A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2012, 02:05 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Jedah, that girl is less hawt than a blow-up doll. Tongue

ST, the thing you are being used by is the power structure embedded in the church.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
09-06-2012, 02:33 AM (This post was last modified: 09-06-2012 02:38 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(09-06-2012 02:05 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  ST, the thing you are being used by is the power structure embedded in the church.
Ranger seems smart enough not to be used.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
11-06-2012, 08:21 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
ST, how much money have you given to your church?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-06-2012, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2012 04:03 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
The issue of educational competence was raised because there was exhibited no knowledge of the arguments, settled issues, current issues, and methods of scholars in the last 175 years, in Form Criticism, Sources, scholars, and Biblical Archaeology, and NOT ONE external source. It was then asserted, with not one shred of evidence, that someone's points were all "someone else's ideas", (without saying why that might be a bad thing, or any evidence of who's they were), and were all acquired on Wikipedia, in an effort to get a response to the "quotation" spouting, and drag one down that rabbit hole. It was then suggested that if he could prove that statistically, a random walk through Wiki was more probable than the accusation, he would be appointed to the Math and Stats Dept at MIT. He never replied. He also has never refuted the fact that historically the First Covenant was NOT what he asserted it was.

So, since he also never attempted a discussion of the Gnosticism problem in the Gospel of John, I decided to actually go look at some real scholars, as I had access to an Ivy League library this past weekend. Turns out my assumptions may be wrong. There seems to be some good evidence in the Qumran literature, that the dualism seen in John may have already been a part of Judaism. (not mainline Judaism, but certain parts of it .. ie the Essenes). And maybe they got it from Iranian Zoroastrianism, and not Greek (Gnostic), Idealsim. The great Cosmic Struggle was seen by the Essenes, not as a struggle between Yahweh and Darkness, but between TWO creatures, The Prince of Light, and the Prince of Darkness. (see Fr. Raymond Brown, professor, (Catholic priest), at Union Seminary, (Protestant) NY, (also wrote a great book called Antioch and Rome). So that may have set the stage for John's dualism, which is absent in the other gospels.

Speaking of "winking out" I was reminded this weekend, by a Harvard scholar, that Paul, (Saul of Tausus), did NOT believe in immortality, for EVERYONE. He believed in "resurrection" ONLY for the saved. (So much for hell). The Conference was on the changing nature of Paul's theology, and how it changed radically based on what he encountered in his travels, and various historical developments. It raises the question, if what was written in Romans and 1 Corinthians changed so much, what does it do the to authority of both the first and second versions. Clarence Tucker Craig, the eminent NT scholar, who was Chair of the NT Studies Dept at Drew, and Dean of the Seminary, (conservative United Methodists), said of these developmental changes in Pauline ideas, "In any case, of this one thing we may be sure". (They also had an interesting fight about the Seutonius reference, re the expulsion of the Jews from Rome), since Seutonius spelled "christian" correctly, but did not (if he was referencing Jeebus), spell "chrestus" correctly. So most in attendance thought he was not referencing Jeebus, but a slave who opposed some civil monument.

Then I discovered the famous Catholic writer, Merton ("The Other Side of the Mountain"), also said he "encountered" nothingness, and saw that just "not being there", was something he indeed foresaw.

Mark, there is a many volume set called "The Translators Guide to the Bible", (Cokesbury-Abigdon), which was a compendium of many scholars, many VERY conservative ones, some of THE most famous names from 20th C scholarship. Every single line is sourced, in the entire bible, and many are multiple sourced, (where they know J, E, P K, etc), were used, changed, and dropped, in some texts, and pulled back into others. It's long out of print, and only really old school libraries probably have a set, under lock and key. It is THE best set of source docs I have ever run across. I can't find it on-line. If you do, let me know, please.

BTW, for an explanation of the spouting behavior, see Kim's brilliant find on the Elegant Nature of Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-...ded#t=273s

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-06-2012, 06:01 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
I done tole you Paul's theology evolved as a result of communion between a prophet and his peeps, but no! It ain't real till some "eminent scholar" says so. Tongue

(OC me be trollin', but for the most part, that is my hypothesis. I get to thinking ST's prob may be that "opening the mind" is to allow Satan Satan...Satan...Satan... ahem, in with like deceptive temptations and shit. Tongue)

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
11-06-2012, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 11-06-2012 06:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(11-06-2012 06:01 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I done tole you Paul's theology evolved as a result of communion between a prophet and his peeps, but no! It ain't real till some "eminent scholar" says so. Tongue

