Introduction
JoeSuaiden
I am late. ;)
Joe Suaiden
http://www.roac.tk
Joe Orthodox
You'll wish you never found this place. Trust me.
JoeSuaiden
Joe Orthodox
> Eh, my skin is thicker than it looks. At least sometimes. :)
>
You'll need more than that. A tough pair of galoshes and a troll gun
will come in handy.
JoeSuaiden
'Nuff said. (Sorry Al) :)
craig
I haven't checked out the news group in a while. Doesn't seem like there is
too much going on.
How are things going? You and Learner still dialoging?
Craig
"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:k%eZe.56268$32.3...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
Joe Orthodox
> Hey, Joe!
>
> I haven't checked out the news group in a while. Doesn't seem like there is
> too much going on.
>
> How are things going? You and Learner still dialoging?
>
> Craig
Howdy Craig,
I'm not sure anyone was ever "dialoguing" with Learner. I've not posted
much over the last six months. As far as I can tell Learner disappeared
last March or so, but recently resurfaced in the Beliefnet Orthodox
debate board. His new nick was "Magister", Latin for "teacher." He
started posting nearly the exact same material, particularly with
regards to the icons and various saints. I asked him several times if
it was him, but he wouldn't answer. After I began posting his nearly
identical material from the ARCEO list, he began harassing the board
owners to remove those posts. He slightly modified his background; in
this list, he was a grad student in his early 20's with a degree in
history or art history or something of that nature. Over in Beliefnet,
he maintained the "expertise" in art history, but now said he had
"decades" of experience in this area, and that he'd been studying icons
for "decades." He portrayed himself as an older professor of some sort.
He also engaged in the same diversions and merry-go-round tactics,
which others including the moderator asked him to stop doing. It looks
like he bailed out from that forum a few days ago since the charade was
exposed and I think he was warned by the board owners. It also looks
like he's become a full fledged atheist. I actually starting feeling
pity for the guy.
Hope all is well with you and your family.
Steven W. Hunter
news:1127572171.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hey Joe! I haven't "spoken" with you since I deleted my LJ. Hope things are
going well, and welcome to the group.
In Christ,
Steven
Learner
> craig wrote:
Hello Craig! I hope that you and your family had a great summer. I
spent most of the summer working in the U.K. - in London at the SOAS
and at Selly Oak - conducting reasearch for my Dissertation. In fact,
I just returned to JFK this Saturday. I got into Columbia's Med school
but am delaying entry to next fall.
> I'm not sure anyone was ever "dialoguing" with Learner. I've not posted
> much over the last six months.
> As far as I can tell Learner disappeared
> last March or so, but recently resurfaced in the Beliefnet Orthodox
> debate board. His new nick was "Magister", Latin for "teacher." He
> started posting nearly the exact same material, particularly with
> regards to the icons and various saints.
I have never posted anything to Beliefnet. And from what I have
skimmed, this guy copied my posts from arceo.
> I asked him several times if it was him, but he wouldn't answer. After I began
> posting his nearly identical material from the ARCEO list, he began harassing
> the board owners to remove those posts.
Perhaps he didn't answer because most of his material was copied from
my remarks in arceo. He does add a bit of new material here and there,
and he appears to support abortion and gay sex - which I argued against
in the arceo discusions, and remain against these things to this day.
> He slightly modified his background; in
> this list, he was a grad student in his early 20's with a degree in
> history or art history or something of that nature. Over in Beliefnet,
> he maintained the "expertise" in art history, but now said he had
> "decades" of experience in this area, and that he'd been studying icons
> for "decades." He portrayed himself as an older professor of some sort.
I am neither an old prof, nor an art historian, nor do I have "decades"
of experience on anything except breathing. Sorry Joe, someone is
playing with your paranoia and other odd and curious obsessions.
> He also engaged in the same diversions and merry-go-round tactics,
> which others including the moderator asked him to stop doing. It looks
> like he bailed out from that forum a few days ago since the charade was
> exposed and I think he was warned by the board owners.
>From skimming over the discussions, it is you that engaged in the
"merry-go-round" tactics.
This guy simply asked for proof that icons existed in the first century
A.D. All you have to do is point him to one example - if, of course,
one actually ever existed.
One could ask the same question concerning numerous other core Orthodox
beliefs, which are assumed to go back to the Apostles, such as the
"real presence", baptism of infants, veneration of Mary or the saints,
etc.. -claims which are not supported by history or archeology and that
are not even mentioned in the Scriptures, Didache, or the works of
early Christians.
Your "ace-in-the hole" argument is, of course, that "the absence of
proof is not proof of absence" - a variation on the argument from
silence. It amazes me that someone would build their entire system of
beliefs on such a weak foundation. Little wonder that you, and many
other Orthodox, become so consumed with hatred and anger when your
beliefs are examined. And then, of course, you toss in a lot diversions
and later works which you attempt to project back in time, sprinkled
with a bit of vitriol.
Your "fall-back" argument is that the Eastern/Orthodox Church is
somehow a "pillar of truth" in spite of the fact that the same Church
gave us nearly every heresy in the history of Christendom!
> It also looks like he's become a full fledged atheist.
No, I very much believe in G_d.
> I actually starting feeling pity for the guy.
There is no need to pity me, I am doing well and have never been more
happy. After all, I am not the one spewing venom at those who disagree
with my world-view. I have little time these days for discussion,
however, posting to this group has helped bring closure to my decision
to leave the Orthodox Church.
Steven Bishop [aka Learner]
White Peacock
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I don't post here very often. Odd that you show up again just as I decided
to jump in on the Apparitions of Mary among Orthodox.
I've been hoping that you would return and missed your posts.
Steven Bishop now is it? How can we know you are the original "Learner"? I
think your hotmail address is the same, but am not in the mood to dredge up
your old posts in the google archives to prove it.
Hope you will stay for awhile if for no other reason than to add different
perspectives to difficult theological questions. Canned answers no longer
satisfy me, and religious research is not top on my list (lack
qualifications and critical thinking skills are not all they should/could
be), although I certainly yearn to "get right with God." At this time in my
life, my personal spiritual journey has been seriously derailed.
I have warm feelings for all of good will, whether they be Catholic,
Orthodox or Protestant.
WP
Joe Orthodox
posting about the same time, then Craig publicly asks me how you are
doing as if we're personal buddies, to which you immediately reply
publicly with the little side note about the med school bit ;-) Of
course you've found "closure", so much that you still monitor this list,
and conveniently rejoin after you were chased out of Bnet ;-) I take it
since you failed the MCAT test... oops, "delayed entry" to med school,
that you'll be back to trolling this list, especially since you were
scared out of Beliefnet by the moderators after they said they were
keeping tabs on you.
Learner wrote:
> I have never posted anything to Beliefnet. And from what I have
> skimmed, this guy copied my posts from arceo.
Aaah, yes, I clearly see the anger in your tone at how someone would
impersonate and defame you. But on a more serious note, have you ever
heard of Occam's Razor? Save the delusional BS, Learner. You imagine
too much of yourself to believe others would copy your posts and mimic
your argumentative style... scratch that, you imagine too much of
yourself to believe others would believe such a cover. The only folks
in a couple of years who felt a kinship with your material were Craig
and Kerby. It wasn't just the material that you, as Magister, posted,
but also his tactics and writing style -- the diversions, repetitiously
posted talking points, arguing from silence, misquotes, and
merry-go-round evasions included -- and this isn't something you can
hide nor can another mimic it. It was actually the writing style that
initially gave it away as you. I asked you repeatedly whether it was
you or not, and not until I surmised you'd flunked your MCAT did you get
pissed and run to the board owners. How convenient that you'd bring
that up again in order to clear whatever reputation you imagine you had
left in this list. And now you would deny your earlier claims that you
had a degree or were studying history in art or church history of some sort?
>>I asked him several times if it was him, but he wouldn't answer. After I began
>>posting his nearly identical material from the ARCEO list, he began harassing
>>the board owners to remove those posts.
>
> Perhaps he didn't answer because most of his material was copied from
> my remarks in arceo. He does add a bit of new material here and there,
> and he appears to support abortion and gay sex - which I argued against
> in the arceo discusions, and remain against these things to this day.
You refused to answer because you hoped to start a clean slate with a
new, bogus background as an expert in icons, as you failed to do here.
