OT: Europe's Problem--And Ours

[Zubivka]

Does he send signals with his pocket handkerchief?

Now that you mention it... he does often pull it out his breast pocket, but me simpleton assumed it was to wipe his forehead.

Oh, if you reply, please don't educate me about Armorica--I was only yankin' your chain a little.

Just as well, don't educate me in Untermenschood (or make the chain sore where it rubbed, same thing) : I'm half-Ukrainian through my mother, DP from 41 to 45...

Btw, talking about irredentists, I'm for Galician Separatism!

Here's to Free and Independent Galicia* !

* Why choose? I mean it BOTH in Spain AND Poland--that should teach 'em!

PS: you should title your threads OD instead of OT

But I forgot: Opus Dei didn't really exist, if I correctly read.
The P8 lodge didn't exist before it was dissolved.
There's eveidence that the Bank of Vatican never existed before its bankrupcy.
Tautologic! If you know of a secret organzation, then it doesn't exist since it's not secret... At the minute you learn of it, it ceases to exist and, come to think of it, did it ever?

Now, here's a scoop: Pie XII didn't exist either.

It's all Atheist-Marxist propaganda :roll:

[elendil]

Zub wrote:

But I forgot: Opus Dei didn't really exist, if I correctly read.

Shame on you, Zub. In your eagerness to find a secret organization you missed an interesting point re Escriva and OD, namely, what was it's canonical status in those early years, and to what bishop was Escriva answerable? Hutchinson suggests that Escriva was basically in an irregular status during his early years in Madrid, freelancing, so to speak. He had gone to Madrid for studies which, if I recall the book, he may have dropped for his own project, whereas he should have returned to his own diocese. At least these are the claims, if I recall correctly. I'm open to correction on this, but truth is often stranger than fiction.[/quote]

[Zubivka]

Hutchinson suggests that Escriva was basically in an irregular status during his early years in Madrid, freelancing, so to speak. He had gone to Madrid for studies which, if I recall the book, he may have dropped for his own project, whereas he should have returned to his own diocese. At least these are the claims, if I recall correctly. I'm open to correction on this, but truth is often stranger than fiction.

Ok-ok, shame-shame-shame(syncopation)shame-on-me, id est, mea maxima culpa, etc. I flee under the fire of this subtle distinguo and ad hoc explanation (revision?).
So Opus Dei didn't have influence over fascist Spain, it's the "dissidents" which did. The original flavour organization can only be blamed of poor control of a member getting "freelance". Which in turn is beneficial, as proving it's not the monolithic organization that them pinko-Zubo-Marxo-Atheists suggest, otherwise they'd have terminated his heresy.

You didn't expect me without a Parthian arrow, did you? So...
Same way, some communists preserved in Ethnic Curios Parks of Europe (like Serbia, Bulgaria) argue that Staline was only free-lancing, not a true-believer officially annointed by the free Komintern.

I wonder if others insist Torquemada was only free-lancing as well when he decided the true Crusade was against his own people. Worth trying, anyway : that would cleanse the scutcheon of the Inquisition, another organization set up for the ultimate good of mankind.

Anyway, QED: it's not the secret and/or subversive organizations working for some Ultimate Good which do the wrong. Blame it all on the free-lancers.

I guess it's only the "ultimate" which makes me paranoid in these cases

[elendil]

Zub, you misunderstood me. There was no subtle distinguo, I was pointing out a possible instance of hypocrisy.

My main point was not whether or not the Church took sides in the Civil War or was to blame for this, that, or any other thing, but that as a simple matter of fact OD was nowhere near sufficiently developed to have any influence over the Church in general, over the Nationalists, or over events in general--it had too few members at the time and wasn't even recognized by the Church, for which reason Escriva was probably laying low with regard to Church authorities, under the radar as we now say. In any event, I think Escriva was more concerned with preserving his resources, so to speak, for later.

Re Torquemada, whether or not he had anything to do with the Inquisition would not clear the Inquisition per se. Torquemada did not = the Inquistion, which extended over a far greater span of years than T's lifespan. BTW, your remark about T's "own people" relies upon demonstrably false information which on another thread which I definitively refuted--feel free to look it up, as it's interesting history.
Gary, the cool thing about those ads is that they change from day to day.

[U2]

. . .U2, I didn't forget about you. Unfortunately, this exchange turned out pretty much as a anticipated, which is why I earlier declined to even get into this type of discussion--churlish as that may have seemed at the time. Let me get to the real issue, as I see it. . .

You’ve been pretty clear about how you see it. I failed to recognize the “real issue” was subjective and declarative. Being remembered, only to be summarily dismissed, has a tinge of disingenuousness about it. Heh heh.

Read whomever, but try this: get a red-letter version of the New Testament, and read only the words and phrases directly attributed to Christ, those in red. Surely those words would contain what we'd really need to know.

. . .As a Christian, I have no alternative but to start with Christ and his Church--not with a book, no matter how hallowed. I think I stated that revelation in the truest sense is Jesus himself.

Interesting thought. But what’s the source?

All else has been handed down, i.e., is tradition of the Church (as Paul keeps repeating) and so is revelation in a derivative sense, i.e., derived from the primary sense. You didn't respond to that concept.

Sorry, I must have missed your question. I’m making the point that the words of Christ are all that is needed to understand his concepts, and that they are simple ones.

I might add that the Church, the living body of Christ as Paul calls it, is in a sense revelation as well. The fact is, Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, rose again from the dead, and instituted his Church before a single word of the New Testament was ever written. The apostles went about the Mediterranean world preaching the good news of Jesus without red-letter editions[/].

I’m using “red letter” to denote words and lessons directly attributable to Christ, rather than some feature of modern publishing. Am I understanding you correctly that you think the apostles were preaching about church government rather than focusing on Christ’s actual teachings of forgiveness and salvation? (red letters)

The infant local churches existed for decades without red-letter editions of anything.

Agreed. I am saying his apostles were relaying Christ’s quotes, miraculous acts, and example as the primary message during those decades, and that the traditions that now serve as divisive were only beginning to form. Those quotes are what later were placed in red.

Are we to assume that they lacked "what we'd really need to know"? I don't think so. The Church provided them with that. It was, in fact, the Church that Jesus instituted that gave its blessing to what later became known as the NT, and that Church existed for centuries before the NT (as well as the Christian form of the OT, come to think of it) was authorized in final form.

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That’s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That’s where man’s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I’ve seen attributed to him (in red. )

I disagree utterly and totally with the idea that all we need to know is contained in the red letters of a red-letter edition. This supposes that these books were written as treatises of moral and systematic theology, which is simply not the case. Sorry if I sound a bit snippish. It's partly that I've heard these arguments so many times. And from people who tell me that I'm an idolater and no Christian. Burns me a little, is all

I’m supposing that the books were written to convey the actual teachings of Christ. The thief on the cross didn’t have the church. He had no books, he had no guidance. He had sincere compassion for a man he saw as guilty of nothing, and a simple expression of faith. It’s an example, personally involving Christ, beautiful in simplicity. And no less applicable for instruction than any of Paul’s later writings to the Romans, Corinthians, or Ephesians.

Yeah, having someone label you and be dismissive because they've deliberately classified you and assigned you a position, or standing, can be frustrating. I hope you didn't get any of that dismissive "idolater" stuff out of what I wrote. If you did, you need to take a quick run back through it. You mean to tell me that even after you've explained the "real issue" that folks continue to repeat the same old arguments? They must not be reading close enough.

[elendil]

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That?s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That?s where man?s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I?ve seen attributed to him (in red. [icon_smile_144.gif] )

It would appear logically that by accepting the books that the Church accepts and rejecting those that the Church rejects you're accepting the authority of the Church. To reject the authority of the Church but accept its definition of what is or is not scripture seems quite illogical to me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you reject the Church's authority to decide on what is scripture or on other matters of discipline and doctrine, then you should allow each individual to make that decision on his own. There's a further problem. You simply assume that the red-letter words are all we need to know and that the church promulgated certain books for that purpose. That presupposition appears to me to be quite unwarranted. Modern scholarship has debunked the notion that the early local churches were unformed. The writings of the apostolic fathers convincingly show that the early church was Catholic--before the canon was finally decided. While I'm glad you haven't called me an idolater, many years of experience tells me that this discussion will go no where. You may as well engage Bloomfield on this matter.

edited:

It also seems illogical to me to accept that Christ established a Church but then say, in effect, well, too bad, that one got corrupted, it exceeded Christ's teaching as I have personally decided it must have been, so we men will just have to do our best on our own. By the way, I'm a little curious about your long delay in posting. Another reason why I don't think I want to continue this.

[Bloomfield]

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That?s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That?s where man?s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I?ve seen attributed to him (in red. [icon_smile_144.gif] )

It would appear logically that by accepting the books that the Church accepts and rejecting those that the Church rejects you're accepting the authority of the Church. To reject the authority of the Church but accept its definition of what is or is not scripture seems quite illogical to me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you reject the Church's authority to decide on what is scripture or on other matters of discipline and doctrine, then you should allow each individual to make that decision on his own. There's a further problem. You simply assume that the red-letter words are all we need to know and that the church promulgated certain books for that purpose. That presupposition appears to me to be quite unwarranted. Modern scholarship has debunked the notion that the early local churches were unformed. The writings of the apostolic fathers convincingly show that the early church was Catholic--before the canon was finally decided. While I'm glad you haven't called me an idolater, many years of experience tells me that this discussion will go no where. You may as well engage Bloomfield on this matter.

Bloomfield is keeping out of this one. Let me just say that if Bloomfield believed in more than he does it would seem to Bloomfield that on the Day Judgment it will be Christ on right of God and not the Church. So much for its authority.

And a remark for elendil in particular: about that little compilation we call the Bible, perhaps it pays to look into what the compiler, Hieronymus, had to say about it himself.

[elendil]

I thought Jerome was a translator rather than a compiler, but I'm game: what'd he say?

[U2]

Well the books certainly came to be compiled and adopted by the church, and by that time a church that had formed traditions and concepts that complicated the simple teachings of Christ. That?s where the cart was put in front of the horse. That?s where man?s concepts of church government, and formality, and structure exceed the teachings of Christ. At least anything I?ve seen attributed to him (in red. [icon_smile_144.gif] )

It would appear logically that by accepting the books that the Church accepts and rejecting those that the Church rejects you're accepting the authority of the Church. To reject the authority of the Church but accept its definition of what is or is not scripture seems quite illogical to me. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If you reject the Church's authority to decide on what is scripture or on other matters of discipline and doctrine, then you should allow each individual to make that decision on his own. There's a further problem. You simply assume that the red-letter words are all we need to know and that the church promulgated certain books for that purpose. That presupposition appears to me to be quite unwarranted. Modern scholarship has debunked the notion that the early local churches were unformed. The writings of the apostolic fathers convincingly show that the early church was Catholic--before the canon was finally decided. While I'm glad you haven't called me an idolater, many years of experience tells me that this discussion will go no where. You may as well engage Bloomfield on this matter.

el - I think you're correct about the discussion going nowhere, but it was a little frustrating from my perspective, to have positions I do not hold assigned to me just to simplify your life. Have a good one.

[Bloomfield]

I thought Jerome was a translator rather than a compiler, but I'm game: what'd he say?

Well, esp. for the NT, when you take several disparate versions and you come up with one translation, it's as much a compilation as a transation, and compilation suggests itself mostly because fabrication has such a negative spin to it. The famous thing Hieronymus/Jerome said was of course, "every translator is a traitor" (query: whom does a bible transator betray?), but there was another one that I can't put my finger on right now, that was juicy, too. Here I thought you were the type who had read Jerome's letters.

You'd best not respond to this, though.

[elendil]

First things first, Bloomie. It's high time for you to skedaddle over to the other thread (liberal schools, or somethin' like that) and refute my cynical take on Miranda.

I should preface my remarks by admitting that my education has not been such as I would have liked it to be. Like so many others I found that my education was in my own hands, but once I'd figured that much out it was probably a little late to really do it right. Plus, I'm a hopeless amateur, always coming up with some new project. Nevertheless, I am familiar with that quote of Jerome--I'd simply forgotten it.

fabrication has such a negative spin to it.

So true. However, a few things need to be said about the NT. As you note, there are many, many manuscripts, partial, fragmentary and complete to varying degrees of the NT. This is in stark contrast with most classical literature. Many classical authors, Tacitus, for example, exist only from a single manuscript. The comparative numbers show just how popular the NT was. In fact, some scholars say that the codex or leaf form of book on papyrus (as opposed to the scroll format) was invented by Christians so they could mass produce their scriptures. Errors, or typos, are an interesting subject. I pointed out, just recently, a Dutch typo on Dales "translation" thread. It's interesting that scholars have been able to calculate the rate of typos for trained scribes. For the Dead Sea scrolls, I believe, the rate is something like one per every 20 lines. When you think about it, you'll see that the liklihood of significant errors creeping in my mistake is almost nil. And that's especially the case because with the NT we are able to compare so many manuscripts and come up with an overwhelmingly probably reading.

How about deliberate error? Again, the huge amount of material guarantees that we have an excellent idea of what the original intent (ha! ha! a little legalese pun!) of the author will be apparent. And, in fact, there is virtually no variation from that standpoint. Yes, there are a few instances of scribes trying to "correct" the text, but these are virtually always glaringly obvious. The reason for this was clearly because the scribes felt themselves to be engaged in work on a truly sacred project and so went to extraordinary lengths to correctly transcribe the text. If you're interested, Bruce Metzger has a book on this whole subject entitled "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration." Metzger was the principal editor for the United Bible Society's "The Greek New Testament," now in its 4th edition, and coordinated with Kurt Aland's "Novum Testamentum Graecum." It's a fascinating subject, and one which lends itself to scientific controls. All you have to do, though, is read the NT in a Greek version which contains the full critical apparatus to be satisfied that the variations are really of minimal importance. Believe me, I've done it. I may have my faults (and I'll forgive you if you don't fully believe that), but I hope you'll realize something major wouldn't have slipped past me.

Bottom line: the NT is truly a translation, not a compilation and certainly not a fabrication. Even allowing for human error, there is virtually no matter of importance that can be disputed based upon the process by which the text was handed down. Those who wished to alter the Good News didn't alter the text of these books secretly: they either did it boldly and openly or, as was more usual, they wrote their own pseudepigraphal books, which were among those rejected by the Church.

"every translator is a traitor" (query: whom does a bible transator betray?)

Why do you put me to the test? Show me the Holy Bible! Whose name is inscribed upon it? Surely you didn't think I'd say the Bible translator betrays God? Of course not--he betrays the text, or the human author. But Jerome is right, of course, and translation is a crutch. Anyway, if you'd been reading my posts with the close attention that they deserve, you'd be well up on my "theology" of revelation, if I may be so bold as to say that.

[Lorenzo]

I wonder if others insist Torquemada was only free-lancing as well when he decided the true Crusade was against his own people.

There's a system of viewing things through the corrective lens of your favorite authority that you're probably not acquainted with Zubivka. To understand elentil alittle, what it involves is either getting your historical information directly from, or through your favorite people...those with whom you agree, or those with whom your favorite authority agrees, or those whom support what you want to believe. There would be no safety in examining, for example, why Torquemada ceased his inquisitionality at a certain blood level, like 1/8 or 1/16. In fact, if he had allowed the blood level criteria to drop any lower than where he arbitrarily drew the line, he would've had to apply his tortures to himself.

All this talk about the OT and the NT, there's a principle that may apply. Those who came out of the old and were reborn into the new, had a certain perspective of the old, you know, like looking back or living in the past. Likewise, those of us who have came out of the new, look back on it the same way. BTW, Christ based his teachings on the OT, and Paul uses it extensively to support his doctrines, like using Eve as an example of why women should subject themselves to their husbands rules. You could write a whole book full of examples like this, even the old birthday of creation, and more.

After reading the basic elemnts of history, I think the reason why certain sections of christianity do not know what to do with the OT, really, is because their favorite authority has indoctrinated them with the idea that everything of the old was ceremonial and now done away with. And they find this confusing. They know not where to draw the line when left alone with the bible. That's partly why the Church thought the sheep needed the shepherd to correctly interpret even the simplest things. The followers were not esp intelligent, at least not enough to be trusted with even the simplest things. But, only those of an intermediate education will see things this way. For the serious student, any sincere person would easily realize that only certain elements of the old were done away with, not nearly every ceremony. But when you have a flood of dumb sheep, the current can seem pretty strong, and most just go along with the flock (or flow).

Some churches have become so deeply entrenched with this system of understanding they are like Christ's proverbial "blind leading the blind"...how could the blind ever understand (or see)? Thinking for one's self is not in the cards, not within the system...that's for apostates like Christ, or Luther, or you and I. Belonger's cannot have our perspective until they leave something behind and progress with the new.

Can't you just hear it now in Mat 7?

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

If you compare the iniquities of the old with those of the new, and study history sincerely, w/o looking at history through your church's "correct seeing-glasses, I think you'll come to realize that the new became much worse than the old, and soon I'll be just as bad, unless I find that tiny group who breaks through into something even newer. Funny how an organization gets so big and entrenched, they don't realize it's over when it's over, and the new are the only ones moving on.