(OC me be trollin', but for the most part, that is my hypothesis. I get to thinking ST's prob may be that "opening the mind" is to allow Satan Satan...Satan...Satan... ahem, in with like deceptive temptations and shit. Tongue)
Well, you is da eminence. See to it you wear only red hats, (you will be granted a dispensation for the dress). I posted the reference cuz it proves even some of the most conservative fundies agree it developed.
They were also talking about about Barnabas, (since it's his feast today), and the fact that they, (Paul and B), hated each other's guts, and disagreed so much, they could not travel, or work together.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-06-2012, 08:22 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
There's some stuff that always gets me... (prepare for rant)

God's supposed to be almighty and non-interventionist. K. So how does it not follow that "word of god" is not subject to market appeal? They say stupid shit like, "can't both be right," but of course they can, cause it's almighty shit. And here we got KC with his NASB and ST with his KJV, each going , no, I'm right! I mean, wtf?

And there ain't no account I know of, of a prophet that disregards scholarship. Not Jesus, not Mohammed, not even this nutbag. So what makes the STs of the world think they can get away with that shit?

Reminds me of fat ol' Aha in the nature of existence movie I watched today. He goes, you ain't looking for purpose, you're looking for recognition. Tell 'em, Aha. Not bad for a fluffball. Big Grin

Oh, and I love my Gwynnies! /rant.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 05:07 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(11-06-2012 04:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The issue of educational competence was raised because there was exhibited no knowledge of the arguments, settled issues, current issues, and methods of scholars in the last 175 years, in Form Criticism, Sources, scholars, and Biblical Archaeology, and NOT ONE external source. It was then asserted, with not one shred of evidence, that someone's points were all "someone else's ideas", (without saying why that might be a bad thing, or any evidence of who's they were), and were all acquired on Wikipedia, in an effort to get a response to the "quotation" spouting, and drag one down that rabbit hole. It was then suggested that if he could prove that statistically, a random walk through Wiki was more probable than the accusation, he would be appointed to the Math and Stats Dept at MIT. He never replied. He also has never refuted the fact that historically the First Covenant was NOT what he asserted it was.

So, since he also never attempted a discussion of the Gnosticism problem in the Gospel of John, I decided to actually go look at some real scholars, as I had access to an Ivy League library this past weekend. Turns out my assumptions may be wrong. There seems to be some good evidence in the Qumran literature, that the dualism seen in John may have already been a part of Judaism. (not mainline Judaism, but certain parts of it .. ie the Essenes). And maybe they got it from Iranian Zoroastrianism, and not Greek (Gnostic), Idealsim. The great Cosmic Struggle was seen by the Essenes, not as a struggle between Yahweh and Darkness, but between TWO creatures, The Prince of Light, and the Prince of Darkness. (see Fr. Raymond Brown, professor, (Catholic priest), at Union Seminary, (Protestant) NY, (also wrote a great book called Antioch and Rome). So that may have set the stage for John's dualism, which is absent in the other gospels.

Speaking of "winking out" I was reminded this weekend, by a Harvard scholar, that Paul, (Saul of Tausus), did NOT believe in immortality, for EVERYONE. He believed in "resurrection" ONLY for the saved. (So much for hell). The Conference was on the changing nature of Paul's theology, and how it changed radically based on what he encountered in his travels, and various historical developments. It raises the question, if what was written in Romans and 1 Corinthians changed so much, what does it do the to authority of both the first and second versions. Clarence Tucker Craig, the eminent NT scholar, who was Chair of the NT Studies Dept at Drew, and Dean of the Seminary, (conservative United Methodists), said of these developmental changes in Pauline ideas, "In any case, of this one thing we may be sure". (They also had an interesting fight about the Seutonius reference, re the expulsion of the Jews from Rome), since Seutonius spelled "christian" correctly, but did not (if he was referencing Jeebus), spell "chrestus" correctly. So most in attendance thought he was not referencing Jeebus, but a slave who opposed some civil monument.

Then I discovered the famous Catholic writer, Merton ("The Other Side of the Mountain"), also said he "encountered" nothingness, and saw that just "not being there", was something he indeed foresaw.

Mark, there is a many volume set called "The Translators Guide to the Bible", (Cokesbury-Abigdon), which was a compendium of many scholars, many VERY conservative ones, some of THE most famous names from 20th C scholarship. Every single line is sourced, in the entire bible, and many are multiple sourced, (where they know J, E, P K, etc), were used, changed, and dropped, in some texts, and pulled back into others. It's long out of print, and only really old school libraries probably have a set, under lock and key. It is THE best set of source docs I have ever run across. I can't find it on-line. If you do, let me know, please.

BTW, for an explanation of the spouting behavior, see Kim's brilliant find on the Elegant Nature of Science. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-...ded#t=273s
Hi Bucky, I bow down to your eloquence in describing St's arguments (although one could barely call them that.) You have more energy, patience and literary ability than myself.