It didn't work, now here you are trying to resurrect your old sandbox
because it's all you have left to pass the time by, now that you didn't
make it into med school.
As far as your "Magister" identity supporting abortion and gay sex, I
didn't see that at all. The fact that you bring this up shows your
familiarity with the conversations is much deeper than from a brief
"skimming."
> There is no need to pity me, I am doing well and have never been more
> happy. After all, I am not the one spewing venom at those who disagree
> with my world-view. I have little time these days for discussion,
> however, posting to this group has helped bring closure to my decision
> to leave the Orthodox Church.
Oh, I do pity you. Anyone whose festering hatred of a religious faith
has led him to the spiteful excursions you've taken here, in Bnet, in
Wikipedia, and the laughable effort you've made to explain everything
away after being positively identified as the same troll are signs of a
sad individual indeed. Just look at what closure you've found -- you're
back. Your hatred of the Orthodox Church and its adherents is mind
boggling, considering to what depths you'd go to vent it. Don't expect
me to engage in your pathological merry-go-round harangues. I'm
satisfied that you've made a such a fool of yourself and have
sufficiently proven your dishonesty that everything else is a sick side
note. I'll continue reminding you of your failed flame game in Bnet by
cross-posting your messages, if you so desire. That would be a lot more
fun than going through those meaningless icon tangos with you again.
> Steven Bishop [aka Learner]
Interesting. The spelling of your name changed from "Stephen" to "Steven".
If anyone wants to see how pitiable you are, they can go read Learner's
alter ego, Magister, hard at work at the links below. If you'd like,
"Steven", I can go through the comparison of your material there and
here since the Bnet owners emailed me all those posts that you pleaded
with them to have removed.
Icons and History
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=16835&discussionID=459311
Orthodox Saint
http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=16835&discussionID=442593
Have a good night, "Steven" [aka Learner, aka Magister, aka Stephen]
craig
> Well, lookee here. Ain't this convenient. You and Craig stopped posting
> about the same time, then Craig publicly asks me how you are doing as if
> we're personal buddies, to which you immediately reply publicly with the
> little side note about the med school bit ;-)
I am not sure what you are trying to imply, Joe. I don't know Learner.
Every couple of months, I have checked out the messages and done a search on
"Learner" and "Joe" in order to see if either of you were actively posting.
This time, when I did my search, your post popped up, so I posted a message
to you asking if you were still dialoging with Learner (nothing to say that
you and he are "personal buddies"). I have learned alot by following, and
occasionally participating in, those dialogues. That is my involvement,
nothing more.
That is interesting. Personally, I would be REALLY disappointed to learn
that Learner isn't who he claims to be.
JoeSuaiden
case of Icons, we not only have a venerated icon in the icon of the
face of Christ, but a problem of the fact that the Church was less than
70 years old and in the state of hostile persecutions! The most common
images to venerate were those of the Emperor. We do have bas-relief
images from the time consistent with icons.
"...such as the
"real presence","
Read St Ignatius of Antioch, who considers those who do not believe the
Eucharist to be Christ to be heretics.
" baptism of infants,"
See the Martyrdom of Polycarp, who could not be a Christian (baptized
adult) 86 years unless he was over a hundred and ten years old.
" veneration of Mary"
Impossible as most of the first century she was still alive and died at
a very old age.
" or the saints,
etc.."
Again difficult; but the key is how they treated their remains.
" -claims which are not supported by history or archeology"
I think you are quite wrong here. Of course, in modernist rereadings,
anything is possible. Are you a Crossanite, perhaps believing Jesus
was eaten by wild dogs?
" and that
are not even mentioned in the Scriptures, Didache, or the works of
early Christians."
Well, they are. But it is tradition which proves they exist. Of
course, trying to unravel tradition by re-dating and ignoring aspects
of it make it difficult for one to argue. It sounds like you have
decided to leave Orthodoxy. I hope you come back. But do not believe
you have anything but human logic on your side. Human logic, however,
doesn't equal truth.
Joe Suaiden
http://www.roac.tk
JoeSuaiden
Joe Orthodox
imagines he has a shot at the title. You'll learn soon enough. He's
been on this troll ride for about three years now. He'll ramble on
pretending you didn't refute every erroneous claim he made, and start
from scratch after diverting the discussion off into a multitude of
bunny trails. Just for grins, here's on lengthy spanking I gave him
last year:
Joe Orthodox
> Are you a Crossanite, perhaps believing Jesus
> was eaten by wild dogs?
and
> Well, they are. But it is tradition which proves they exist. Of
> course, trying to unravel tradition by re-dating and ignoring aspects
> of it make it difficult for one to argue. It sounds like you have
> decided to leave Orthodoxy. I hope you come back. But do not believe
> you have anything but human logic on your side. Human logic, however,
> doesn't equal truth.
>
> Joe Suaiden
> http://www.roac.tk
He's not a Christian. His bio, at least what he let on when he began
this trip three years ago, was that he was a cradle Orthodox from the
Carpatho-Rusyn jurisdiction but he converted in college to the Calvary
Chapel after he met a girl. Or, as he said, his libido led him to the
truth better than the Orthodox Church. His earlier polemics were that
of a fundamentalist Christian. Over time, it became apparent his
beliefs were shifting again and they started looking like a Messianic
Judaism or neo-Islamism. His views sounded awfully atheistic over in
Beliefnet. Anyway, even his schtick about being formerly Orthodox is in
question, given that in various debates he made elementary mistakes in
details in the Liturgy. He also said at one time he didn't find any
meaning in the Liturgy because it was mostly in Slavonic in his home
parish, but then some months ago he wrote that the services were all in
English. He also said he was non-ethnic, but it's hard to believe
someone would be cradle in that jurisdiction and not be ethnic. And
speaking of ethnicity, he's shown a strong dislike (putting it mildly)
for Slavs.
Good luck in getting a firm grip on this greased banana.
rlm_3071
> "Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:As2_e.62931$32.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >> Steven Bishop [aka Learner]
> >
> > Interesting. The spelling of your name changed from "Stephen" to
> > "Steven".
> >
>
> That is interesting. Personally, I would be REALLY disappointed to learn
> that Learner isn't who he claims to be.
Against my better judgement, I'll add a few words. I read the threads
in those links and don't believe it's rocket science to clearly see
that "Magister" and "Learner" are the same persona.
Craig, I would email you privately but my old account was deactivated a
year or so ago and I don't have access to your email address. From the
cordial email exchanges we shared I gathered you and Learner were
corresponding. You informed me his name was "Stephen", and I referred
to him as such in this message list. Perhaps that's where Joe and
others got the name. I probably referred to Learner as Stephen in a
private email to Joe as well, I don't remember. As far as I could tell
from Learner's posts earlier this year, or maybe it was last year, he's
not even a Christian. Previously I was under the impression he was a
Protestant, but I was grossly mistaken and unfortunately I stood
alongside him and joined in, for which I've repented and still repent
for. What I find saddening is that you are a Christian (and still
nominally Orthodox?) and yet you may be finding a lurid entertainment
in the harpooning of other Christians by someone like Learner who's
anti-Christian. I would hope that those who want to serve Christ and
the basic values common to all Christians would defend this common
ground rather than siding with those doing the destructive work of the
Evil One. I sure wouldn't knowingly do the same against Protestants in
this situation. But I guess that's just me. What I see is a stronger
interest within some (not necessarily you) in tearing down a group of
faithful Christians whom they find disagreeable even if it means
insulting Christ in the process. Most likely it's because they don't
regard Orthodox as Christian, as defined by nineteenth century
sensibilities. That's they're problem and they'll have to answer for
it later.
Joe, just forgive and disengage. Stick to the sane message boards.
Perhaps Learner just needs a friend and doesn't know how to express it.
Learner, my apologies and sincere request for forgiveness.
God bless.
