Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Att: Michael

Expand Messages
  • utopia_planetia_2000
    And there is an evident faillibility in the logic I exposed below!!! :-) ... my ... about ... served ... many ... Bible. ... eyes. ... writer ...
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      And there is an evident faillibility in the logic I exposed
      below!!! :-)


      --- In anthroposophy@y..., "utopia_planetia_2000"
      <utopia_planetia@h...> wrote:
      > Dear Michael,
      >
      > YOU WROTE:
      > Christians will never claim to confine God to a book. Neither will
      > they regard the Bible as a "dusty old book". The Bible is God's
      > special revelation to us. His word is truth (Jn. 17:17). The Bible
      > is "God-breathed" or inspired (2 Tim. 3:16). I would rather place
      my
      > faith in the Bible which is divinely inspired, than in the writings
      > of Rudolf Steiner who was a fallible, mere man.
      >
      > Idolatry is not heeding to God's word. Idolatry, in fact, comes
      about
      > because of man's "innate spirit knowledge". The Bible says:
      >
      > "Although [man] knew God, they neither glorified him as God... They
      > became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
      > made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles...
      > They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and
      served
      > created things rather than the Creator." (Rom. 1:21-23, 25)
      >
      > *******
      >
      > History points out that the Bible is an arbitrary assemblage of
      many
      > books. Religious authority decided which ones were to be left out,
      > and which parts (only) of the other would be comprised in the
      Bible.
      > The rest is considered apocryph and heretical still in today's
      eyes.
      > But this is not a good argument since I can't show you the evidence
      > in a few minutes.
      >
      > - The authority were men, they were faillible.
      >
      > Words by themselves mean nothing, do nothing, until someone is able
      > to read them. But then again, these words mean nothing still if one
      > does not have concepts to interpret them. Conceptualization is
      > totally subjective, influenced by culture.
      >
      > - Words written in any book are not faillible, but their
      > interpretation is.
      >
      > Words do not "breathe" and cannot be "God breathed". Only the
      writer
      > and the reader can breathe life into a word by his
      conceptualization.
      > And one cannot understand the word "understand" the same way he did
      > several years ago unless the truth can be defined in a finite way.
      > Jesus did not answer to Pilate's question.
      >
      > Steiner wrtings are faillible therefore. Both HIS interpretation
      and
      > OURS.
      >
      > Then we'd have to define what is FAILLIBILITY. If Steiner is
      > faillible and he's a man, the we have to infer that all men are
      > faillible. Therefore, one can say:
      >
      > - The bible was inspired by God to the hand of a writer, but that
      > writer was a man, thus the writing is faillible.
      >
      > If FAILLIBILITY means ALSO the inability to convey the truth, one
      can
      > say:
      >
      > - the bible is not translated into my language, thus it is
      faillible.
      >
      > - the bible has been translated into another language therefore we
      > can doubt the ability of the translator since he is a MAN, thus
      > faillible.
      >
      > - the bible was written thousands of years ago. Its references to
      > concepts, symbology and ideas belong not only to another culture,
      but
      > to another time. My culture and my time are so different from then
      > that I find it difficult to relate the concepts, symbology and
      ideas.
      > THEREFORE, the Bible is faillible.
      >
      > BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, this premise:
      >
      > If faillibility means not PERFECT, incomplete, the one could say:
      >
      > - my understanding of the bible is based on my CURRENT knowledge,
      > culture, and understanding. Therefore, MY interpretation is
      faillible.
      >
      >
      > Again, I state:
      >
      > Steiner writings are faillible therefore. Both HIS interpretation
      and
      > OURS.
      > So is the Bible in the light of this.
    • Ghamin
      Michael wrote: 1. The Bible says that there is only one God, and He is the LORD who exists as three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Rudolf
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Michael wrote:
        1.
        The Bible says that there is only one God, and He is the LORD who exists as three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
         
        Rudolf Steiner taught polytheism, that there exists many gods.
         
        G: God and god are not the same god.  The word god implys certain being on a different plan.  When "gods" are mentioned, the implication is not exactly the same as the One God.  The belief of "God is One" (and All-embracing) is respected in many religions.  But the Church changed it into there is only one God, namely "mine"!
         
         
        2.
        The Bible says that Jesus Christ is God the Son who was also fully Man (yet without sin).
         
        Rudolf Steiner taught that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings and that the former was only a human, whereas the latter was a god.
         
        G: Can you please tell me the difference between the Son of Man and the Son of God?
         
         
        3.
        The Bible says that man was created in the image of God, i.e. with righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. In these qualites man reflected the likeness of God. Yet, man was still created with a human nature, not with a divine nature.
         
        Rudolf Steiner erroneously taught that the image of God meant that man was created with a divine nature, and are thus, gods in embryo.
         
        G: How can human being bear the image of God if without his divine nature, distorted or non-distorted?
         
         
        4.
        The Bible says that, since the fall of Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden, man has been shut out from the tree of life, and is born with a sinful nature.
         
