TheInvisibleDan

I would refer you to those works - which include 3 reconstructions of this text drawn from quotations by the early Church writers - already cited in my previous post. I would also suggest that anyone review any number of critical introductions to the NT text. For example, the more recent "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings" by Bart D. Ehrman. What will be seen, is that a many serious NT scholars for well over the past 100 years have reached the conclusion that Paul did not author the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, which twi was so fond of holding over our heads. I mention this fact if only to illustrate how widespread the practice of writing (and editing) under the pseudonym of one dead apostle or another had become. The pastoral epistles - as one will learn if one is brave enough to review any critical introduction - betray their actual period and occassion of writing. Danny

WhiteDove, I've gone into this in some detail in the "Doctrinal" forum in the past - I can't recall how many times. Hence my desire not to "bore" people. But to recap only briefly why I think the material in this section -from Romans 1:19 -2:1 - was missing,-or altered - is based not on a message from Elvis from beyond the grave, but on reconstructions of the text of Marcion, which text was published approx. between 130-150 AD.(his was in fact the earliest known New Testament canon). A Greek reconstruction of Marcion's "Romans" may be reviewed in Appendix III of the German edition of "Marcion" by Adolf von Harnack, and Theodor Zahn, vol II of "Geschichte des n.t. Kanons", or more recently, Ulrich Schmid, "Marcion und sein Apostolos". Or, you can review an English translation of one of the sources used by these scholars, "Against Marcion" by Tertullian, in vol III of classic "Ante-Nicene Fathers" (which is posted online at a couple places) - or Evan's Latin-English translation at www.Tertullian.org In is in chapter 13 of book 5 where Tertullian discusses (or criticizes) Marcion's text of Romans here. The section of 1:19-2:1 was obviously missing, or existed in a far different form than what has come down to us in our overbloated canonical version. For one, Tertullian not once uses any material in this section - even from his own version, which he did not hesitate to cite against Marcion - as a weapon against him, a fact that was also not lost to the 19th century scholar Hilgenfeld in his journal article on Marcion's Pauline canon. While Marcion has been accused by his opponents of excising material from his text - these accusations are not supported by the facts, nor by the prevailing tendency of the opposite - namely, the proven fact on the side of orthodoxy to have expanded and enlarged their texts. A perfect speciman of this fact: the epistles of St. Ignatius, of which there exists shorter versions, and longer versions. The shorter versions are older, while the longer are more recent. The entire New Testament underwent this process. btw, if anyone here is interested in an immensely easy-to-read, approachable work on this topic, please check out "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred" by Charles B. Waite. It's a bit dated, but still highly invaluable and very enjoyable especially to those who may be still recovering from Wierwille's toxic "mankind was made for the scriptures- not the scriptures for mankind" mindset. Danny

I've been boring people for years with my opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God. I knew it was added but I really didn't understand why until this past year. Controversies throughout the Roman Empire concerning "Gay Marriage" and ideals of masculinity raged throughout the second and third centuries. From the article, "The Origins of Marriage" (pg.13, The Week, April 2, 4004, vol4, issue 150): And from http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-11-05.html Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999.11.05; review of Craig A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. xii, 395; 12 pls.; Reviewed by Bruce W. Frier, University of Michigan: To which I might add, the "prescriptive" material found in Romans ch.1 - which perfectly mirrors controversies of the second century AD, long after Paul had died? Danny

Valerie, Is there an online archive that would include your show? Danny

And another moral of the story would be: Don't be a Dick. -->

"The Killers" (1946) - Burt Lancaster's first flick. Excellent film noir of a short Hemingway story... Up there with "Double Indemnity". Excellent music score, from whence the "Dragnet" theme derives. "The President's Analyst" (1967) -my favorite James Coburn movie. He plays the president's personal psychiatrist gone AWOL, chased by agents from our government and others... "The Loved One" - (Jonathan Winters, Robert Morse)- I'm waiting for an official dvd release of this one. A dark, quirky comedy about a funeral home pursuing the gimmick of shooting the remains of the lately departed into outer space. I've only caught it once a few years ago, but it made an impression. "The Trip" - late 60s - starring Peter Fonda - "Whoa...look at that orange over there...I've never noticed those colors before..." Actually it's probably worse than I remember. "The Curse of Bigfoot" - Horrible hodge-podge of a flick, with early 70s footage added to the 1963 film. It's absolute crap, but highly entertaining for some strange reason. "Invaders from Mars" - the 1953 version, with a bizarre score of "singing Martians" during the scenes where 1950s folks disappeared into the sandpit on the hill, only to return acting like they just joined the Way Corpse. Very impressionible to my fragile youthful mind - and Scarey! Better stop here. Danny

Geo - Forget "Santa" - I'll need to sell my soul to "Satan" to get that copy (lol). Danny

Oak - HOW DARE YOU, SIR -that's an INSULT to twelve-year olds everywhere! ;)--> Danny

Like anyone else, the particulars behind the "original sin" may be anyone's guess, but I must confess, I have certainly found theories and takes concerning the first two chapters of Genesis far more interesting than anything I recall being offered through Wayshua Multinational. I think the view that the first two chapters of Genesis comprising of two different texts - hence, two different creation accounts stitched together - has a bit going for it. Theories along these lines may often be reviewed in the field of OT critical scholarship. Then there are various esoteric interpretations on why these accounts are different and even contradictory in places,i.e., the first creation account actually concerns that of the spiritual realm, and the second, the material (though I haven't pursued that line of reasoning since first encountering it years ago). Then there's what might be regarded a "gnostic" interpretation (seemingly evident in some movements of Judaism, as explored by Margaret Barker) - that the first creation account concerned a world created wholly good by the highest "Elohim", while the second, concerned the original creation going downhill upon the angel "Yahweh" entering the scene. Pretty unusual, but somehow not as outrightly insane as a masterbating Adam, a lesbian Eve, and a universe bobbing in a primoridial sac of water. Which sounds like a bad soap opera. Danny

Hi Steve, I had drawn my initial impressions (or misimpressions?) not from a particular statement you made but rather from the overall thrust of your argument, which emphasized your point about the meaning aion = time periods, while offering little comment on what I had raised earlier in support of the additional albeit unusual meaning I had proposed. But I understand that we each have a life outside of these forums, and the tendency for one to condense one's own or another's views or comments in whatever manner to convey a point (short of jotting a fully detailed dissertation, or dissecting another person's comments, not always possible nor desirable) may become a necessity, though such attempts are not without their shortfalls. I envy you on your recent acquisition of "A Patristic Lexicon"! I recall this was on my "want" list awhile back, along with Martinez's "Study Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls," and a critical edition of St. Ignatius, and 20-some-odd other works (lol). Your continuing work on "oikonomia" is admirable, not to overlook the service it greatly does to Jesus' "steward" parables. Danny

You may be correct in this case Steve, as you were in the other examples you cited, that it should be understood in a literal sense; but to reiterate what I have already stated in the closing paragraph of my last post, which you may have overlooked: "...much depends on the contexts in how aionos (as with any word) is employed." As I have noted in my previous post, Liddell as well as others acknowledge the particular usage of this term aion which I have proposed in addition to your own. And as I have demonstrated from the Genesis Apocryphon as well as Colossians 1:26 (acknowledged in the Revised Standard Version) and the Book of Hebrews, the Semitic writers were not at all strangers to this particular usage. Perhaps it would be helpful to consider how this term could be used in such a manner to begin with. Gesenius (Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament, p.613) may provide some invaluable insight, in his discussion on elam or olam: "The true nature of eternity is found in this word in those passages which speak of the immortal nature [emphasis my own] of God himself, who is called the [El Eylam ], the eternal God....[or] to live forever, to be immortal, like gods [rather like God himself]..." Hence it is hardly "convoluted" or unreasonable to see how such a term could become used to characterize "superhuman" beings, of which angels and gods are oft regarded - as "immortal", or unaffected by the effects of time itself. Wherever the contexts support "eylama" designating angels as "worlds" or "aeons", they are likewise referred to as "stars" elsewhere throughout the Hebrew and Aramaic literature, as well as "the Elements" by virtue of their association with the natural forces of nature over which angels were thought to govern throughout this literature. This appears to me to be quite common throughout the ancient world, and the Hebrews, as anyone will discover upon reviewing all the literature, were no exception. Does that mean that each and every case of alam, olam or aionos is to be construed as a personification in this regard? Of course not. But we would do this word a disservice by viewing it in every single instance in the Bible only in the light of one static, literal meaning, as Steve has asserted. And there may be other usages which we may have not fully put our finger on yet, on how the minds of another culture and a distant era interpreted such, as for example, the writings in the Nag Hammadi Library will make painfully obvious to anyone who undertakes to review such. Danny