James
Well said. I also tend to lurk more than post, particularly here. It's
readily apparent that Learner/Lerner/Stephen/Steven/Magister are one and
the same person. Given this chicanery of his, I tend to dismiss most of
what he has to say since he demonstrates that he cannot be trusted. It's
really as simple as that.
rlm_3071
Against my better judgement, I'll add a few words. I read the threads
in those links and don't believe it's rocket science to clearly see
Craig, I would email you privately but my old account has been
deactivated for a year or so and I don't have access to your email
address. From the cordial email exchanges we had some time ago I
gathered you and Learner were corresponding. You informed me his name
was "Stephen", and I referred to him as such in this message list. I'm
guessing that's where Joe and others got the name. I probably referred
to Learner as Stephen in a private email to Joe as well, I don't
remember. As far as I could tell from Learner's posts earlier this
year, or maybe it was last year, he's not even a Christian. A few
years ago I was under the impression he was a Protestant, but I was
grossly mistaken and unfortunately I stood alongside him and joined in,
for which I've repented and still repent for. What I find saddening is
that you are a Christian (and possibly still nominally Orthodox?) and
yet you may be finding a lurid entertainment in the harpooning of other
Christians by someone who's clearly anti-Christian. I would think that
those who want to serve Christ and the basic values common to all
Christians would defend this common ground rather than siding with
those doing the destructive work of the Evil One. I sure wouldn't
knowingly do the same against Protestants in this situation. But I
guess that's just me. What I see is a stronger interest within some
(not necessarily you) in tearing down a group of faithful Christians
whom they find disagreeable even if it means insulting Christ in the
process. I'm guessing it's because they don't regard Orthodox as
Christians. That's they're problem and they'll have to answer for it
later.
Joe, just forgive and disengage. Stick to the sane message boards.
Perhaps Learner just needs a friend and he doesn't know how to express
it.
Learner, my apologies to you and my sincere request for forgiveness.
God bless.
--
rlm_3071
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rlm_3071's Profile: http://usenetreligion.com/member.php?userid=5304
View this thread: http://usenetreligion.com/showthread.php?t=767669
craig
"rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127920062.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> craig wrote:
>> "Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
>> news:As2_e.62931$32.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>> >> Steven Bishop [aka Learner]
>> >
>> > Interesting. The spelling of your name changed from "Stephen" to
>> > "Steven".
>> >
>>
>> That is interesting. Personally, I would be REALLY disappointed to learn
>> that Learner isn't who he claims to be.
>
>
> Against my better judgement, I'll add a few words. I read the threads
> in those links and don't believe it's rocket science to clearly see
> that "Magister" and "Learner" are the same persona.
>
Hi Rick,
> Craig, I would email you privately but my old account was deactivated a
> year or so ago and I don't have access to your email address.
Is there a way to exchange contact info (email address, phone number, etc.)
without doing it publically?
> From the
> cordial email exchanges we shared I gathered you and Learner were
> corresponding.
We have corresponded a few times by email (if I am not mistaken, always
initialed by me). Also, I emailed Learner one over the summer to see how he
was doing but he never responded.
> You informed me his name was "Stephen", and I referred
> to him as such in this message list.
I just checked my Outlook listing for Learner, and it is "Steven Bishop." I
probably entered that listing 2 years ago. So, at the time that I entered
it, the source of information that I was using definitely had the spelling
as "Steven."
If, in correspondence with you, I referred to him as "Stephen," it was
probably an honest mistake. That is the way that I am used to spelling that
name.
> Perhaps that's where Joe and
> others got the name. I probably referred to Learner as Stephen in a
> private email to Joe as well, I don't remember. As far as I could tell
> from Learner's posts earlier this year, or maybe it was last year, he's
> not even a Christian.
I was definitely under the impression that he IS a Christian. What was it
in his posts that leads you to believe otherwise?
> Previously I was under the impression he was a
> Protestant, but I was grossly mistaken and unfortunately I stood
> alongside him and joined in, for which I've repented and still repent
> for. What I find saddening is that you are a Christian (and still
> nominally Orthodox?) and yet you may be finding a lurid entertainment
> in the harpooning of other Christians by someone like Learner who's
> anti-Christian.
I have always tried to be honest about my position, but I will restate it
once again:
I was raised in the Eastern Orthodox Church. While in my 20's, I began to
have some doubts about the claims of the Church. I began to do a little
reading and studying. Now, I find myself convinced that the EOC is not what
it claims to be. I simply find the arguments of some Evangelical Christians
to be far more persuasive than those of the EOC in almost all respects. But
I am by no means anti-Orthodox. I still identify with it because it is such
a strong part of my upbringing. There is definitely an emotional bond. I
am not hostile toward Orthodoxy - but where there are differences, I side
with the Evangelical perspective.
"Lurid entertainment?" Not at all. I have found Learner's arguments to be
well-stated, extremely powerful, and far more persuasive than those who have
argued against him, such as Joe (though I really do like Joe and enjoy
reading his posts). If they were not, I don't think he would have received
all the attention that he has been given.
In all honesty, I suspect that an objective observer who did not sympathize
with either side would probably conclude that all participants are simply
supporting the arguments and the behavior of the person that they happen to
agree with. You certainly seem to have demonstrated this phenomenon based
upon your comments before and after your conversion to Orthodoxy.
> I would hope that those who want to serve Christ and
> the basic values common to all Christians would defend this common
> ground rather than siding with those doing the destructive work of the
> Evil One.
I have no reason to believe that Learner is doing Satan's work. As I
mentioned in my last post, I would be REALLY disappointed if Learner turned
out to be someone other than who he claimed to be, mostly because I
appreciate his posts so much.
> I sure wouldn't knowingly do the same against Protestants in
> this situation. But I guess that's just me. What I see is a stronger
> interest within some (not necessarily you) in tearing down a group of
> faithful Christians whom they find disagreeable even if it means
> insulting Christ in the process.
I have no interest in tearing you or anyone else down. I can honestly say
that I really like many of the Orthodox people that I have corresponded with
over the years (such as yourself and Joe), but I find myself in complete
disagreement with many of your claims regarding the EOC. I guess I should
also mention that I have no reason not to consider you a Christian. As far
as I am concerned, you are my brother in Christ. You may feel differently.
> Most likely it's because they don't
> regard Orthodox as Christian, as defined by nineteenth century
> sensibilities. That's they're problem and they'll have to answer for
> it later.
I regard anyone who has received Christ as a Christian. I base that on the
first-century Scripture.
rlm_3071
> "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127920062.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > craig wrote:
> >> "Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> >> news:As2_e.62931$32.2...@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> >> >> Steven Bishop [aka Learner]
> >> >
> >> > Interesting. The spelling of your name changed from "Stephen" to
> >> > "Steven".
> >> >
> >>
> >> That is interesting. Personally, I would be REALLY disappointed to learn
> >> that Learner isn't who he claims to be.
> >
> >
> > Against my better judgement, I'll add a few words. I read the threads
> > in those links and don't believe it's rocket science to clearly see
> > that "Magister" and "Learner" are the same persona.
> >
>
> Hi Rick,
Greetings Craig,
I hope I didn't offend you in my post. That wasn't my intention.
I think the most crucial aspect in the discussions is to present as
best as possible a factual POV in a logically coherent format, after
which one side's position is either modified or abandoned. This
requires a degree of intellectual give and take and humility to admit
you're at least partially wrong. I've demonstrated I can admit I was
wrong on several counts. Reciting ad nauseam things already shown
untrue or at best partial truth presented in twisted form, accomplishes
nothing but to cement oneself as an unserious fool, IMO. As far as the
information provided by Learner, I found Leonidas' and Joe's rebuttals
accurate in their characterization of his scholarship and his style of
discourse. That doesn't mean I find Joe's style to be perfectly
polite, on the contrary. Leonidas and Joe make efforts to remain on
topic and address particular points raised, which isn't respected in
kind. That brings up another issue with Learner's approach to the
discussions - an unwillingness to risk himself by offering a coherent
counterpoint other than "Orthodox bad, the opposite good", no matter
the merits of the opposite position and no matter that contradictory,
illogical opposite positions are taken. Assuming the role of a Nowhere
Man, a la the Beatles tune, in a debate setting was exposed as
sophistry by the ancients and isn't regarded as a valid rhetorical
method in any academic environment. That singular fact is what
identifies him no matter the alias chosen for the day. Right off hand,
I can't think of anyone else I've encountered online who acted the
same. Enough said on this subject.
You can email me at the email address listed in my current post. I
ended up deactivating my old account due to the huge volume of spam I
was receiving on a daily basis. Since this account is now exposed to
this list, I'm sure it'll be flooded in a few days and require
deactivation in due time.
All the best.
Joe Orthodox
> I have found Learner's arguments to be
> well-stated, extremely powerful, and far more persuasive than those who have
> argued against him, such as Joe (though I really do like Joe and enjoy
> reading his posts). If they were not, I don't think he would have received
> all the attention that he has been given.
You mean attention from others like White Peacock? I consider it the
sort of attention that a noisy wino on a street corner would get. More
of an odd curiosity, if not extreme annoyance to the passersby. I
wouldn't mistake the abundance of stares and the mocking of the wino as
signs of serious acceptance of the wino's proclaimed self-importance. LOL.
craig
I guess I just don't see that as an accurate characterization, Joe. Go back
and review all of your posts. Had Learner's arguments carried the weight of
those of a noisy wino on a street corner, I don't think you would have given
him so much of your time. I think that an objective observer would conclude
that you found his arguments to be strong enough and credible enough to
warrant a considerable amount of your time and effort.
I will agree with you, though, that the response he has received from the
Orthodox faithful has often times amounted to "mocking."
Joe Orthodox
Come now, you're being silly, Craig. You've obviously missed a LOT of
what's been going on. Answer me these questions, honestly...
Did you find Lerner's arguments that the Incarnation is a later
development of Christianity not a belief present in the earliest
Christian community, and was an implant from paganism?
Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Virgin Birth was a later
development since Paul never mentioned it (though it's mentioned in
Matthew's Gospel, but he dismissed the credibility of this book)?
Did you find his arguments persuasive that Christians have mistranslated
the OT books like Isaiah, where he says they really say "young woman"
and don't predict a "virgin" birth for the future Messiah?
Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Gospels of John, Matthew,
and Luke are unreliable sources for discerning the beliefs of the first
Christians?
Did you find his arguments persuasive that Jesus wasn't born God?
Do you believe anyone can believe the above and still be a Christian?
Answer honestly, Craig. If you say yes to the last question, then it's
not a surprise to me that you're likely to be swayed by shoddy
reasoning. I think you would have to possess a pretty shoddy idea of
what defines a Christian. Just believing in Jesus means NOTHING, NADA,
NICHEVO, ZILCH if you don't believe Jesus was Christ, born God Incarnate
from the Virgin Mary for the salvation of man, fulfilling the OT
prophecy of His Virgin Birth, and the Gospels are reliable, accurate,
and the true Word of God. Learner has been arguing otherwise. This is
why the rants about icons is a frivolous activity when he's got much
bigger problems.
++
>
> I guess I just don't see that as an accurate characterization, Joe. Go back
> and review all of your posts. Had Learner's arguments carried the weight of
> those of a noisy wino on a street corner, I don't think you would have given
> him so much of your time. I think that an objective observer would conclude
> that you found his arguments to be strong enough and credible enough to
> warrant a considerable amount of your time and effort.
>
> I will agree with you, though, that the response he has received from the
> Orthodox faithful has often times amounted to "mocking."
You will, of course, wish to be kept informed of the real state of WMDs:
*******************************************************
CBR Weapons and WMD Terrorism News – September 26, 2005
********************************************************
PLEASE NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative has a searchable archive of
the ChemBio listserv on its website at http://www.nti.org/db/cbw/index.htm
********************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOLOGICAL – PREP/DEFENSE/RESPONSE – INTERNATIONAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bird Flu May See New Zeeland Close Borders
“New Zealand may lock down all air and sea ports if a lethal bird flu
epidemic takes hold internationally, potentially turning planes around and
putting all arrivals into quarantine. The disease has killed more than 50
people, but it has not yet learned to rapidly transmit between humans. In
late October, New Zealand border agencies would look at the logistics of
stopping all people and imports, such as food and medicine, from entering
the country in the event of a pandemic, Customs business development unit
manager John Ladd said [Thursday]… Enormous problems would accompany such
a move, he said.” (Stuff / Terrorist Warning, 9/23/2005)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3419499a7144,00.html
----------------------------------------------
BW – PREP/DEFENSE/RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------
* FDA Publishes Guidance for Bioterrorism Recordkeeping Requirements
“In the September 12 Federal Register, FDA announced the publication of a
guidance document on the recordkeeping requirements of the Bioterrorism
Act. Among other things, that act (formally known as the Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002) requires that companies that
‘manufacture, process, pack, transport, distribute, receive, hold, or
import food,’ including dietary supplements, keep certain records and have
them available ‘to allow for the identification of the immediate previous
sources and the immediate subsequent recipients of food.’ The intent of
this requirement to enable the FDA to trace products quickly in the event
that there is a reasonable belief that an article of food is adulterated
and presents a public health threat…In a Question-and-Answer format, the
guidance topics include who must comply with and who is excluded from the
rule, and what information is required to be kept and made available to
FDA during a Bioterrorism investigation. The guidance document describes
FDA’s current thinking and should be viewed only as recommendations,
unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of
the word ‘should’ in the guidance means that something is suggested or
recommended, but not required.” (Natural Newswire / Bioterrorist Warning,
9/17/2005)
The guidance document is posted on FDA’s website:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/recguid.html
http://www.naturalnewswire.com/2005/09/fda_publishes_g.html
----------------------------------------------------------
CHEMICAL – THREAT - INTERNATIONAL
-----------------------------------------------------------
* Gazprom Says Trans-Baltic Pipeline Won't Disturb Seabed Dumps
“The Russian energy giant Gazprom said Monday that its trans-Baltic North
European Pipeline project would not disturb any seabed chemical waste
dumps. Gazprom spokesman Stanislav Markin said at a conference on
hydrocarbon shipments that the company would not commit itself to ‘fishing
out’ and decontaminating any chemical waste from the Baltic Sea, but that
it would ensure the pipeline was routed to bypass all such environmentally
hazardous dumps. He said the countries that disposed of chemical weapons
after World War II by dumping them into the Baltic Sea had maps
pinpointing the underwater dump sites. According to expert estimates,
267,000 tons of combat ammunition, one-fifth of it toxic, was dumped into
the sea in postwar years. The North European Pipeline will be used to
supply natural gas from deposits in western Siberia to consumers across
Europe. It will run underwater and overland, operating at a prospective
capacity of 55 billion cu m of gas per year. The project, costing an
estimated 2 billion euros, gets underway this year and is expected to be
completed in 2010.” (RIA Novosti, 9/26/2005)
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050926/41511032-print.html
--------------------------------------------------------------
CW – STATE SPONSORED - INTERNATIONAL
--------------------------------------------------------------
* Thales Denies Selling Arms to Saddam
“French defense-electronics group Thales SA on Monday denied allegations
from a fired company executive that it paid out millions of dollars in
bribes and sold chemical weapons to the former Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein…Michel Josserand, former chief executive of Thales Engineering and
Consulting, or THEC, said in an interview with newspaper Le Monde that
that the paying of bribes by Thales was widespread _ in violation of
French law and international conventions. ‘I estimate that Thales must pay
out between 1 percent and 2 percent of its global revenue in illegal
commissions,’ he said. Thales posted revenue of 10.3 billion euros ($12.5
billion) for 2004. He also said Thales had ‘sidestepped the (U.N.) Oil for
Food Program and delivered chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein's
government.’ Josserand has told police investigating Thales that the
company took part in the construction of an Iraqi chemical-weapons plant
disguised as a factory that made baby's milk powder, Le Monde reported.
Thales spokesman Christophe Robin said the company denied ‘categorically
and totally’ the allegations concerning Iraq…Paris prosecutors are
investigating allegations of corruption at Thales after irregularities
surfaced in the company's bid to build a light railway in the southern
French city of Nice.” (Washington Post, 9/26/2005)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092600406_pf.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RADIOLOGICAL – THREAT - INTERNATIONAL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* International Experts Voice Concerns over Chernobyl Reactor Casing
“Structural components of the sarcophagus housing the remains of
Chernobyl's nuclear plant's fourth reactor are damaged, and are in danger
of breaking and releasing radioactive matter, the Chernobyl Forum said in
Ukrainian newspaper Segodnya in the beginning of September. The Chernobyl
Forum includes eight UN agencies, the World Bank, Russia, Belarus, and
Ukraine. However, the press service of the Ukrainian Emergencies Ministry
said the current casing will remain safe long enough for a new "arch" to
be built over the sarcophagus. The new shelter will be in the form of an
arch, 100 meters high and 250 meters wide. It will be assembled at a safe
place near the reactor, and then mounted over the old casing. A tender
will be held for the construction of the shelter at the end of November,
the press service said. Work will then begin work on the shelter's
construction, involving 3,000 specialists. The Chernobyl Shelter Fund, run
by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, hopes to raise
more than $1 billion for the project. Some 28 foreign governments have
already pledged to contribute more than $750m. Chernobyl's number-four
reactor, in what was then the Soviet Union and is now Ukraine, exploded on
April 26, 1986, sending a radioactive cloud across Europe. Following the
disaster, a concrete sarcophagus was built over the stricken reactor but
the new 20,000-tonne steel case will cover the whole plant. EBRD officials
hope that construction of the gigantic steel shelter will be completed by
2008/2009.” (Bellona / The Daily Nonproliferator, 9/22/2005)
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/incidents/39905.html
------------------------------------------------
WMD – INTERNATIONAL TREATY
------------------------------------------------
* ElBaradei Re-Election on IAEA Agenda
“The International Atomic Energy Agency begins a general conference whose
first order of business will be the re-appointment of its chief, Mohamed
ElBaradei. A former Egyptian diplomat, he has become one of the world's
best-known advocates of non-proliferation. ‘Dr ElBaradei will be formally
re-appointed to a third term Monday,’ IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming
said on Monday in Vienna, the Austrian capital…The agency's 35-nation
board of governors in June unanimously chose ElBaradei to continue as its
director-general, after Washington dropped its opposition to
him…Washington had resisted a new term for ElBaradei, IAEA
director-general since 1997, saying two-terms was enough for running an
international agency, but received no backing from other members of the
board…Diplomats said ElBaradei had provoked Washington's ire for
questioning US intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
under now deposed dictator Saddam Hussein and for not being tough enough
on Iran, which Washington accuses of secretly developing nuclear weapons.”
(Al Jazeera / Google News, 9/26/2005)
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1DE5D985-2D0B-4006-BBDA-A11D750D5542.htm
* Lebanon Signs Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
“Lebanon has signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on~16
September 2005. The signature of Lebanon brings the total number of
Signatories to 176. The number of Signatories in the Middle East and South
Asia geographical region now stands at 20. The CTBT bans all nuclear
weapons test explosions. Drafted at the Conference on Disarmament in
Geneva and adopted by the General Assembly on 10 September 1996, the
Treaty was opened for signature on 24 September 1996 at the United Nations
headquarters in New York. To date, 124 States have deposited their
instruments of ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
To enter into force, the CTBT must be signed and ratified by the 44 States
listed in Annex 2 to the Treaty. These States formally participated in the
work of the 1996 session of the Conference on Disarmament and possessed
nuclear power or research reactors at that time. To date, 33 of the Annex
2 States have ratified the Treaty.” (CTBTO Press Release, 9/21/2005)
http://www.ctbto.org/press_centre/press_release.dhtml?item=263
------------------------------------------------
WMD – PREP/DEFENSE/RESPONSE
------------------------------------------------
* Team Trains for Bio-Chem Attack
“Twice a week in the middle of Diamond Head crater, a team of men don red
and blue astronaut-like suits and practice detecting biological and
chemical agents such as anthrax or the deadly nerve gas sarin. The 22-man
Hawaii National Guard team is at the forefront of the state's effort to
protect the islands against terrorist attacks of the worst variety.
Experts say the unit, together with efforts to stay up-to-date with
intelligence on terrorist threats, is among the leading reasons why the
state is prepared to cope with a such an emergency…The Diamond Head-based
93rd Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team is one of 55 such
units that have been set up or are being set up around the nation. All 50
states and the U.S. territories, including Guam and Puerto Rico, will
eventually have their own teams in place. Having a unit in the islands
enables experts to swiftly identify potentially dangerous substances and
start treating those exposed without having to wait for help to arrive
from the mainland. On Oahu, the team is trained to reach the scene of an
outbreak within three hours and any site on a neighbor island within five
hours…Hawaii is also one of only 12 states where National Guard soldiers
are trained and equipped to decontaminate people exposed to chemical,
biological or nuclear agents. In addition, the Hawaii National Guard
operates a backup communications system that would enable the governor,
mayors and other leaders to communicate by phone and e-mail in the event
the state's existing infrastructure collapses after a debilitating attack
or natural disaster.” (Honolulu Star Bulletin / Google News, 9/26/2005)
http://starbulletin.com/print/?fr=/2005/09/26/news/story4.html
* California Joins Emergency Management Assistance Compact
“Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he signed legislation that makes
California party to the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC),
already in place in the 47 other contiguous states. AB 823 by
Assemblymembers Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara) and Sharon Runner
(R-Lancaster) allows states to share emergency response resources
immediately during a disaster without having to use valuable time reaching
aid agreements…EMAC is the primary legal tool that states use to
immediately send and receive emergency personnel and equipment during a
major disaster. Prior to adopting EMAC, the Governor's Office of Emergency
Services (OES) negotiated governor-to-governor agreements with other
states, often lengthening response time. Also signed by Governor
Schwarzenegger was SB 546 by Senator Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga),
legislation that authorizes OES to promote collaboration between the
private and public sectors to better prepare for, respond to and recover
from disasters. This legislation allows the state to enter into emergency
management agreements with private sector organizations with the goal of
reducing the impact of future disasters and speeding recovery efforts.”
(Government Technology, 9/20/2005)
http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/96695
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WMD – PREP/DEFENSE/RESPONSE - INTERNATIONAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Brazilian Port of Santos Joins Container Security Initiative
“The Brazilian port of Santos became the 39th operational Container
Security Initiative (CSI) port on September 22, targeting and prescreening
maritime cargo containers headed for U.S. ports, according to a press
release issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), an agency of
the Department of Homeland Security. The CSI program is intended to
prevent the smuggling of terrorists or terrorist weapons into the United
States in oceangoing cargo containers by providing for the deployment of
U.S. customs officials to other countries' ports.~ U.S. customs agents
working in those ports target high-risk U.S.-bound containers prior to
shipment for inspection by their local counterparts.~ Under the program, a
participating country can send its customs officers to major U.S. ports to
target cargo destined for that nation's ports. The port of Santos is the
largest port in South America and a major export center -- and with 39 CSI
ports now operational, approximately 75 percent of cargo containers headed
to the United States originate in or are transshipped from CSI ports.”
(U.S. Department of State Press Release, 9/22/2005)
**********************************************************
CNS ChemBio-WMD Terrorism News is prepared by the WMD Terrorism Research
Program of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies of the Monterey
Institute of International Studies in order to bring timely and focused
information to researchers and policymakers interested in the fields of
chemical, biological and radiological weapons nonproliferation and WMD
terrorism.
CNS presents these keywords and links for the convenience of the
recipients of CBR-WMD Terrorism News, but CNS does not endorse these
sites or the veracity of their information and cannot be responsible for
the maintenance of the links listed here. For a searchable archive of
the CBR-WMD Terrorism News listserv, please visit the Nuclear Threat
Initiative's website, at http://www.nti.org/db/cbw/index.htm
We hope you find this material of use, and welcome your suggestions. To
subscribe or unsubscribe to ChemBio-Terror News, please visit
http://cnslists.miis.edu/mailman/listinfo/chembio-terror or email
chembio...@miis.edu for assistance.
For more information and resources on CBW and WMD terrorism, visit the
web page of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, at
http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/index.htm
craig
If that is Learner's position, then I would definitely agree with you.
Aparently, I have missed quite a bit of the dialog because I have never
actually seen him defend the position you are describing. Has he converted
to Judaism?
White Peacock
>
> Come now, you're being silly, Craig. You've obviously missed a LOT of
> what's been going on. Answer me these questions, honestly...
>
> Did you find Lerner's arguments that the Incarnation is a later
> development of Christianity not a belief present in the earliest Christian
> community, and was an implant from paganism?
>
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Virgin Birth was a later
> development since Paul never mentioned it (though it's mentioned in
> Matthew's Gospel, but he dismissed the credibility of this book)?
>
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that Christians have mistranslated
> the OT books like Isaiah, where he says they really say "young woman" and
> don't predict a "virgin" birth for the future Messiah?
>
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Gospels of John, Matthew,
> and Luke are unreliable sources for discerning the beliefs of the first
> Christians?
>
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that Jesus wasn't born God?
>
> Do you believe anyone can believe the above and still be a Christian?
I followed most of learner's posts when he posted in the past 1-1/2 or so
(skipped a couple when things got too redundant) and don't remember his ever
saying anything like any of the above, althouth it is possible that I did
miss such posts. He usually discoursed on the Didache, the role of the
Theotokos and her supposed entrance into the Holy of Holies of the temple
(where the priest was only allowed once a year), iconography, various
councils. Can you point me to the posts where he claimed such in the google
archives? If he posted such in this forum, the posts should be in the
archives.
As to the gospels being unreliable, Jesus' not being born God, I don't
remember reading anything like that from him. He also stuck in a political
commentary or two that I didn't necessarily agree with. If he believes in
abortion, I can't agree with that although he is free to believe and say
what he pleases.
It's impossible for me to determine if he posted on other forums (fora for
the purists) under another identity or not.
When he did post, I found it thought-provoking and think the remark about
the noisy wino on the street corner was inappropriate and linking me to that
in the manner in which you did.
>
> Answer honestly, Craig. If you say yes to the last question, then it's
> not a surprise to me that you're likely to be swayed by shoddy reasoning.
> I think you would have to possess a pretty shoddy idea of what defines a
> Christian. Just believing in Jesus means NOTHING, NADA, NICHEVO, ZILCH if
> you don't believe Jesus was Christ, born God Incarnate from the Virgin
> Mary for the salvation of man, fulfilling the OT prophecy of His Virgin
> Birth, and the Gospels are reliable, accurate, and the true Word of God.
> Learner has been arguing otherwise. This is why the rants about icons is
> a frivolous activity when he's got much bigger problems.
However the word "alma" was translated in the OT, the NT makes it pretty
clear that Jesus was born of a Virgin, He and the Father were one. Overall,
the gospels seem to present a fairly accurate account, but there a few
discrepancies and would probably be more to someone who studied them in a
more scholarly manner. The thief on the cross didn't have to believe most
of that; it appears he did accept him as the Son of God, savior, or
recognized His innocence (don't have the passage handy), and Jesus told him
he would be with him in paradise (they like to split hairs over the meaning
of that in some sects).
Joe Orthodox
> "Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
> news:oRJ_e.52051$mb4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>>craig wrote:
>>
>>>"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>development since Paul never mentioned it (though it's mentioned in
>>Matthew's Gospel, but he dismissed the credibility of this book)?
>>
>>Did you find his arguments persuasive that Christians have mistranslated
>>the OT books like Isaiah, where he says they really say "young woman" and
>>don't predict a "virgin" birth for the future Messiah?
>>
>>Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Gospels of John, Matthew,
>>and Luke are unreliable sources for discerning the beliefs of the first
>>Christians?
>>
>>Did you find his arguments persuasive that Jesus wasn't born God?
>>
>>Do you believe anyone can believe the above and still be a Christian?
>>
>>Answer honestly, Craig. If you say yes to the last question, then it's
>>not a surprise to me that you're likely to be swayed by shoddy reasoning.
>>I think you would have to possess a pretty shoddy idea of what defines a
>>Christian. Just believing in Jesus means NOTHING, NADA, NICHEVO, ZILCH if
>>you don't believe Jesus was Christ, born God Incarnate from the Virgin
>>Mary for the salvation of man, fulfilling the OT prophecy of His Virgin
>>Birth, and the Gospels are reliable, accurate, and the true Word of God.
>>Learner has been arguing otherwise. This is why the rants about icons is
>>a frivolous activity when he's got much bigger problems.
>
>
> If that is Learner's position, then I would definitely agree with you.
> Aparently, I have missed quite a bit of the dialog because I have never
> actually seen him defend the position you are describing. Has he converted
> to Judaism?
Hello Craig. That's a question only Steven can answer. It looks like
he's adopted something along the lines of Messianic Judaism which was
invented several decades ago. The funny thing is, regular Jews don't
accept them as real Jews. It looks like he went through this
transformation over the last year, as you may have noticed he started
spelling "God" as "G_d".
You can verify the items I mentioned above in the archives. Search the
archives for "learner" and "virgin birth" and you'll see the large
number of times he's dismissed this belief because it's not mentioned by
Paul. He was cornered on these things more than a few times, especially
why he dwells on something as minor as icons when he regards the
Incarnation as also a development in Christianity that was brought in by
pagans. As was usually the case, he refuses to push the ball forward in
the discussions and instead of dialoguing on something really
interesting like his opinions on the Incarnation, it's back to talking
point one and the ride starts over again on icons. He's not stupid, and
I think he realizes that if one believes the Virgin Birth and
Incarnation are later developments and yet are still regarded by
Christians as Christ's truth, then it makes the rant against Orthodox
"developments" a frivolous discussion. He's trying to ride the fence
between continuing the veneer of sounding like an evangelical who's got
Orthodoxy figured out, without making it explicit that he's not a
Christian anymore.
I've provided several quotes below with links. This is hardly inclusive
of all those discussions, but it ought to get you started. Have fun.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/3ec4298831863f03/86c81e7f255d0ed0?q=learner+virgin+birth&rnum=1#86c81e7f255d0ed0
"I said that it [the Virgin Birth] was a doctrine which developed over
time. Matthew saw the virgin birth as the fulfillment of the words of
the prophet Isaiah: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and
his name shall be called Emmanuel (which means, God with us)' Sadly,
this was not what Isaiah really said. He said, to Ahza, the 'almah,
['young woman'] was pregnant and would give birth. The original Hebrew
text was not set in the future, contrary to the Greek text that Matthew
used. Mark, Paul, and even John, say nothing about it at all."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/496fdfd2603b776b/b4e6ae57f123b7ee?q=learner+virgin+birth&rnum=20#b4e6ae57f123b7ee
"The fact of the matter is that the Church was not set up 'as is'.
Doctrines developed over many centuries. Even in the Bible, we see the
development of doctrine and beliefs. Paul wrote the earliest
manuscripts of Scripture and he mentioned nothing concerning the virgin
birth of Christ. Mark, the earliest Gospel, is also silent concerning
this topic. By the time we get the John's Gospel, Jesus is the Logos.
Orthodoxy also developed through the Councils that you mentioned. They
simply decided to freeze their development at a point in time."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/d3433ad7ae71866c/1a7bd899855053b6?q=learner+matthew+virgin+birth&rnum=2#1a7bd899855053b6
"A writer, now known as Mark, selected some of the oral traditions and
put them into 'Gospel' form . Mark's account begins with John the
Baptist, the baptism of Jesus, and ends with an empty tomb with a group
of frightened women fleeing and saying nothing to anyone about it to
anyone. There is no virgin birth and miracles are rather sparse.
A few years down the road, two writers [each with his own unique
perspective] created their own revisions of Mark - Matthew and Luke.
Matthew used nearly 90% of Mark, but he added many passages where he
attempted to link, what he believed to be OT prophecy, to events in
Jesus' life [ie the virgin birth]. Luke used Mark even less than
Matthew, using only about 50%. The rest came from other sources - one of
which Matthew also used.
However, it is very obvious that, unlike the Orthodox Church, neither
Matthew nor Luke considered Mark a divinely-inspired document. It was
nothing more than one source among many. Both cut parts out of it,
inserted material from other sources, and even changed the wording, and
its significance in numerous passages.
Luke, who admits that he was not an eyewitness, also said that many
people had previously written accounts of traditions they believed were
handed down from earlier eyewitnesses concerning Jesus. Luke clearly did
not approve of those earlier accounts, including Mark, otherwise he
would not have written his own Gospel, which alone he describes as
'authentic.' Luke simply found Mark's Gospel to be unsatisfactory.
So, how can your Church justify including Mark with Luke and Matthew
when the authors of these two Gospels believed the Gospel of Mark to be
unsatisfactory to the point that they had to essentially re-write it?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/e3f7e4065049240b/874055f4b8ba9557?q=learner+matthew+virgin+birth&rnum=11#874055f4b8ba9557
"Also, in your small mind, what is the purpose of the OT? What about
all of Matthew's creative 'interpretations' of OT prophecy?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/e3f7e4065049240b/b3e5d922d9251fca?q=learner+jesus+god+paul&rnum=26#b3e5d922d9251fca
"Anyone who has ever read the Gospels can see that Mark's view of Jesus
was completely different from that of the Gospel of John. In fact, if
we look at the NT in chronological order, we find that according to the
Paul, Jesus became God's son at the resurrection. According to Mark
[the earliest Gospel account], Jesus became God's son at his baptism.