As to "John's" gnostic ideas...I'm a little rusty. I seem to remember that some think John was written, at least in part, to counter gnosticism...ie Jeebus was made to be "gnostic" to appeal to the "gnostics" ...I hope that makes sense.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Jews, even Essenes, were the originators of gnostic ideas. My understanding is they were people who put their own "spin" on many religions, including Judaism and Nazarenism (Yeshua's version of Judaism.)

I hear what you say about Qumran/gnostic ideas/Essenes though. What a complex mess!

I'll share an important thought with you. Let's remember there was no mass media and travel was limited. Average Joe Blow didn't wander around like Paul. From our modern perspective, we tend to assume "the Jews" or "the gnostics" or "the Essenes" or whoever believed this or that. In reality, in those days what one crazy community of fanatics believed may have been quite different from their neighbours 50 kilometres down the road. You made up your own rules in those days, Paul being a classical example. There was a great melting pot of ideas, and people borrowed ideas from their neighbours.

I agree re Paul. There's no hell in Paul's writings. Hell is not even a Jewish concept. I'm happy to be corrected, but I think "hell" was pinched by other inventors of Christian theology from Zoroastrianism.

I can't remember coming across "the translator's guide to the bible." I'm deliberately not actively researching at the moment. That has already taken a large chunk out of my life and doesn't warrant too much more. One has to stop somewhere. I'm trying to promote the book at present, and am having some success on Facebook. Don't get me wrong...I eagerly devour your posts still and will always have an interest.

Getting through to the ST's of this world is probably impossible. There will be a percentage of people who have been so thoroughly done over they're gone and will never come back. C'est la vie. I'm going to concentrate on the fence sitters. Many of them are reproducing and wondering where to send their kids. They're still awake. I'm going to try to be genuinely nice to them. Non threatening. Hitting them straight up with logical discussion is probably not the way to go. (I resist it when someone tries to "sell" me something.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-06-2012, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2012 07:23 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 05:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I seem to remember that some think John was written, at least in part, to counter gnosticism...ie Jeebus was made to be "gnostic" to appeal to the "gnostics" ...I hope that makes sense.


Agree. The "word/Word/Logos" is straight from Gnosticism, and NOT a Hebrew concept, at least from main stream Judaism. in terms of a "active agent". The word "Torah" is derived from the root ירה which means "to teach" (cf. Lev. 10:11), not an "actor", or active agent.

Non-historians attempt to assert that John of Patmos, (supposedly the author of Revelation), is the SAME as the author of John, and that they both were the same as the Apostle John. They were not. All I'm saying is that the stage was set by Zoroastrianism, so when the Christians came into to contact with the Greeks, the technical term, (Logos) from Philosophy, beginning with Heracletus, (died 475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge, and especially Philo, (from Alexandria, who was a contemporary of Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo ), and who had a huge influence on the fusion of Greek thought with Jewish thought. The actual fusion was done by Philo, and the author of John was the first time the "logos" was identified with a "divine" principle, ("theos"), in Christianity.

I think Yeshua was a pretty run of the mill Essene, who no doubt had come into contact with the Greeks and Nazarenism. Not sure we have enough evidence to say he invented Nazarenism.

I do completely agree with the "pockets" and regionalism. The cult was totally different in each location, for a very long time, and the idea that mostly lower class people/slaves would/could either read, or have access to written documents, is preposterous.

The Jews, (in their world view), had a thingy they called Sheol. It was more of a "underworld", (like the Greeks). It was not a place of "fire". Not sure where Sheol came from. Will have to learn.

As far as the "fence sitters" go ... agree. That's why I said it's about the guests. I just plant seeds, (of doubt). It's a process. As Kim wisely said, (I think), if you pull the rug out from under someone they may fall. If ya lead them to the edge, they can walk away.

BTW, I got some "shush" looks in the Library, last weekend, when I laughed out loud...I opened Aquinas' last work, and he was talking about why the serpent went to Eve first. He actually wrote the serpent did it through her "because the light of reason shone less brightly in her". It was also very refreshing to understand that he is so easily refutable in his proofs of god crap.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-06-2012, 08:47 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Seems to me the Jews mighta pinched their thoughts of "after" from the Egyptians. Once upon a time, Anubis weighed the soul on his scales against the feather of truth, and if the soul was heavy, it wuz c-ya laterz. Me lieks some Anubis. Any lingering "fear of judgement" instilled in me from being in a Christian environment - well, didn't measure up against the feather of truth. Tongue

Of course, the priests got ahold of that idea, and started peddling these little sarcophagi looking thingies with which you can "buy your way outta heaviness." Fucking priests.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: