CONFRONTING THE SUPERSTITIOUS CHURCH OF THE 21st CENTURY

[Abiding]

He came up with the idea that the phrase expresses. Yes, the Bible does use the language of the day, and the purpose of language is to express ideas. You're saying that Paul uses the same language of the day, and I'm saying that he expresses the same ideas of the day through that language (you haven't actually offered any objection to that). If I am using terminology to express the ideas of "godless philosophers and poets" then yes, they have influenced me.

And no, what I'm saying is that these ideas should not be regarded as superstitious. Superstitions - I think those two definitions you give attempt to describe the word - are irrational. The philosophy of the Greeks is hardly irrational, and the theory/school of rationalism itself draws upon their thought. That's why they aren't superstitions; they're conclusions arrived at through a process of reasoning, and they do not rely on simply saying "Oh! The Bible says X, so X is true." The barriers erected between intellectual and the spiritual are false ones.

Im not at all against the intellect. But if you think if Paul used a phrase that Plato did therefore the works
of Plato are then go, nope. Plato taught superstitions. Or call it whatever you want.

A poet was quoted about the people of crete that doesnt mean we believe that poet
had any truth. other than calling people slowbellies. Besides you have no evidence Paul
was quoting from Plato.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The form of Amillennialism that is being taught on these forums seems to be a bit antisemetic which would indicate it is is Lutheran in origin seeing as Luther himself publically acknowledged great disdain for the Jewish people in his latter years.

as someone who leans amillennialist and who has been going to a confessional lutheran church and who has even gone to classes on lutheran eschatology taught by confessional lutheran theologians...i can say that this suggestion is incorrect...

the traditional lutheran form of amillennialism tends to be a much less 'complicated' eschatology than the amillennialism that shows up most often on this forum...for better or worse it is also much more 'generic' and usually doesn't get deeply into specifics except in one area...namely the role of the papacy in the end time...

personally i have come to the conclusion that the amillenialism that tends to be promoted on this forum is a unique 'recovering dispensationalist' strain of amillennialism...in many ways they have not yet abandoned futurism entirely...just incorporated a heavy dose of preterism and shuffled their end time players around a little...

 

[Red_Tory]

Im not at all against the intellect. But if you think if Paul used a phrase that Plato did therefore the works
of Plato are then go, nope. Plato taught superstitions. Or call it whatever you want.

A poet was quoted about the people of crete that doesnt mean we believe that poet
had any truth. other than calling people slowbellies. Besides you have no evidence Paul
was quoting from Plato.

"No evidence" other than the fact that he's using the same descriptive language as Plato and expressing the same core ideals held by Platonism, and the fact that Paul came from Tarsus... Which, when talking about ancient texts, I think could actually be fairly conclusive evidence.

If you use the same language and ideas as a certain philosopher, then that constitutes evidence supporting the assertion that he had an influence on you.

Now, you consistently condemn Platonism as a superstitious philosophy, presumably because you think it is irrational. Do you actually have your own rational reason for doing so, and a rational reason for declaring your conceptualisation of Christianity to be an intellectually superior set of doctrines to those of the Platonists?

 

[BarlyGurl]

"No evidence" other than the fact that he's using the same descriptive language as Plato and expressing the same core ideals held by Platonism, and the fact that Paul came from Tarsus... Which, when talking about ancient texts, I think could actually be fairly conclusive evidence.

If you use the same language and ideas as a certain philosopher, then that constitutes evidence supporting the assertion that he had an influence on you.

Now, you consistently condemn Platonism as a superstitious philosophy, presumably because it is irrational. Do you actually have a reason for doing so?

Gosh, I hope you are not studying to be a prosecutor... as your evidence is entirely circumstantial.. and hardly meets the criteria for admission... motion to strike.

 

[Red_Tory]

Gosh, I hope you are not studying to be a prosecutor... as your evidence is entirely circumstantial.. and hardly meets the criteria for admission... motion to strike.

That's what ancient literary history is. The facts:

- Paul uses the same expressive language as in the Platonic works

- Paul expresses the same fundamental ideas that are in the Platonic works

- Paul was from Tarsus, a major centre of Hellenistic ideas and education, presumably where he learned the Greek language and undoubtedly their ideas as well, either through interaction with the works themselves or through a secondary source.

What exactly is being disputed here?

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

about the epistle to the hebrews...the author most likely was influenced by neoplatonism...specifically the alexandrian jewish variety represented by philo of alexandria and further christianized later on by clement and origen...

this is one of the reasons that i believe apollos is the most likely author of hebrews...

still the fact that the author borrowed concepts from platonism does not vindicate the platonist system as a whole...we are free to make use of any advances in secular thought that are compatible with the bible without endorsing the entire paradigm...

arguing otherwise is like one of the silly arguments that evolutionists have made...that anyone with an ipod should have to accept evolution to be intellectually consistent...

 

[Red_Tory]

about the epistle to the hebrews...the author most likely was influenced by neoplatonism...specifically the alexandrian jewish variety represented by philo of alexandria and further christianized later on by clement and origen...

this is one of the reasons that i believe apollos is the most likely author of hebrews...

still the fact that the author borrowed concepts from platonism does not vindicate the platonist system as a whole...we are free to make use of any advances in secular thought that are compatible with the bible without endorsing the entire paradigm...

arguing otherwise is like one of the silly arguments that evolutionists have made...that anyone with an ipod should have to accept evolution to be intellectually consistent...

Certainly not as a whole. Platonism contains many ridiculous ideas due to the relatively congenial nature of its texts, and it's difficult to sort out the meaningful statements from the stupid ones that are dripping with irony. The fact that the dialogues are supposedly meant to be comedies makes it even more difficult.

 

[Abiding]

"No evidence" other than the fact that he's using the same descriptive language as Plato and expressing the same core ideals held by Platonism, and the fact that Paul came from Tarsus... Which, when talking about ancient texts, I think could actually be fairly conclusive evidence.

If you use the same language and ideas as a certain philosopher, then that constitutes evidence supporting the assertion that he had an influence on you.

Now, you consistently condemn Platonism as a superstitious philosophy, presumably because you think it is irrational. Do you actually have your own rational reason for doing so, and a rational reason for declaring your conceptualisation of Christianity to be a superior set of doctrines to those of the Platonic Christians?

No at your age i went through college philosophy and loved it. Ive nothing against it. I think
everyone could use the knowledge and the ability it can give you to use you mind and think
rationally.

I only had the small point that Paul, nor the Holyspirit had any intention to thumbs up
greek philosophy by using a phrase you consider to be only Platos. No im not interested
in having a philosophical debate with you. My nephews give me enough of that.

I prefer Aristotle anyway. And for philosophy in general i prefer Aquanas.
As for Plato to say he was superstitious is not condemning him. I think
he was brilliant and couldnt expect him to do any better with what he had to work with.

 

[Red_Tory]

No at your age i went through college philosophy and loved it. Ive nothing against it. I think
everyone could use the knowledge and the ability it can give you to use you mind and think
rationally.

I only had the small point that Paul, nor the Holyspirit had any intention to thumbs up
greek philosophy by using a phrase you consider to be only Platos. No im not interested
in having a philosophical debate with you. My nephews give me enough of that.

I prefer Aristotle anyway. And for philosophy in general i prefer Aquanas.
As for Plato to say he was superstitious is not condemning him. I think
he was brilliant and couldnt expect him to do any better with what he had to work with.

Then how would you contend with the supremacy of Form over matter and the timelessness of the eternal present? The same problems I originally commented on are still there when dealing with Aquinas...

 

[Abiding]

Then how would you contend with the supremacy of Form over matter and the timelessness of the eternal present? The same problems I originally commented on are still there when dealing with Aquinas...

If youd like me to say that there are some things philosophers said that were true. Then i will say that.
Honestly. I made one point. Thats all.

 

[zone]

as someone who leans amillennialist and who has been going to a confessional lutheran church and who has even gone to classes on lutheran eschatology taught by confessional lutheran theologians...i can say that this suggestion is incorrect...

well rachel!
glad to hear it!

very very cool....

 

[zone]

i am sure several people will disagree...but i studied the new age movement before i became a christian...

and i would call kabbalah a fairly watered down mysticism... most of it is just gibberish...the kind of idle rabbinic speculation that jesus tended to summarily dismiss as unworthy of serious response...

much more dangerous forms of mysticism and witchcraft would be thelema...theosophy...chaos magic...and shamanism...including the use of shamanic 'medicines' outside of the usual context of ancient shamanism...

at the deepest levels they are the same.
the kabbalah you may have studied alongside the new age movement is the watered down/sanitized stuff...not the stuff that IS thelema...theosophy...chaos magic...and shamanism.

all the same. and especially dangerous due to the general hatred for Jesus surrounding the religion of the Pharisees.
not all branches of judaism practice mysticism.

but all branches hold together as one whole.

Bringing to light a hidden chapter in the history of modern Judaism, Shamanic Trance in Modern Kabbalah explores the shamanic dimensions of Jewish mysticism. Jonathan Garb integrates methods and models from the social sciences, comparative religion, and Jewish studies to offer a fresh view of the early modern kabbalists and their social and psychological contexts.

Through close readings of numerous texts—some translated here for the first time—Garb draws a more complete picture of the kabbalists than previous depictions, revealing them to be as concerned with deeper states of consciousness as they were with study and ritual. Garb discovers that they developed physical and mental methods to induce trance states, visions of heavenly mountains, and transformations into animals or bodies of light. To gain a deeper understanding of the kabbalists’ shamanic practices, Garb compares their experiences with those of mystics from other traditions as well as with those recorded by psychologists such as Milton Erickson and Carl Jung. Finally, Garb examines the kabbalists’ relations with the wider Jewish community, uncovering the role of kabbalistic shamanism in the renewal of Jewish tradition as it contended with modernity.

...............

it's not about and never has been about singling out one people over another - it's about christian [zionists, dispensationalists, etc] not recognizing the above stuff at all...they don't think it has anything to do with the jewish religion...which they think is moses minus Jesus.

to each their own.

i just wish christians would be careful about what they stamp approval on.

 

[zone]

for my purposes - understanding certain forms of gnosticism, and kabbalah as they have been leavened into christianity only requires looking back as far as Babylon (where things are difficult to sort out beyond a broad definition of mystery religion) but the parallel religion developed after the First Advent combines what appears to have been an extreme form of Zoroastrianism (ironically zoroastrians considered heretics >) adherents known as Magussaeans (Magi), which forward in time branched off again into the Essenses (the gnostic influence), who mixed with the Pharisees and Sadducees.

in short...because we haven't really understood that the Church IS Israel (the continuation of faithful israel into the New Covenant into which the believing gentiles were grafted)...we've accepted many things as "Biblical" that we ought not have.

but this can't be brought up without sparks flying and heated rhetoric precisely because the idea of two peoples two covenants and gaps has been accepted. buzzwords come out and the discussion shuts down. just as it is supposed to.

it's no accident it came into the church.

it's never too late to turn it around, and purge out the leaven.

all the mysticism and esoterica has to go, imo.

 

[zone]

Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge (in the nominative case γνῶσις f.). In the context of the English language gnosis generally refers to the word's meaning within the spheres of Christian mysticism, Mystery religions and Gnosticism where it signifies a 'spiritual knowledge' or religion of knowledge, in the sense of mystical enlightenment or 'insight'. Gnosis taught a deliverance of man from the constraints of earthly existence through 'insight' into an essential relationship, as soul or spirit, with a supramundane place of freedom.[1]

Among the gnostics, gnosis was first and foremost a matter of self-knowledge, which was considered the path leading to the goal of enlightenment as the hidden knowledge of the various pre-Judeo-Christian pagan Mystery-Religions.[13] Knowledge that first relieved the individual of their cultural religious indoctrination and then reconciled them to their personal deity.[14] Through such self-knowledge and personal purification (virtuous living) the adept is led to direct knowledge of God via themselves as inner reflection or will. Later, Valentinius (Valentinus), taught that gnosis was the privileged Gnosis kardias "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, that brought about salvation to the pneumatics— the name given to those believed to have reached the final goal of sanctity.

Gnosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

 

[zone]

Thomas Müntzer (ca. 1489 – 27 May 1525) was an early Reformation-era German theologian, who became a rebel leader during the Peasants' War. He turned against Luther with several anti-Lutheran writings, and supported the Anabaptists. In the Battle of Frankenhausen, Müntzer and his followers were defeated. He was captured, tortured and decapitated.[1]

Müntzer believed and taught of the "living word of God" (i.e., continued revelation and prophecy)...

Müntzer was adopted by socialists as a symbol of early class struggle due to his promotion of a new egalitarian society which would practice the sharing of goods. Müntzer's movement and the peasants' revolt formed an important topic in Friedrich Engels’s book The Peasant War in Germany, a classic defense of historical materialism. Engels describes Müntzer as a revolutionary leader who chose to use biblical language – the language the peasants would best understand.

Diarmaid MacCulloch argues:
"The Communist regime of the German Democratic Republic, building on Marxist historical misuse of 1525 from Friedrich Engels onward, found it useful to elevate Müntzer into an earlier incarnation of Lenin. In reality Müntzer was an impractical mystic and dreamer….He had no interest in the material betterment of the poor. His contribution to 1525 was marginal, apart from its result in leaving himself and his scanty band of followers to a wretched death."[6]

Thomas Müntzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

 

[zone]

Mix one part "charismatic leader" with one part "apocalyptic visionary," and you have the formula for a potentially volatile religious explosion. Charismatic individuals exert a controlling influence over followers who are attracted to them because they possess special gifts. ("Charismatic" literally means "gifted.") Recipients of apocalyptic visions express a high level of confidence in their views of the future. (Apocalypses purport to "reveal" that which is hidden.) Visionaries of this sort claim uncommon insight into the present order and into impending future developments.

Although separated by more than four hundred years,Thomas Muentzer (c.1489-1525) and David Koresh (born Vernon Howell, 1959-1993) were both charismatic leaders with apocalyptic visions, claiming uncommon insight into the present order and impending future developments.

Muentzer's career as a radical reformer unfolded in the early years of the Protestant Reformation in Germany. Howell was the leader of a small, sectarian, Adventist community in Texas for a few years in the 1980s and 1990s. Both men found themselves openly opposed by government forces. Both remained convinced of their special callings and unique insights into God's purposes. Both died violent deaths. From their experiences can be derived several observations regarding the difficulties faced by apocalyptically-minded, charismatic religious leaders.

Charismatic leaders are not given to self-reflection or self-criticism. They view themselves as on the winning side of history, and sometimes even directly responsible for that outcome. Muentzer saw the cause of the peasants as righteous and his role as critical in their efforts. He thought the renewal of Western Christianity required radical social leveling. That proved a volatile mix in the sixteenth century, producing a sharp response from both civil and religious authorities.

Koresh believed he was responsible for unlocking the secrets of the seven seals of the book of Revelation, which would in turn open the eyes of the world to the truth of biblical prophecy. He was engaged in that interpretive activity in the days before the fiery end at Waco. Federal authorities described his apocalyptic conversation as "Bible babble." Their actions on April 19, 1993, displayed little tolerance for such matters.

Prophetic figures often generate skepticism, ridicule, hostility, discomfort, and a measure of foreboding. Apocalyptic has an inherently explosive potential in the hands of a charismatic leader.

Readings | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE | PBS < click

 

[Crossfire]

as someone who leans amillennialist and who has been going to a confessional lutheran church and who has even gone to classes on lutheran eschatology taught by confessional lutheran theologians...i can say that this suggestion is incorrect...

the traditional lutheran form of amillennialism tends to be a much less 'complicated' eschatology than the amillennialism that shows up most often on this forum...for better or worse it is also much more 'generic' and usually doesn't get deeply into specifics except in one area...namely the role of the papacy in the end time...

personally i have come to the conclusion that the amillenialism that tends to be promoted on this forum is a unique 'recovering dispensationalist' strain of amillennialism...in many ways they have not yet abandoned futurism entirely...just incorporated a heavy dose of preterism and shuffled their end time players around a little...

Actually, I'm glad to hear that. However, I find it odd that Zone would like your comment seeing as she seems to be the one pushing really this antisemetic form of Amillennialism.

While I am a premillennialist, I am neither a dispensatonist or a zionist however, I find this antisemetic form of Amillennialism to be just as disturbing and as extreme as the Pre Trib paranoia that is also being taught.

 

[Abiding]

Its always impressive to me to see someone standing strong and mighty
in a neutral zone.

 

[zone]

Actually, I'm glad to hear that. However, I find it odd that Zone would like your comment seeing as she seems to be the one pushing really this antisemetic form of Amillennialism.

While I am a premillennialist, I am neither a dispensatonist or a zionist however, I find this antisemetic form of Amillennialism to be just as disturbing and as extreme as the Pre Trib paranoia that is also being taught.

1) "Actually, I'm glad to hear that" < doubt it

2) "However, I find it odd that Zone would like your comment seeing as she seems to be the one pushing really this antisemetic form of Amillennialism". < you said amillennialism IS antisemitism. so you can not now say you're glad to hear anyone is amillennialist, since your kindergarten definition says one IS the other. making a refinment to your doctrine, Crossfire? hoping it'll just slip by? *shrug* means nothing to me.

3) you don't know what antisemitism is - you'd have to know what semite is.

4) my mother's family is jewish - traced back centuries...right to the reformation - not semitic though < any clue what that means?

5) my best friend and strongest brother in Christ was formerly jewish all his life....you should talk to him about all this. you'd call him an antisemite. uh - ya. you really would.

6) you don't know what jewish means

7) you don't know what amillennialism means

8) yes you are a dispensationalist - many flavors combined, including gnosticism.

9) if you stay on this thread and look for the common denominator, you might see why a certain branch of the church has been trained to drag out the buzzwords. they will have forsaken the Lord to some degree and chosen what is an idol.

10) you'd have to be a student of real church history to get it.

 

[Abiding]

dispensational postrib