Steve, My purpose was not to "persuade" but to correct and contest your original implication that "aion" could refer only to a "period of time" - which you were gracious to acknowledge in the course of your fine reply. But for the benefit of others who are reading, I cite this additional meaning of "aion" , which BTW, I make no claim to being the only interpretation. Liddell, in addition to citing Steve's position, also confirms my observation: I. lifetime, life, . 2. age, generation 3. one's life, destiny, lot, S.Tr.34, E.Andr.1215, Fr.30, etc. II. long space of time, age 2. space of time clearly defined and marked out, epoch, age, ho ai?outos this present world, opp. ho mell?Ev.Matt.13.22, cf. Ep.Rom.12.2; ho nun ai. 3. Ai?ho, personified, Ai?hronou pais E.Heracl.900 (lyr.), cf. Corp.Herm.11, etc.; as title of various divine beings, Dam.Pr.151, al.; esp.=Persian Zervan, Suid. s.v. H??os. The full, unedited definition may be viewed at the Perseus website. Of the Christian gnostic and Mandaean usage of "Aeon", Hans Jonas (The Gnostic Religion, p.54, footnote 9) writes: "In the singular, "aeon" can simply mean "the world" and is as "this aeon" in Jewish and Christian thought opposed to "the coming aeon": here, the model was probably the Hebrew word olam (Aram. alma), whose original meaning of "eternity" came to include that of "world." The Mandaean plural almaya can mean "worlds" and "beings," the latter in a personal (superhuman) sense. Personification is joined to the New Testament concept of "this aeon" by expressions like "the god [or, "the rulers"] of this aeon." In Jonas' glossary (ibid, p.99), to "worlds" he writes: "Almaya, can also mean "beings," sometimes also, in spite of the plural form, simply the singular "world"; mostly not certain which of the different meanings is intended in the given case." I posed myself this simple question a few years ago: in addition to the Greek, is there any evidence in the Hebrew and Aramaic literature of this practice of personifying "age" or "aeon" (olam, alma) as a "being," as opposed to interpreting such as a literal space or epoch or duration of time? I was soon rewarded with a fine, indisputable specimen from the Qumran "Dead Sea" Scrolls; section II of "The Genesis Apocryphon," which concerns the birth of Noah, and whose father Lamech suspected that his wife had consorted with one of the angels that descended from heaven (note the crucial role angels play throughout these passages): "Behold, I thought to then within my heart that conception was (due) to the Watchers and the Holy Ones...and to the Giants...and my heart was troubled within me because of this child. Then I, Lamech, approached Bathenosh [my] wife in haste and said to her, '...but the Most High, the Great Lord, the King of all the worlds and the Ruler of the Sons of Heaven...tell me [this truthfully] and not falsely...by the King of all the Worlds..." Note the couplets given in the typical pattern of Jewish parallelism: ...by the Most High the Great Lord King of all the worlds And Ruler of the Sons of Heaven The "Worlds" (Aram. almaya =Heb. olam= Gk.aion) are the "Sons of Heaven", which, as we know from other places ("sons of God" in Gen.6) - are "angels". "Worlds" employed here, are not inanimate "ages" or literal "spans of time". One may struggle in vain to find examples among the Stoics and other philosophical schools - but for goodness sakes, one need look no further than the Jews' own writings of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" (!) As mentioned in the citation of Jonas, almaya (= ages, worlds) was personified throughout the Aramaic literature of the Mandaeans, a sect which claimed to have descended from followers of John the Baptist. Jonas' work contains many examples from their writings, and I would encourage anyone interested to check out Jonas' work. Now onto a couple of examples in the New Testament, bearing in mind what we just learned from the "Genesis Apocryphon" Hebrews 1:1ff - 1. In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2. But in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all, through whom he also made the worlds (Aram. almaya =Heb.olam= Gk.aion) 3. He reflects the glory of God, and bears the very stamp of his nature...he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, 4. being made so much superior to the angels.. 5. for to what angel did God declare... 6. "Let all Gods angels worship him." 7. Of the angels he declares, 8. "Who makes his angels winds and his servants a flame of fire" 13. But to what angel has he ever declared... etc., etc., - angels are discussed into the next chapter - which discussion all commenced with "the worlds" or "the aeons" being "made". But if that's not enough- how about the committee of translators and editors behind our "Revised Standard Version" (Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1953)? Col.1:26 "the mystery hidden for ages and generations"... footnote c offers this alternate rendition: "Or from angels and men " Obviously they thought "ages" = "angels" And "generations" = "men". Now when you consider the examples from the Genesis Apocryphon, the Book of Hebrews; the Mandaean literature as well as the Nag Hammadi Library, for which I will not bother getting into here - where the godlike beings of "angels" are also ascribed the term "worlds" (Aram. almaya =Heb. olam= Gk.aion) - how can one not seriously contemplate the possible personification of "aeon" or "aeons" in other contexts of Paul, in which contexts other terms for "angels" also appear? i.e., the "Archons of this Aeon" in 1 Cor.2:6; "according to the Aeon, according to the Archon of the air" in Eph.2? Again, much depends on the contexts in how aionos (as with any word) is employed. It is not certain nor obvious that such was always employed in such a literal interpretation. I would encourage readers to experiment with both literal and personified meanings, because depending on the context - either are possible, from my personal observation. Danny

Yet "Aion" was also unquestionably employed as a term of personification - in other words, "Aion" was to the ancients another term for a deity or a godlike being. In ALL of the passages you cited by Paul, this particular usage or understanding could and would work just as well if not better. Devotees of Mithraism - which was quite popular throughout Paul's home territory of Tarsus,- referred to their god Mithra as "the Aion". One might even argue that the term "Everlasting God" - the "God of this Aion" or "Aeonian God" could just as easily be the original meaning. Ranging from Zoroastrianism to Gnosticism, the idea of "Time" was personified, and not always deemed literally as "a period of time". When considering again the examples you cited, comprising of a succession of terms in reference to heavenly rulers or overlords,- "Aion" may easily be viewed as another parallelism that functions as and is supported by the other "rulership" terms in those contexts. Sorry Steve, but this term "aion" is not off the "ambiguity" hook either. It could mean a literal period of time - but could also be "The Aeon" or "Aeonian God". Danny

Biblefan Dave, In all fairness, not everyone who has arrived to a perspective or conclusion or even a doctrine differing from the sphere of yours or Wierwille's or Bullinger's or Lynn's or anyone elses has done so out of a motivation of hatred, bitterness or spite. Seems I recall once upon a time many folks in the Way giving testimonies which contrasted and compared their previous religious and spiritual ideas to their newly acquired ideas and understanding picked up in the Way; i.e., "I used to be a Roman Catholic but now I believe this", or, "I used to be a Liberal but now I believe that", etc. But now, years later, any of us who have continued in their "quest for truth" - whether with another group or independently - find it perfectly healthy and constructive to compare and contrast anything we newly learn against what we previously believed or were taught and experienced, including anything which came to us via Wierwille or Bullinger. Please do not mistake this experiential, sifting comparative/contrastive learning process as necessarily a manifestation of bitterness or hatred against a particular group or teacher. I do not think this is the case with each individual here. Just because someone believes Christ to be God -or the Bible not to be wholly perfectly perfect - or they have a different take on "administrations" - doesn't necessarily mean they do so out of hatred or bitterness. Danny

George, That's an excellent point. In the Marcionite NT (circ. 130 CE) Ephesians in that canon was titled "To the Laodiceans", not to be confused with the later, brief apocryphal letter of the same title. Danny

No, not at all. or the girl? ;)--> That's up to you. Personally, I think it's good to maintain an open mind. However, I've observed the tendency for a good many folks who have gotten involved with the Way to lose that adventurous "open-mindedness" amidst getting caught up in the group perspective. They have even gone so far as to demonize an open mind the further one becomes involved in the group, through the fearful idea that an open mind is like a trap-door through which "devil spirits" may enter. In any event, if you do decide to check out a fellowship, you were wise to inquire of those who were formerly involved with the group - at least you're going into it with both eyes open. Danny

Hi Biblefan Dave, Love your name. When were the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (or the earlier forms thereof, as well as other gospels -and there were a few others) actually "written"? Scholars generally estimate somewhere during the latter half of the first century, into the opening decades of the second. Long after the legendary "Day of Pentecost" (which event lauded to the heavens by us today as the "birth of the Church" - Paul esteems so highly as to not bother mentioning it even once in his own writings - never mind Matthew or John). In any event, the dispensational approach, of getting "to whom written", when applied to the canonical gospels, raises more questions than answers. It's as if Matthew, Mark, or John are assumed to have set out to "retro-write" their gospels for an "administration" or period of time long past? To "whom" were the gospels "addressed"? To members of a population long dead or scattered? The only thing missing here is a time tunnel. As I have brought up in past posts, the earliest form of the "Gospel" in circulation prior to our canonical versions comprised of the logia of Jesus only, minus the historical narratives, - similar to the Coptic "Gospel of Thomas". The sayings of Jesus were regarded as the new "commandments" among many early Christians, regardless of which "apostle" they esteemed in their particular movement or community. And lest we all forget - especially given the downtrodden cross-section of folks attracted to the Christian movements - the majority couldn't read and were dependant on the oral transmission of sayings, as well as upon scribes or other learned folks to recite material to them. I would hesitate to consider or imagine Christianity in its most primitive forms (whatever these may have been, though they were no doubt quite varied) to have been "Bible-based" in the manner rehashed today. And I can imagine - if one could hop in the aforementioned time-tunnel- seeing a gaze of blank bewilderment come over the countenance of a many folks of that era, having recited and translated to them any number of ideas brought up in this thread thus far. They most likely would scratched their beards or nether-regions and have returned to fishing or tending their sheep. Danny

I also thought Leonardo de Caprio was just another teen-boy model until I watched his intense, drug-addict performance in "The Basketball Diaries" - contrary to popular belief, the kid really can act (lol). And some actors actually do improve over time.

I hear angels singing.... please Lord Sudo, heal my wisdom tooth!

Just some speculations on my part. Dave Anderson mentioned something a few years ago his recollection to the effect that the success of PFAL took Wierwille by surprise -and even scared him. Add to this, my remembrance of watching at an "Advanced Class" an early Way biblical research promo film (vintage 50s -early 60s?)- which featured the same two or three cars driving around the block several times. Which has me wondering - if this preacher in the midst of the cornfields of Bum-frick Ohio had been lax with citing his "borrowings" from others - because perhaps originally, he hadn't actually expected his material to extend beyond the vicinity of his locality, or of the states in his neighborhood? It seemed, after all, a much larger world back then. The odds of anyone not noticing his "borrowings" throughout his works was considerably greater back then; after all, at one time Vp would have been content had only 50 people took his class, or so I've heard. Now I'm also wondering - was the practice of borrowing material from other writers without giving reference to the original sources a practice common among evangelicals?

Is that a steering wheel? :)-->

The computerized conductor character I see in the ads resembles Mr. McFeely from Mister Rogers neighborhood. Which I find all the more underwhelming. Maybe I'll catch it on TV a couple years from now, if I happen to stumble upon it while channel surfing.

Wish them away into the corn field.

I would love to get my picture taken, standing behind that picket fence. That would be cool.

Is the hotel anywhere near Dealy Plaza? I would imagine such would lend a certain conspiratorial ambience to their otherwise dull conspiratorial classes. And they could even seat the entire class in one convertible.