A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2012, 02:39 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(11-06-2012 08:21 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ST, how much money have you given to your church?

Only as much as I have purposed in my heart, every cent given willingly, and cheerfully.

Why do you ask? Is it thought that I am "being used" if I support ministry and missions, as spoken in God's word?

Let me now ask you: how much have you given to charities?

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:03 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2012 05:36 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
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

Quote: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.


The public record will show that the discussion ended with the display of a lack of knowledge...on your side.


.
Quote: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.


And it is not missed that this is the same tactic used in previous posts: looking to someone else to carry the conversation. Though I do congratulate the trip to the library, few people these days, it seems, bothers to read for themselves, willing rather to let a youtube video suffice.


Quote: 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.

Sure I did. And you still offer up the conclusions of others. Why you would think that I would seek to strengthen my position with wikipedia I have no idea.

Quote:He also has never refuted the fact that historically the First Covenant was NOT what he asserted it was.

Considering the fact that there has yet been someone to come forward to discuss the First Covenant, I find it difficult to understand how this is supposed have relevance.

Care to explain how the First Covenant "was not what I asserted it to be?" Perhaps then we can discuss it. I can at times fail to convey my thoughts properly.

The rest of the post is more of "this guy said this, that guy said that," and yet still no bucky ball examination of the issue. Tell you what, you take a look at an internal link, and I will consider offering some external links.

It is amazing the footwork neccessary to try to save face. I do not ridicule people for not underrstanding or having familiarity with a topic, it is expected. This is why it is brought up. Because if you will get away from what others say and for yourself actually look at the issues raised, you might find out that the geniuses you put are putting so much stock in, while praised as great scholars, might be found to offer conclusions that a simple reading of what is found on the pages of scripture will show to be in error.

The charge of gnosticism concerning the Gospel of John is simply ridiculous. While correlations may be found, as they may be in many issues, the differences show that there are two systems of belief in place. But, if only know that which others have said, rather than the subject material itself, you will be inclined to buy into something such as this.

When you are ready to, for yourself, look at the issues and make some conclusions of your own, let me know.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:06 PM
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)

So a hypothesis replaces actual study?

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for admitting you are simply guessing at truth.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:07 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
As usual, not one piece of external evidence. A waste of time.

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
12-06-2012, 03:17 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 05:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(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.)

While this is not addressed to me, I would like to point out that as I have suggested that atheism has a religious tenor, I would just point out the efforts made by some of its adherents that resemble so closely the religions of the world.

Also like to suggest that Hell is a fascinating topic as well. One of my favorites, as it is a much misunderstood doctrine among believers.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:30 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 07:09 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

It is amazing how the "sheol thingy" and Hell are confused.

And I agree that some study is in order. You may find it a fascinating study. Whether it is embraced as true or not, it is very interesting to track the understanding of what happens to the dead once they pass away.

Here are a few things to keep in mind if you should choose to pursue this particular subject (which has many views within Christian circles):

Sheol and Hell are two entirely different destinations.

Jesus affirms the concept of Sheol in His teaching.

No-one is in Hell yet.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:31 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(11-06-2012 08:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And here we got KC with his NASB and ST with his KJV, each going , no, I'm right! I mean, wtf?

It really is simple fact... honestly.

NASB is a more accurate translation than KJV.

NASB is translated into Modern English directly from the Greek and Hebrew (Modern English to Greek and Hebrew = 1 degree of separation).

KJV is translated into Old English from the Vulgate which was translated from the Greek and Hebrew (Modern English to Old English to Latin to Greek and Hebrew = 3 degrees of separation).

1 degree of separation is > 3.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:33 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 03:30 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  And I agree that some study is in order. You may find it a fascinating study. Whether it is embraced as true or not, it is very interesting to track the understanding of what happens to the dead once they pass away.
Dead bodies usually start to rot after a few days. What's so interesting about that? Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2012, 03:55 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(12-06-2012 03:30 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Jesus affirms the concept of Sheol in His teaching.
How fascinating. A Jew affirms a Jewish concept. How unique. Can someone please tell this guy what "circular" means".

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
12-06-2012, 03:57 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2012 05:40 PM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(11-06-2012 06:05 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Concerning scripture, we have one disagreement between Paul and Barnabus which led to them parting company, rather than travel together. Hardly counts as them "hating each other's guts"...lol.

Let me know if you would like to discuss what scripture has to say about it.


(11-06-2012 08:22 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  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.


Quote:And here we got KC with his NASB and ST with his KJV, each going , no, I'm right! I mean, wtf?

Let me try to ease your confusion: we are not both saying "No, I'm right," as there is actually no perfect translation as far as I am concerned. The translations that we have, at least those that have been accepted as actual translations, are in my opinion works which I am quite confident that sincere believers were involved with.

What is unfortunate is that thanks in large part to KJV Onlyism, ALL scripture is called into question, especially by those that have never actually studied the issue.

There is a big difference between saying "I am right and you are wrong" about doctrine, and another to have a preferred translation. Mine happens to be the KJV. Right after that I am fond of the NIV (1984), right after that it would be the NKJV and the NASB.

So your confusion as to whether there is actually me on one side and someone else on the other saying I am right can be dispelled, as I have never said either I or the (or even a) translation I use is right, all others wrong.

What is in focus is the doctrine itself, rather. As I mentioned I believe three times, my advice to the student is...we don't stop at a translation. That is evident in the conversation which this statement comes from. Deny that.

Quote: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?


Get away with what? Take a look at the disciples of Christ. Scholars? Paul, certainly, qualifies, but for the most part the disciples of Christ, as well as Christ (and I have no comment on muhammad concerning this), were considered hicks. Christ's knowledge made men marvel, even from a young age. So to think that the God of the Universe would be unable to use men without college degrees shows an unfamiliarity with scripture, as it is usually those that are willing to be led of God that He uses, apart from "papers."

If you would like the specific "accounts," I can help you with that.

Oh, and by the way, KJV Onlyism is not something new. When the Old Testament was translated in the LXX, it was at first thought that men were "tampering with God's word. In fact, every time, it seems, that a new translation came out, there was a group that considered the "old one" to be the "right one."

The KJV translators, if they would only be read in the excellent preface to the KJV (see here) were dealing with those that viewed them as tampering with God's word. Reading this in that context would enlighten quite a few as to the validity of villifying the work of men they know nothing personally about, and the ridiculous light of the argument itself.

Let me know if this helps with your confusion. Smile

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: