netspawn

Why is making the rich pay a bad idea? Squeeze em till they howl, eye say! . The rich get richer, and the poor get ... children!

Actually, OB, Paul's authentic epistles (not including Timothy), and the gospel of Mark, are both chronologically closer to the source than Matthew. Perhaps you should read more of the secondary literature to get a better sense of what is worth studying, and what isn't. Silvanus is the author of1Peter, and 2Peter was written long after Peter had gone to his reward. In fact, 2Peter was the last NT book to be written, and I think, one of the best ...

. What a differance that just a few short years makes! I just today saw some interesting stats about this. In 2005 over 90% of Canadians professed a belief in God. In 2011 that number has fallen to something near 50%. Wow! I sure would like to know where this sudden and rapid upsurge of rationality is coming from. It's a philosophical problem that I'll be chewing on for quite some time, I expect. In any case, if nothing else, these stats should serve as a clear wake-up call to all manner of religious leaders (and to you too, betsy), for the message is clear: religion is losing its grip over the people. But even so, celebration at this point would be a bit premature; owing to the fact that those in power will doubtless be the last to go. As for the 'Religion of Reason', I'm all in favor of it. My trinity of divine cosmic super-beings includes the Logos, Lady Sophia, and the ancient Greek-goddess of art and literature, Athena. And you know what else? I'm beginning to think that maybe we can make this thing work after all. Croce always said that philosophy makes religion obsolete, and damned if he wasn't right all along!

. Actually, Pliny, I have in fact just recently embarked upon such a study. I just started reading 'The Worldly Philosophers', a book about the lives and ideas of a half dozen famous economists; starting with Adam Smith. Fascinating stuff so far ... . . They are lying scumbags, to be sure ... most of them, anyway. Jack was different. He was, at the very least, sincere. . . Say what? Moi parroting? Surely you jest.

. Now the first thing I want to do is to inform the Reader that I have NOT consulted any commentaries upon Hebrews. This means that I have no idea whether or not the things I am about to say are known to the exegetes, or to what extent my interpretations agree or disagree with the general scholarly consensus. I say this so that the reader will know that the only authority at work here is my own feeble reasonings, assisted (I hope) by the spirit of truth. . Having said that, I will begin by reiterating my previous observation that the author of Hebrews was a literate and educated man who had a wide knowledge of the literature available to a scholar within walking distance of the famous library in Alexandria (ie. it was still in operation during the last decade of the first century, when Hebrews was written). Thus the author not only had knowledge of early christian literature, such as Paul's epistles (see eg. 5:11-14; which is doubtless the primary source of the mistaken notion that Paul was the author) and the gospels of Mk and Mt (ie. Lk-Acts was not yet written), but also of classical Greek philosophy, as in this verse from 2:15 : . . This verse shows us that the author had a good knowledge of, and perhaps even some admiration for, the otherwise much-hated Greek philosopher Epicurus; who taught (among other things) that we ought not to fear death (for fear of anything is a form of slavery) or the gods. . The author of Hebrews also demonstrates an intimate (even essential) knowledge of the gospel of John; as evidenced by the use of the phrase 'the Word of God' in a way that would have been quite impossible prior to John's gospel: . . Moreover, the significance of Hebrews' literary and theological dependence upon John is further demonstrated by the nature and structure of the all-important opening verses. Compare then the first three verses of these two books: . . . The significance of the author's literary and theological dependence upon John's writings is that it allows us to grope our way toward a better understanding of where, when, and why this essay or extended homily (it's quite obviously not a letter as such) was made. Since John's gospel was written during the crisis that tore the Faith away from its mother religion (ie. Judaism), what church-historians have called the 'Parting of the Ways', we can confidently place the gospel's origin at Alexandria round about the years 85-90CE. And since Hebrews is still very much concerned with the relevance of the Hebrew scriptures, it too can be pegged to the same area, say round about the years 90-95CE. As further evidence for this date I will point out that the text itself frankly admits to a second generation origin: . . That is, "those who heard him" are the first generation of greek-speaking believers who were driven out of Jerusalem (c.40-45CE), some of whom went north to Antioch, and some of whom went south-west to Egypt. Thus there were, in the first century, three great centers of the still emergent Faith: the original Aramaic church in Jerusalem, and the two hellenistic daughter-churches in Antioch and Alexandria. In the gospel of Mark and Peter these churches are identified through their apostolic leaders: Jacob (James) - the head of the Jerusalem assembly, Peter - the head of the Antioch assembly, and John - the head of the Alexandria assembly. Just a few years after the original gospel was written (c.60-65CE), a Roman army marched on Jerusalem and leveled the place to the ground. Thus ended the mother-church in violence and flames. . So even though the jewish-hellenistic prophets Paulos and Silvanus had already taken the Faith to the Gentiles of Asia Minor and Greece, the assemblies of Antioch and Alexandria remained very much within the Jewish element within these cities; such that the majority of believers (in the first century) were Greek-speaking Jews, and the Faith was still very much a form of Judaism (ie. a reform movement within Judaism). But after the destruction of the Holy City and its Holy Temple (in year 70CE), the Jews were suddenly bereft of the very core and center of their religion. And the result of this shocking loss was nothing less than a revolution within Judaism that radically changed its nature and structure. Gone were the bloody sacrifices and the priesthood who managed them. How could the Rabbis fill this massive void? Chiefly by changing the focus of Judaism away from the Holy Temple to the Holy Scriptures. Thus it was the Rabbis (at the council of Jamnia) that created the canon of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah/Law, Prophets, and Writings), and it was this unique achievement that saved Judaism from utter dissolution. . Unfortunately for the jewish-believers in the Christos, the salvation of Judaism required the rejection of all radical fringe groups, especially those who believed that Joshua of Nazareth was the Messiah. Thus the jewish-believers found themselves no longer welcome within the synagogues. Hence the 'parting of the ways' which forced these Jewish-believers into a position where they had no choice but to make a truly agonizing decision. If they wished to remain with their friends and families within the bosom of the religion of their ancestors, they would have to renounce their Lord and Messiah. On the other hand, if they could not bring themselves to 'turn away' from Jesus, then they would have to give up their heritage and identity, as well as the people that they have loved all their lives. . But since most people are by nature change-hating conservatives, we may well suppose that a good many of the greek-speaking jewish-believers reluctantly returned to the synagogues (some with their heads bowed in shame, some not). In any case, the loss of these believers was a very bitter pill for the 'pillars' in Antioch and Alexandria to swallow. John reacted with considerable hostility toward 'the Jews' (as is evident within the pages of his gospel), while in Antioch a midrashic expansion of the original gospel had been composed (c.80-85CE) for the jewish brethren, and making a strong case for Jesus from out of the pages of the sacred Hebrew scriptures (albeit in greek translation). In Alexandria this same noble crusade (and specifically targeting the wayward and undecided jewish-believers) was soon taken up by the author of the essay that would later become known as 'Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews'. . So now that we know when and where and why Hebrews was written, as well as who the essay was written for, we are in a much better position to understand the intentions and teachings of its inspired author. Moreover, we can now more effectively deal with the many misunderstandings surrounding the essay, as well as with the unfortunate corruptions to the text that only increase and intensify these misunderstandings ... . . . And also with the jewish scriptures in greek-translation ... as befits a community of hellenistic jewish-believers. . . Actually, the one main theme of the entire essay, the one central and over-riding concern (if you will), is to convince those who are considering it *not* to "turn away from Him' (12:25). Everything else is subordinate to this primary directive. Moreover, you are way off base if you think that the so-called "divinity of Jesus" (in the Trinitarian sense) plays ANY part in the thinking and theology of the author. For him Jesus is Lord and Logos, "Apostle and High Priest" (3:1), the Son of God (note - not to be equated with 'God the Son'), and even Shepherd; but above all of these Jesus is primarily "the mediator of a new covenant" (12:24). . However, I can certainly understand your confusion regarding this important matter. The author does in fact lay it on rather thick in the opening chapters; but he never really takes it to the extreme point of actually referring to Jesus as 'God' or 'God the Son'. To do something so incredibly stupid would be to deliberately alienate his intended readers, and thus totally undermine the entire purpose of all his efforts! Remember who he's talking to, CANADIEN, and what he's trying to accomplish. His intended audience consists of waffling jewish-believers, and the fastest way to drive them all out of the assembly, and back to the synagogue, would be to say, suggest, or even vaguely hint at, the possibility that Jesus is actually God himself. Divine, yes; but equal to the One Living God? Hardly. The author of Hebrews (like John and all the other NT writers) was a staunch monotheist, and not at all a Trinitarian; for this vile heresy of episcopal invention would have to wait until well after the NT period (ie. 50-150CE) had ended. Think about all this as you re-read the text of Hebrews, and you will see why this MUST be so. . But now you will object, saying: 'But netspawn, are you blind as well as stupid? Look at chapter one again. The author clearly calls the Son (ie. JC) 'God' not just once, but twice (1:8&9)!' ... Well yes, the word is indeed twice there in the text, BUT it certainly wasn't put there by the inspired author. Rather, these grossly uninspired additions were inserted into the text decades after the original autograph was finished (and therefore have no authority whatsoever over truth-loving believers); placed there by some overly-pious and incredibly ignorant scribe who doubtless imagined that he was only adding to the greater glory of God. . 'How do I know this', you ask? Well, my friend, the answer is that it is perfectly OBVIOUS. So obvious, in fact, that I'll go out on a limb here and predict that if you check some of the better commentaries on Hebrews you'll doubtless find at least a few bible-scholars making the same observation. In other words, it's so obvious that even the bible-scholars couldn't possibly miss it; unless of course they are fundamentalist bible-scholars, who pride themselves on being blind to such subtle textual distinctions. Moreover, I can even tell you what sort of scribe committed this textual sodomy; he was a Romish scribe! We know this because he foolishly identifies himself in yet another pointless addition at the very end of the text (ie. 13:22-25), where in the course of a very feeble attempt to make the essay seem like a letter from Paul, our idiotic scribe tips his hand by saying 'Those from Italy greet you' (v.24). . And Hebrews is not the only document to be thus sodomized by Romish scribes. Even books outside the canon were not safe from the lies and deceptions of the Romish church. One famous example is First Clement whereby this work of an Egyptian prophet was callously hijacked and falsely attributed to the fictional "pope" Clement! Thus we see that right from the beginning the Lying Romish Whore was far more concerned to advance the greater glory of the Romish church than to glorify God. Is it any surprise then that these arrogant Romish scribes should sodomize the text of Hebrews by inserting lies and deceptions? . Also, IF Paul had written the "epistle" it is inconceivable that he would not identify himself directly by name: 'Paulos, an apostle of Jesus Christ'. Paul was simply not the type of prophet to beat around the bush regarding matters of such overwhelming importance as his apostolic authority and authorship. . . It's simply a minor detail, made in passing, and of no great significance either way. After all, our hellenistic-jewish author has a very odd manner of discourse. And his logic also leaves much to be desired. As to his rhetorical style, he flutters about like a nervous butterfly, not landing anywhere for more than a brief moment, and then hurrying on. His sense of urgency to convince his jewish brethren not to return to the synagogue is palpable. To this end he'll gladly throw anything and everything into the mixture. . . . Neither 'assumption' strikes me as being beyond the realm of possibility. Indeed, I still think that Betsy's atomic interpretation of 11:3 is, at the very least, plausible. In any case, I don't believe I've seen a MORE plausible interpretation on the other thread ... unless I've over-looked something? ARRRG! I hate it when that happens. . . I have no idea what any of this means. Color me confused ... . And so concludes today's lesson in biblical hermeneutics!