According to Luke, Jesus became God's son at his birth. In the end,
John, [whose Gospel took much longer than the other Gospels to be
accepted by early Christians], Jesus is the pre-existent 'Logos'. So
even in the Gospels - the earliest accounts of Christ's life - there is
a persistent pushing back of the sonship of Jesus in time."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/e3f7e4065049240b/b3e5d922d9251fca?q=learner+jesus+god+paul&rnum=26#b3e5d922d9251fca
"There were a number of different groups who held very different beliefs
about who Jesus was and what Jesus said. As I have shown, and you have
dodged, the authors of the Gospels disagreed about when Christ became
the Son of G_d."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/d3433ad7ae71866c/a9f215b8f04d1ecc?q=learner+incarnation+development&rnum=1#a9f215b8f04d1ecc
"Like icons, the idea of the incarnation developed in Christianity -
although in a much shorter span of time. For example, take the earliest
Gospel [Mark] and derive your Incarnational dogma from it. Go ahead!"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/e3f7e4065049240b/9bd749c209ed371e?q=learner+bible+%22word+of+god%22&rnum=6#9bd749c209ed371e
"The marriage of Church and State under Constantine was a watershed
event in the development of Christian doctrine - for example, Trinity
doctrine served as a theological 'litmus test' which would have excluded
earlier Christianity - which tended towards subordinationism. In fact,
Justin Martyr had a subordinationist view of Jesus similar to that of
the Didache. Subordinationism characterized much of pre-Nicene
Christianity, and then Jesus was "begotten" of the Father - unlike the
view of earlier Christians who believed Jesus was the adopted son of G_d."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox/browse_frm/thread/b7410c75a634a66f/2770adf7f4b02a5a?q=learner+bible+%22word+of+god%22&rnum=16#2770adf7f4b02a5a
"No I was not. Is the Genesis account the truth? If it is not, then
what does this say about the claim that the Bible is the Word of God?"
Learner
> Did you find Lerner's arguments that the Incarnation is a later
> development of Christianity not a belief present in the earliest
> Christian community, and was an implant from paganism?
Well, it is a bit more complex than this. It is really more an issue
of Christology more than incarnation. The authors of the NT have very
different concepts of Christology and these views can be placed in
chronological order. The earliest writings [Paul] taught a
subordinationist view of Jesus and clearly believed in the
incarnation. Paul thought that Christ was a heavenly being who was
given the task of becoming incarnate and submitting to himself to
humiliation - see Philippians 2:6 . In Mark's Gospel, Jesus
becomes "Son of God" at his baptism, in Luke, Jesus becomes "son of
God" at his birth;" and in John, Jesus is the pre-existent Logos.
In other words, if we look at the history provided us by the
Scriptures, there was a "pushing back" of the sonship of Jesus
through time.
As for the issue of Paganism and the incarnation, these ideas were all
over the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus. We find a lot of these
notions in the writings of an Alexandrian Jew named Philo, whose Logos
doctrine had tremendous influence on Christianity.
Philo, said that "the Lord Begat Isaac." He also said that Zipporah
was "pregnant but by no mortal," and that Samuel's mother "received
divine seed."
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Virgin Birth was a later
> development since Paul never mentioned it (though it's mentioned in
> Matthew's Gospel, but he dismissed the credibility of this book)?
Whether, or not, I believe in the virgin birth [and I do] has nothing
to do with the issues being discussed - please keep in mind that only
2 out of the NT's 27 books even mentions the virgin birth.
Beliefs were in a state of flux and development, and we can see and
trace the evolution of beliefs in the books of the NT. Paul wrote the
earliest NT texts and never once mentioned the virgin birth. Now Joe
will trot out his "argument from silence" fallacy which could be a
strong argument, but not in this case. Paul said that Jesus was "born
of a woman," - he did not write "born of a "virgin." Let's face
it, a virgin birth is most extraordinary since only one has happened in
history! One would logically expect Paul to have written this to give
greater support to his claims for Jesus - particularly when discussing
Christ's birth. But given the opportunity, Paul merely wrote that
Jesus was born of a "woman," not a "virgin." In other words, Paul
viewed Christ's birth as the same of every other Jewish man born
under the law.
Mark also did not mention the virgin birth [or the wise men or
miraculous star] because Jesus, according to Mark, did not need to be
G_d's son at birth, but was adopted as the son of G_d at baptism. It
is also very interesting to note that Mark had a low opinion of Mary
- as can be seen by the way in which Jesus speaks to her in Mark's
Gospel. In fact, we can see this in the way in which a particular
incident is recorded in the Gospels.
Look at Mark 6:3:
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and
Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?"
In Semitic culture, calling a man the son of his mother implies a
strong suspicion of illegitimacy. Also remember that Matthew and Luke
both borrowed heavily from Mark's Gospel.
Matthew 13:55 records this incident a bit differently: "Is not this the
carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his
brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his
sisters with us?
Matthew altered Mark to remove the suspicion of illegitimacy.
Luke 4:22 goes two steps further : "Is not this the son of Joseph?"
Luke has not only altered Mark to omit the suspicion of illegitimacy,
but he also does not call Jesus a carpenter's son - which in those
days was a low calling. Note also that Luke omits any mention of
Jesus' brothers and sisters.
This is what I mean when I say that beliefs evolved over time.
By the way, John's Gospel - which was written and accepted last -
also does not mention the virgin birth. John did not need a virgin
birth, because like Paul - John is more interested in the descent of
the Logos/Wisdom to dwell among men, and its return to heavenly
realms, so the details of his birth are not important.
Some argue that John did not mention this because some theoretical
dispute concerning this issue had been settled. The problem is that
such a theoretical dispute would have included the incarnation as well.
But John discusses the incarnation in some great detail at the
beginning of his Gospel, yet never mentions a virgin birth.
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that Christians have mistranslated
> the OT books like Isaiah, where he says they really say "young woman"
> and don't predict a "virgin" birth for the future Messiah?
I find this particularly entertaining since it turns a major Orthodox
argument against itself. The Orthodox often claim that they wrote the
Bible, the NT at least, therefore the Orthodox Church alone can
properly interpret Scripture. The Jews wrote the OT and have studied
and produced numerous commentaries for centuries, yet the Orthodox
somehow know more about the OT, not based on any knowledge of Hebrew,
but on the shaky translation found in the Septuagint.
Second, there is absolutely nothing original in the idea of a virgin
birth - especially in the pagan environment where early Christianity
formed and grew. In fact, this idea was so well-known that Justin
Martyr complained in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew that :
"When I hear that Perseus was born of a virgin, I understand that the
deceiving serpent imitated also this."
Third, virgin birth is a completely non-Jewish concept - it came out
of Hellenism and Egyptian religion. Jewish scholars and teachers -
from before Christ to the modern day - did/do not believe that their
long-awaited Messiah will be born of a virgin. In the Jewish mind,
there is no need for this.
Now, back to the translation issue.
Any Jew [or Gentile who can read Hebrew] who reads Isaiah knows that
it does not say "virgin". Trypho says this in his dialogue with
Justin. That is why good modern Bible translations also do not say
"virgin," but rather "young woman".
The problem exists because Matthew read the Greek Septuagint and not
the Hebrew text. The Septuagint uses the word "parthenos" for three
Hebrew terms:
1. na'arah - a girl
2. bethulah - a female virgin
3. almah - a young girl
As you can imagine, the creates translation problems. For example, in
Genesis 24:16 we find an awkward repetition:
"And the virgin (parthenos) was very beautiful; she was a virgin
(parthenos); no man had known her."
Why do we need to call her a virgin, then immediately say she was a
virgin again, that no man had "known" her? Because the Septuagint is a
bad translation.
The Hebrew text says is:
"And the GIRL (na'arah) was very beautiful; she was a virgin
(bethulah); no man had known her."
Now, Isaiah uses the word almah, which means young girl. The OT term
commonly used, when one wanted to make virginity explicit, is bethulah,
and added to that the qualifier "who had not known a man," as in
Genesis 24:16 [mentioned above] and Judges 21:12.
In other words, if Isaiah wanted to indicate virginity, he could have
done so, and the OT does it in other places. But he did not, because
virginity really had nothing to do with what he was saying. Isaiah was
saying that a young woman was pregnant and would give birth to a son,
and that by the time that son reached a certain age there would be an
Assyrian invasion. All else is theological fantasy.
