DEBATE: De Angelis (orthodox) vs. the Rev. Maximus (gnostic)
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
In article <340716d...@newsa.zelacom.com>, j...@nospamzelacom.com
(Frank De Angelis, Jr.) wrote:
> Now you are engaging in mild sophistry. I have documented everything
> I have written copiously. You have failed to respond to any of it in
> a substantive manner whatsoever.
>
When you debate other scholars, do you usually turn the audience and say
"See? The lies of the Devil!" This tactic strikes me as evasive, not
substantive. How would you feel if I accused you of being "Yaldabaothian?"
(which you are, BTW)
> I do not take my "myths" literally. The events of the Bible--those
> open to historical research--are shown to be substantially historical;
> the literary genre analysis of Scripture is to take the text in its
> proper context [i.e, history as history, et al]. My citations are
> mostly from secular sources. My analysis of the Canaanites are the
> consensus of historical and textual scholarship--liberal and
> conservative. I have seen some of these finds first-hand. What I
> seen were the physcial remains of "myths"? That is something. All
> Biblical historians are wrong [Jewish, Christian and secular?]
> according to you view. *All* scholarship regarding the literary
> analysis is in error regarding the genre of Scripture? *Secular* Old
> Testament scholars would find your comments to be strange or comedic
> or both. The are poems in Scripture; there are allegories. Was
> Samson historical? I think so, but there are good textual reasons
> that some scholars consider it poetical--same for Jonah [though I am
> persuaded that there is a corpus of historicity contained in it].
>
> But to simply say--in condescending fashion--"these are myths..." is
> not the result of rigorous scholarly studies, but simply the parroting
> of pop-icons such as Campbell. No world-class scholar of the
> Pentateuch considers it to be of the literary genre of myth--*none*.
> Now, some will definately say, "I do not believe it records the events
> accurately." Fair enough, then there is a ground for scholarly
> discourse. Investigate where possible [such as the *conclusive*
> findings in regard to the Canaanites, et al] the events and evaluate
> the data. But don't relieve yourself of the academic effort by simpy
> saying, "these are myths.." and pat yourself on the back for your
> marvelous conclusions.
>
> If I am wrong about the Canaanites, *all* scholarship is wrong. This
> is not the realm of theology, but of history.
>
I don't argue with you that the Canaanites may have engaged in abhorrent
practices. To suggest that God punished them for it, is, however,
historical myth, not history. I really doubt you could get away with this
in the academic world. Maybe in Iran. Your assertionas are best analyzed
as literature, not history.
> If you were to try your methodology of historiography, textual
> criticism or literary analysis at any recognized academic program, [a]
> you would be expelled for academic reasons or [b] be the object of
> humor [and then expelled].
>
Ever heard of "post-modernism?" "Deconstructionism?" Frank, it's 1997,
other academics would laugh if they read your post on the Canaanites and
you know it. I'm not saying you don't have the right to do what you do - a
neo-gnostic acquaintance of mine similarly asserts that Irenaeus is the
antichrist. All fine and dandy. But these are real people you're leading
around by the nose, some of whom are a little short in the critical
thinking department, and I think you need to be called on it once in a
while. God's point of view isn't necessarily your point of view. Foucault,
anyone? Derrida? Baudrillard?
> At first I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I can discern from
> your writings that you have not attended any accredited program of
> historical or theological study, and do not possess the credentials to
> deal with these issues in a substantive manner.
>
Gimme a break Frank! You sing to the choir and tell them that gnosticism
springs from the "Father of Lies" - then you tell me that it's obvious
from the way I examine your interpretations that I must not be
"accredited." Dealing with you, I should be accredited in clinical
psychology!
> Hal Lindsey? I'm a Reformed Ph.D. candidate; he's a
> dispensationalist media figure. What are you talking about? He uses
> the word "demonic"? So what? It is an English word, so your attempts
> fall flat on their face.
Your attempt to ape his style begged the comparison. I refer you to the
"Doug and Chuck" post. I fell on my face laughing!
I have yet to read a serious systematic [I
> have read every serious systematic printed in English] theology that
> does not contain the words "demon," "devil," demonic."
I refer you to Norm Cohn.
Your being
> simplistic and expressing your lack of familiarity with the
> literature. You cannot marshal any response in an academic manner, so
> you employ red herrings ["get him to talk about Pat Robertson or Hal
> Lindsey, and maybe he'll stop citing the scholarly sources which I
> have never read and wouldn't understand even if I did..."]
>
I feel the feeling that I understand you all to well here - soon, you'll
find some excuse to cop-out, no doubt...
> You haven't dealt with any of the issues in a scholarly manner, and,
> in fact, have demonstrated that you do not have the resources to do
> so. To believe in the grammatical presentation that the text of
> Scripture presents a personal being called Satan simply means a person
> knows how to read.
Get thee behind me Satan! But Peter is long dead. Hmmm... Didn't someone a
book called the "History of Satan" recently? Haven't I already referred
you to it about six times now? Have you ever come to grips with the idea
that as real as these creatures might seem to you, there might also be
histrorical, cultural and psychological issues involved?
I can assure you, there exists thousands of
> scholars--past and present--that are able to discern this. It is
> evident that you have never studied the scholarly literature on the
> subject, and have not interacted with these issues in a serious
> academic setting.
Nowadays we analyze books like the "City of God," we don't do mental
gymnastics trying to "prove" them!
My offer to debate in the open market place
> stands. If you agree to the debate, I will pay you $500.00
Here's fine, Frank. I don't need the money and it's more fun writing
anyway. Besides, you might be blinded by my brilliance in person (they
don't call me "Illuminatuis Maximus" for nothing)!
>
> I will not engage in your red herrings and straw men.
You will not engage in a level playing field of serious, unbiased exchange
of information and opinion, is what you mean!
Engage in the
> area of recognized scholarship, utililzing standard sources of textual
> criticism, linguistics, literary analysis and historiography. If not,
> then I bid you a good life.
Again, I have never known a serious scholar to accuse the advocate of a
rival theory of "Satanism." Name me some twentieth century scholars who
do, if you please. Twentieth century scholars, besides you, who feel that
"recognized scholarship, utililzing standard sources of textual
criticism, linguistics, literary analysis and historiography" consists of
accusing your opponent of "Satanism." (Lindsey and Robertson don't count,
for obvious reasons).
Happy hunting, my orthodox friend!
<sniP>
--
"Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God" [James 4:4]
"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?" [Galatians 4:16]
Curious to learn the truth about God's secret identity? Visit the Gnostic Friends Network at:
I
----- where Yaldabaoth seized Jesus' body
I while his soul escaped
I laughing invisibly
For NONE have sinned