] netspawn asked bob: ... what are they? . . This is a gross over-generalization and over-simplification of a very complex situation, Bob ... BUT there IS a nugget of truth in what you say. Thus, for example, it was the right-wing (ie. conservatives and big business) that aggressively promoted the free-market ideology that allowed financial institutions to ignore the laws and regulations meant to protect the common good, and thus gave them the freedom and liberty to sell and trade their toxic financial products all over the world, and which later led to the financial meltdown (credit crisis) that resulted in millions of people losing their jobs, savings, and investments. On the other hand, it is these SAME liberty-loving conservatives that aggressively promote the war-on-drugs whereby billions of dollars are spent to incarcerate otherwise law-abiding citizens for the heinous crime of 'getting high'. What do you call it when those in power make war upon it's own citizens out of spite, hatred, bigotry, and intolerance? To me, this is the very essence of fascism; and it's coming directly from those that you claim promote "freedom and liberty from government control"! Do you see the contradiction here, Bob?

Actually, Bonam, I do believe that you are wrong in several important respects. Firstly, the use of the term 'power' is (or can be) very misleading, since it's not so much 'power' that matters, but rather 'control'. Those who control the political apparatus of law-making do, in fact, control (or 'have power over', if you wish) society (both economically and culturally). So it's not a question of holding 'government' and 'business' in check by maintaining some sort of balance between them. There is no "happy medium", for the actual rulers of our society control BOTH government and business. And that is where the true power lies ... with the plutonomists (as they are called by some). So what we have is unparalled freedom and liberty for a tiny minority of god-like beings, and what is essentially slavery for everybody else (in varying degrees, of course). If the people are ignorant these realities, then perhaps they can be happy; otherwise ...

So you're saying that fascists and leftists are two peas in a pod because they both support "greater government control over the economy and culture". Is that right, Bob? ... If so, I have some questions for you: Since our society here in North America has ceased to be a democratic society, and is now a plutonomy / plutocracy (back to Plato's 'Republic' everyone) wherein the uber-rich elite minority are in fact the "masters of mankind" (Adam Smith) who control both the economy and culture, what are they? Are they fascists or leftists? Or are they communists? ... Perhaps they are all three, eh?

. Paulos didn't write the essay misnamed 'Hebrews', CANADIEN, so technically you are correct. As for the author of Hebrews, can you prove he wasn't talking about atoms? Sometimes what the biblical authors DON"T say is just as important as what they do say. . . Are you referring to me, perchance?

dear bloodyminded, well said. I've never heard Mr Wonderful actually say "Mixing morality and Business is evil", but I totally believe it's part of his "philosophy". Do you suppose he actually supports and approves of the plutonomy that our civilization is turning into? ... btw: what's "von Mises"?

. Actually, science "came along" with philosophy centuries before the advent of Joshua of Nazareth. Indeed, Aristotle was as much of a scientist as he was a philosopher. If you'd spend some time reading the literature of such intellectual giants you may be less inclined to make such absurd statements as this: . . Actually, it was the ancient greek philosophers who first came up with the notion of atoms, and it was from this source that the educated author of Hebrews got the idea ... . . Is there a problem with a biblical author having some knowledge of the great philosophies of his day? . . Oh betsy, such vanity is most unbecoming in a believer. Is it not apparent by now that you do not know nearly as much as you think you do? Are you open-minded enough to admit that maybe you're NOT always right?

. Yeah, other things including FICTION (eg. book of Jonah) and historical-fiction (eg. Lk-Acts). Christians ought not to be embarrassed that their sacred library includes fiction, and yet many are not only extremely reluctant to admit it, but even go out of their way to deny it! . . Including several NT books; such as the gospels and epistles of John, Hebrews, James, Jude, and 2Peter. Here again Christians are extremely reluctant to face the facts and admit the truth. . . What Mr Price here means to say is: 'And when they COPIED it by hand, they COPIED it with incredible accuracy.' Which strikes me as a very deliberate deception, since the majority of scribes had no qualms about changing the text if they imagined that there were 'errors' that had somehow crept into the text, and thus required correction. I am, of course, here referring to *Christian* scribes only, since the Jewish scribes had sufficient respect for the text of the Tanach (OT) not to make random and unjustified changes. . . This is a rather sweeping generalization, betsy. The situation is rather more complex than that. For example, the bible claims that before sin there was no death, that death was the result of sin. Science, on the other hand, shows us that death LONG preceded sin; that death is the result of life, and that "sin" is a human invention that has nothing to do with physical death; although it has nothing to say about the relation between sin and *spiritual* death.

netspawn say: Sure thing, Bonam; and I am one of them, to be sure. I too enjoy movies, music, and football (CFL & NFL) ... BUT ... that is not the point. It's not that I don't value these useless parasites and the ephemeral "significant value" that they create, rather it is that these "stars" do not deserve the gross adulation that they recieve from the stupid-public, nor are the monies that they receive commesurate with the "value" of the meager entertainment that they provide. There is nothing at all rational about the financial compensation that they receive for something that really has no lasting value to society as a whole.

On the Unbearable Blindness of Mr Wonderful . . So the inevitable conclusion of this argument (ie. that big corporations are bad for society) is that the current global economic system (capitalism, the free-market, or whatever you want to call it) is fundamentally evil and destructive in its effects and consequences. Now if you are inclined to disagree with my reasonings and/or conclusion, I will remind you that the proof of my contentions lies in the undeniable fact that the uber-rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer, and also increasing in numbers. So here we have a system where most of the world's wealth belongs to a mere 1% of the population. This is, to me, an obvious red flag shouting for all to hear that the system is evil and rotten to the core. And yet there are those who think otherwise . . . . One such calls himself 'the Merchant of Truth'. At first sight this interesting phrase appears to be a rather off-hand definition of the philosopher, but actually it is a phrase used by self-made millionare Kevin - Mr Wonderful - O'Leary to describe himself. Does he consider himself to be some sort of philosopher then? It may well be so, for he is indeed much inclined to offer pithy gems of wisdom such as 'greed is good' and 'money has no soul' and 'stop the madness'. And yet this wonderous beacon of enlightenment holds the rather absurd opinion that the 'rich getting richer' is actually a good thing, in that it motivates people (ie. entrepreneurs) to work hard so that they too may become wealthy. . In fact, the widening gap between rich and poor has the very opposite effect, since the idea that you can enter the exalted 1% is shown to be nothing more than an illusion urging people to consent to their own exploitation in the vain hope that they can 'make it' if only they work hard enough. What the Merchant of Truth doesn't seem to understand is that most people have neither the skills nor the desire to be money-chasing entrepreneurs. And these people, as far as Mr Wonderful is concerned, are utterly null and void, and thus not worthy of even the slightest consideration. That places the majority of humankind straight into the trash bin simply because they dare to suppose that there's more to life than just money! .

"... a community activated only by self-interest would be a community of ruthless profiteers" -- from 'The Worldly Philosophers' by Robert Heilbroner . . netspawn say: I think it is extremely absurd to consider Corporations to be in any way "persons" as such; whether this is merely a convenient legal fiction or otherwise. Corporations are basically just machines; more complex than cars and smart-phones to be sure, but machines just the same. And as machines they are ethically neutral. Now some people think that guns are evil because their "purpose" is to harm and kill people and other living creatures, but guns are simply tools that can be used for good or ill depending on the will and intentions of the wielder. It's the same story with Corporations. If they commit evil acts it is only because the owners and managers will it to be that way. The responsibility for the evil committed by Corporations thus belongs not to the Corporations as such, but rather to those who own and run them. . . Exactly! This is the true beauty of the Corporation. It is not only built to be a money-making machine, but it is also deliberately designed to deflect responsibility away from those who are in fact responsible for all the actions of the Corporation (ie. the owners and employees). The fact that responsibility is attributed to "fictional persons" rather than the real people who own and work for the Corporations is the fault of inadequate and unjust laws and regulations that favor the wealthy and powerful over the common good. These Rich-Ones get the lawmakers to make those evil-laws that favor their interests, just as they craft the policies and directives of the Corporations so as to serve their own interests regardless of any pain they may cause to others. These Rich-Ones are the true source of all the evil that the Corporations commit. They care nothing for the greater-good of society, or the welfare of civilization as a whole. And they are also masters of self-deception. They sleep at night by telling themselves that they are not responsible for the actions of the Frankenstein-monsters that they have created and unleashed upon the world. . . Western society is dominated and ruled by the Rich-Ones (and their political minions). They are the minority that controls the political machinery of law-making; and those who control the Law control society. This anonymous elite of the rich and powerful are evil because they care only for themselves, and this childish and selfish evil within them is expressed in evil laws that favor their monstrous bastards (ie. the Corporations), and in evil laws that are oppressive and destructive of society as a whole (eg. the stupid and draconian war-on-drugs). The CEO's are simply hired-guns and mercenaries whose job it is to drive their corporate-machines toward "success". Unfortunately, what is "good" and "successful" for the ruling elite is evil and destructive for everybody else; and it is future generations, and the planet itself, who will ultimately pay a terrible price for the criminal avarice of this current generation of elite scumbags. . . And yet the People seem to be entirely ignorant of the true nature of their condition, and completely unaware of the dangers hanging by a thread over their collective head. After all, they just want to be rich too. They care no more for the future and the planet than the Rich-Ones do. They too are guilty; guilty of the same evil of gross stupidity and rampant greed. And if they are just the same as the Rich-Ones in nature and intention, do they not also share the unwanted burden of responsibility for the evil actions of amoral Corporations? If the Corporations are evil, it is only because we want them to be evil. We like it that way. That's why we build them this way, when we *could* build them to be machines that actually benefit society as a whole, and promote the greater good. . So the evil lies not with the Corporations, but with us - with ALL of us - not just the Rich-Ones who are joyously killing us all one centimeter at a time. Yes, the American dream is embodied in a single individual who manifests the very essence and being of our "great" society. The soul of America is perfectly expressed in none other than Dick Fuld (the former CEO of Lehman Brothers) who (along with others of his ilk) caused the recent meltdown of the global financial system!