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that the Gospels of John, Matthew,
> and Luke are unreliable sources for discerning the beliefs of the first
> Christians?
Quite the contrary. I believe that the Gospels, Epistles and a few
other early works such as the Didache, are the only reliable sources
for discerning not only the beliefs of the first Christians, but also
how these beliefs evolved over time.
> Did you find his arguments persuasive that Jesus wasn't born God?
See above.
Do you believe anyone can believe the above and still be a Christian?
I guess that it depends on how you define Christian. In my mind,
anyone how believes that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, follows his
teachings/examples, and believes Jesus died for our sins and that G_d
raised him from the dead - is a Christian regardless of where they go
on Sunday [ or Saturday] morning.
This is a "spiritual" definition as opposed to a "religious"
interpretation in which Christianity is nothing more than a selective
collection of dogmas imposed over time by growing political/theocratic
authoritarianism.
Steven Bishop
Learner
craig wrote:
> I guess I just don't see that as an accurate characterization, Joe. Go back
> and review all of your posts. Had Learner's arguments carried the weight of
> those of a noisy wino on a street corner, I don't think you would have given
> him so much of your time. I think that an objective observer would conclude
> that you found his arguments to be strong enough and credible enough to
> warrant a considerable amount of your time and effort.
True. Joe has spent a great amount of time and effort posting to
arceo. At first, I thought that his rage and anger were somewhat
amusing, in a sort of pathetic way. However, his obsession grew to the
point where he would almost immediately post a response to anything
that I wrote. In fact, the reason that I dropped out of arceo [along
with the pressures of school and the application process for Medical
School] is that I noticed that Joe was posting very often at a time of
day which would be normal work hours in the U.S.. Employers usually
don't like it when employees use company time and resources for such
things, and I didn't want to fuel Joe's obsessive behavior to the
point where he could get in trouble.
> I will agree with you, though, that the response he has received from the
> Orthodox faithful has often times amounted to "mocking."
People only demean themselves and their beliefs by such puerile
behavior. As I have said before, this type of behavior provides an
excellent argument against anyone becoming involved with Orthodoxy.
Steven Bishop
Joe Orthodox
true.
1. You've supposed the Virgin Birth was a development, not believed by
the first Christians which would include Mark, Paul, and John, thusly it
was made up. This isn't Christian. (You make no sense in backpedaling
yourself from this knot by saying you believe in the Virgin Birth is
true; you don't apply this reasoning to painted icons, i.e. something
that's true but wasn't immediately there with the first Christians.)
2. You've supposed Matthew isn't the divine Word of God because he
supposedly mistranslated the OT prophecies. You've made the same
cut-n-shred analysis of John and Luke, therefore they are not the
divinely inspired Word of God. This isn't a Christian view.
3. You suppose the Incarnation is a development, an implant from the
pagan world, and thusly it too was made up. This isn't Christian, either.
4. Jesus wasn't born already God. He wasn't God in Mary's womb.
Again, this isn't Christian.
There you go, Craig.
Joe Orthodox
> craig wrote:
>
>
>>I guess I just don't see that as an accurate characterization, Joe. Go back
>>and review all of your posts. Had Learner's arguments carried the weight of
>>those of a noisy wino on a street corner, I don't think you would have given
>>him so much of your time. I think that an objective observer would conclude
>>that you found his arguments to be strong enough and credible enough to
>>warrant a considerable amount of your time and effort.
>
>
> True. Joe has spent a great amount of time and effort posting to
> arceo. At first, I thought that his rage and anger were somewhat
> amusing, in a sort of pathetic way. However, his obsession grew to the
> point where he would almost immediately post a response to anything
> that I wrote. In fact, the reason that I dropped out of arceo [along
> with the pressures of school and the application process for Medical
> School] is that I noticed that Joe was posting very often at a time of
> day which would be normal work hours in the U.S.. Employers usually
> don't like it when employees use company time and resources for such
> things, and I didn't want to fuel Joe's obsessive behavior to the
> point where he could get in trouble.
Ah yes, another reference to the failed MCAT test. I remember telling
you good luck on the day you "said" you were taking it, and in return
you made a really noble comment about my wife's family eating cat food
and cabbage or something of that nature. Don't pretend to be concerned
about anyone else. Whenever anyone Orthodox has tried to extend a
friendly hand to you, they withdrew a stump. You replicate the words I
and others have used to describe you - angry and hateful - and attempt
to project them back. You're highly pissed now because you were caught
making up one persona here and then another one with a different age
elsewhere and it didn't work. Rather, it seems you're obsessive on this
because you wasted so much time in this Orthodox list, attempted to do
so in the Orthodox board in Bnet, and then attempted to sabotage
Orthodox articles in Wikipedia. I challenge you to name one
non-Orthodox board where I make it a daily activity to insult the faith
of others for years on end for no good reason than pure hate. You blew
a major gasket when non-Orthodox scholars in the Wikipedia discussions
were defending the Orthodox point of view and criticized your anger and
unscholarly methods. They stayed on top of you, undoing your deletions
and making sure you didn't get away with the hit-n-run attacks. You
left in angry huff.
About my work, I have a home office and telecommute. I pay for my own
network time, thank you very much. I'm heavily involved with
outsourcing development work in several countries, which keeps me at the
computer all day and a good part of the night. Believe me, it only
takes a few minutes to slap down your repetitious air balls in between
conference calls.
>>I will agree with you, though, that the response he has received from the
>>Orthodox faithful has often times amounted to "mocking."
>
>
> People only demean themselves and their beliefs by such puerile
> behavior. As I have said before, this type of behavior provides an
> excellent argument against anyone becoming involved with Orthodoxy.
>
> Steven Bishop
Yes, you said the same here and in Bnet, and in the process you won "0"
takers for whatever rotten baloney you found in the gutter.
Joe Orthodox
> Joe has spent a great amount of time and effort posting to
> arceo.
This is also an interesting point, though it's another of your feeble
attempts to not tell the truth. Do a search in the Google arceo
archives on "learner" and you'll return almost 2000 hits. Do a search
on "joe orthodox" and you'll return under a thousand. Those are the
"facts", as you're fond of saying, not opinion. And the fact is that my
posts were always responses to your asinine comments. Prove you're such
a nice guy Steven, and stop posting asinine comments. Continue posting
asinine comments, then I'll respond. It's really that simple.
James
Obviously, Joe, Learner/Lerner/Stephen/Steven/Magister is one sick
puppy. He hasn't convinced anyone of anything other than the fact that
he is deceitful and a person whose word means absolutely nothing. I
actually feel sorry for the guy.
Learner
today that dogma, and the often conflicting/contradictory dogmatic
teachings of Orthodoxy, are constantly placed well above basic
Christian love and kindness. It is amazing how the personal beliefs of
so many the Orthodox drives them to make bitter attacks on their fellow
humans.
Steven Bishop
MichaelC
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128390032.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Of course, you could plug in virtually every Christian denomination in the
paragraph above (except the ones that don't believe that Christ really
matters) and the paragraph would still make sense.
But, you knew that, didn't you?
Mike
Joe Orthodox
> It is amazing how the personal beliefs of
> so many the Orthodox drives them to make bitter attacks on their fellow
> humans.
>
> Steven Bishop
More back asswards logic from you. Of all the people to complain about
anyone else's virtue, you're the last. Your track record of lies, bogus
backgrounds, flame wars, and name calling have done you no service.
You're like the burglar complaining the home owner isn't a Christian
because he shot him. What's amazing is that you claim to have found
closure on leaving the Orthodox Church and yet you can't stay away from
Orthodox lists. You can't help yourself in unloading hate-filled, and
at times bigoted, barbs at those who believe. And these barbs aren't
just at Orthodox, they're at all Christians. You're a perfect example
of what kind of person leaves Orthodoxy, and how angry and hate-filled
they become.
Joe Orthodox
How could he? He only hangs out in Orthodox lists and fora. You know,
those people he claims treat him so badly, and yet hangs around for over
three years. Go figure.
MichaelC
Arrogance is like a drug. Once you're convinced of your own superiority of
belief (or knowledge, or education, or whatever) then you feel confident and
authorized in criticising (or demeaning, or trivializing) the belief of
others, and the more you do it, the better it feels.
That's pretty much what Matt. 7:3 is all about.
Mike