that costume all the more scarier.

As long as you're not one of those people whose new vehicle snobbishly and crookedly hogs two parking spaces ... Congratulations, Linda! :)--> Danny

What I found irritating about a recent episode of "Law & Order" a few weeks ago was when they ended the episode on a (yawn ) "cliffhanger" - before the final verdict was read. I guess the viewers were expected to take some poll to determine the final outcome. Of course I forgot to watch it the following week. Along with the plot.

I read a rumor in "The Globe" or the "Star" or one of those cheesy celeb magazines that they may replace the unpredictible, quirky Vincent O-whats-his-name with Chris Noth in "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" That would be a good move. Danny

The "Bigfoot" prediction may turn out somewhat true - figuratively speaking. There was an entertaining article in last month's "Fortean Times" on how the "hoax" of the famous, late 60s Patterson film footage - as seen in all those darn bigfoot and paranormal documentaries - was pulled off, with interviews with the supposed, guy-in-the-gorilla-suit, the costume designer, and a few others in on the hoax. There's a book coming out about the whole thing (of course). So one could say that Bigfoot was "captured" - But the article also pointed out that others have come forward in the past confessing to be guy in the gorilla suit (lol). So who knows...

(sigh) I hear ya, WhiteDove. The whole "love-of-God-in-the-renewed-in-manifestation" -ugh!barf! - even makes my skin crawl to this day. They had to make it into some weird, complicated, long-winded doctrinal formula. Each one of us is so different. No one shoe fits all. Believe me, I've struggled with searching for and striking that balance as well, and will probably continue to make adjustments throughout the remainder of my life. It's not the same for everyone. We're such a diverse lot, but I'm glad for that. warmest wishes, Danny

Mark- I enjoyed immensely your fine comments respecting the dignity and worth of every human being. I heartily agree. Thank you. I also hesitate to add more to what has been a very heated discussion. It is neither my intent nor desire to strike from the Bible every passage pertaining to sodomy. But in my view and for many reasons, this particular section in Romans is problematic. I would like to rewind a bit on those passages you cited from to point out only a couple observations: Heathen mankind knew the "truth of God" - and in addition - were "captivating" it or suppressing it? (v.18) But wait a minute - I thought Jesus Christ was "the truth", the way and the light. Going back to the original subject in verse 16 - "the Gospel" - the power of salvation to everyone who believes it. Did nature proclaim Jesus Christ? But then if that's the case -why would be the purpose of Jesus coming at all, if nature and creation already accomplished the same task for him? From verse 20 on, things take quite a bizarre leap in logic, from whence this section started out - the Gospel! - in which "the righteousness of God" is "revealed therein" - to which a "wrath of God from heaven" is "revealed" against those who suppress "the truth of God" in unrighteousness. So from v.20 on - the unrelated "creation" should have taught us "the Gospel" and of the "righteousness" revealed therein? Though Jesus taught in parables utilizing illustrations of nature, should those godless heathen had been able to draw those same lessons on their own prior to the coming of Christ? But then again, - why bother have Jesus come at all, according to what follows from verse 20 on? The logic collapses upon itself. Those darn heathen - they're doomed if they do ("you should have paid attention to nature"), and they're doomed if they don't ("you went too far - you paid too much heed to nature - now you're worshiping it!") So who really were those people captivating or suppressing the TRUTH - (THE GOSPEL) -in their dishonesty? I think I know who it was, but I'm not going to say here. I'm leaving that for my book :)--> But certainly not the nameless, faceless, godless sodomizing heathen to which the narrative sloppily leads. The new additions are slick and smooth - but thankfully not without their obvious flaws. So ends my thoughts on this topic. *** Whitedove, If we can't depend on the love of Christ - then what? Surely you haven't erased from the table of your heart, "Love never fails"? But judging from your fine, heartfelt posts here, I know you haven't. What people do with paper is one thing. But what one determines for their own self to write or erase in their hearts is a far more weightier matter. with warmest regards, Danny

Mark - My apologies to you if I was harsh in my last slam. I must confess, I realize I've been putting the cart before the horse in this thread, and have addressed a couple points from what may be commonly regarded an "intellectual" standpoint. But my reasons for my suspicions toward the material in Romans 1:19ff goes far deeper than that. Does the voice underlying that section sound like the Savior who uttered the highest, most profound expressions of Christian love ever to pierce the darkest hearts of mankind? The same Christ who uttered, "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God...blessed are the hungry, for they shall be filled...Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh...? - the same Christ who came to earth and extended His unconditional divine love and grace to those - the scum of the world, the lowest of the lowest, the stinking dungheap of humanity - in short, those who least deserved it? Who encouraged these same lowlifes to give their love and lend to others without expecting anything in return? The same Christ who uttered "Be compassionate as your father is compassionate toward you, judge not lest ye be judged, condemn not lest ye be condemned...forgive and you will be forgiven"? - to imitate God's character here, of what our approach toward fellow losers like ourselves should be? the "Physician" who came not for the righteous, but for "sinners"? But when I encounter that particular section in Romans - I'm sorry, but something's terribly off there. And what's more, when one considers the violence committed against others who used that particular section as their justification and motivation for abusing, harming and even murdering others they deemed different from themselves - then is it unreasonable to question the authenticity of that section on the basis of it's rotten "fruits"? ("By their fruits ye shall know them" ?) Of all the critical avenues toward weighing this body of literature sewn between the covers entitled "Holy Bible", what ultimate, better aid than the living Spirit of Christ dwelling within one? Will we listen to Him, or drown out the Spirit of love with the white noise of supposed "correct doctrines" and "correct teachings" and "correct practices" and so forth? I realize full well that many come up with kooky doctrines and ideas in their endeavor to follow Christ - but let's suppose for one minute - what if we focus our energies more precisely toward pursuing the "love of Christ"? That the love of Christ becomes that against which everything else is weighed? Can you imagine how different Christian history the past 2,000 years would have turned out? What a novel that would make. with warmest regards, Danny

Wasn't Jesus Himself more or less tried and crucified as a "heretic" in the eyes of the religious mainstream of the time? And I cannot help but voice those words which I always bear in mind when reading the arbitrary views of the church fathers - "Blessed are you, when men hate you and abuse you and ostracize you and reject as evil your name for the sake of the son of man - ...for the same did their fathers to the prophets." and further down in Luke 6, a special "woe" to those whose names become celebrated and exalted by men to no end (i.e., Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Luther, -? - etc.) Such is the way of history - and yes, the world - the names of certain men become praised - while others are relegated to the "accursed" trash heap. I find it the greatest twist of history that the man oft credited for publishing the earliest known New Testament canon - has himself been condemned as "son of Satan"! Perhaps Christians really have been worshiping the wrong god all along - they ought to hail Satan for having cooked up the idea of the Christian canon. Forgive me if I do not always march in line behind history's "verdicts" - the words of Jesus ought to give us all something to consider here. On the other hand, I appreciate the numerous other examples you cited concerning sodomizers in the ancient world - which again, seemingly adds all the more to the point I proposed in my initial post on this thread - of how the controveries of history become reflected in the literature of the time, even if depicted a century earlier than when such controversies actually occurred. And to quote you again - My point exactly. Aside from the possibility that I may be a lesbian in a man's body, as my wife would attest - :D--> I was not moved to express my opinions here out of any particular lifestyle concerns of my own, but rather, from observation of the fruits resulting from the interaction between texts and history. Mark, not only Marcion - and no less than Marcion - but all the Christian movements in those early centuries were quite arbitrary in their handling of their material. And even today, churches today continue to disagree over points of interpretation. And lest you think that the splinter of a critical approach to the Bible jutting in my eye is Wierwillian in nature, the "beam" evidently sticking in your head - namely"THE-WORD-OF-GOD-IS-THE-WILL-OF-GOD" - is that any less Wierwillian? But relax Mark - we're perhaps both destined to fall into the same ditch. ;)--> Danny

Happy birthday to ya, Chuck! Danny

I stand corrected. It must have been in Tertullian's text. Thank you Cynic.