        Rudolf Steiner denied the biblical account of the Fall and instead interpreted Genesis 3 in an extreme esoteric way. He said that man is inherently good.
         
        G: The Bible never said that the image of God, the all good, was lifted off from the human being.
         
        5.
        The Bible says that God the Son (Jesus Christ) came down to earth to save His people from their sins, through His shed blood on the cross.
         
        Rudolf Steiner denied the biblical atonement of Jesus Christ, saying that His death was simply a demonstration of the power of the huiman ego.
         
        G: Steiner did not deny the above saying.  I think you are a little confused here.
         
        6.
        The Bible says that through the resurrection of Christ, all those who turn to Him for forgiveness of sins are justified by faith alone.
         
        G: In fact, redemption cannot be without the help of grace and recognition of sin/weakness.  But "faith alone" is one of the trickily distorted parts in the Bible! 
         
        When one looks into the history of Christianity, one learns that it was important for the original followers of Jesus to work on a personal spiritual development, in order for them to experience the living truth, instead of just believing blindly!  The original Christians were healers and helpers to others.  Though they lived in a community, they were not allowed to form any spiritual organization nor did they try to convert others. 
         
        We must understand that as time went, a conflict was gradually built up between Christians who wanted a strong organization to protect themselves from the martyr and Christians who wanted to keep to the original teaching in spite of all the suffering.  
         
        Later because of the political benifits toward Rome, the emporer Constantin who was worried about the dying Roman religion (religion = people power), decided to take up the rapidly growing organized Christian church into the State.  A system was built to fortify the power of this new religion/people power of the state.  With the dogma of just faith without wisdom/knowlege, the authority of the State/Church could easily take over the authority of the individual.  The Church teaching was suppressed, whereas the Church was helped against the original Christians who were against organization and against other doings of the church.  In this conflict, the original party lost ground and lost also many of their lives!  Many Christians today remain a perfect citizen for Emporer Constantin!
         
         
        Rudolf Steiner taught that knowledge of oneself and the development of one's ego will cause one to find one's godhood/divinity.
         
        G: When you talk of the development of the ego, you should understand firstly what is Steiner's definition of the ego.
         
         
        7.
        The Bible says that God's people - those who have been saved by grace through faith - will gain eternal life and live with Christ forever in heaven. Those who reject the gospel of Christ will be tormented day and night, forever and ever, in hell.
         
        Rudolf Steiner taught a doctrine similar to purgatory - the heretical teaching of Roman Catholicism.
         
        G: Have you noticed that we are living in a purgatory, having to fight or to suffer all the time?
         
         
        And he taught reincarnation which is nowhere to be found in God's word.
         
        G: There are quite a few places in the Bible where the thought of reincarnation have not been riped off completely.  Matt.17 speaks clearly that:  Elia truly came before Jesus Christ, that people did not recognize him and mistreated him ....  The deciples understood that the mistreated one was John whom Jesus was talking about!  If the church-goers knew that they would come again on earth, it would not have been so important for them to cling onto the Church and be burried by the church, like buying insurance for entering paradise.
         
         
        The conclusion of the matter is that you cannot be a Christian and believe the false teachings of Rudolf Steiner. Steiner's teachings contradict the sound doctrines of the Bible. You cannot serve two masters (Matt. 6:24).
         
        G: You are gravely mistaken!  "One cannot serve two masters" is understood so consequently in anthroposophy, that very few church Christian may be able to follow!
         
        My conversation with you will stop soon!
      • Ghamin
        Dear Michael, Elohim is a plural Hebrew word. Please read Gen. 1:26! We are created according to THEIR image, which must not imply many gods but the Father
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Michael,

          Elohim is a plural Hebrew word.  Please read Gen. 1:26!  We are created according to THEIR image, which must not imply many gods but the Father God and Mother God, the universal masculin and faminine aspects of Creation.  Here shows another distortion of the bible!

          Ghamin


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Michael Meiring
          To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 2:52 AM
          Subject: [anthroposophy] Att: Elaine


          Dear Elaine,

          You wrote:

          > You do not, as far as I can see, consider the many problems and issues of
          translation and cultural context for the Bible. For example, in Genesis 1:1,
          "God" is the English version, but the Hebrew is "The Eloihim", which just by
          itself opens up a whole other territory of understanding, and speaks to your
          notion of "God."

          The Hebrew is elohim, which is translated "God" because the verb is
          singular.

          Obviously you have not studied biblical languages.

          Michael.
        • Ghamin
          G: Can you please tell us what is your intension in this pagan world of anthroposophy list? It looks as if you were coming into someone s house whose door
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            G: Can you please tell us what is your intension in this pagan world of "anthroposophy" list?  It looks as if you were coming into someone's house whose door happens to be open, and slap everyone's face who says in a gentle way that he does not wish to buy from you.
             
             
            Michael wrote:
            I am not a Roman Catholic. In fact, I believe that Roman Catholicism is not a Christian church. But neither is Anthroposophy a Christian worldview.
             
            The "dead intuitions", "unworked ideas", etc., came through Rudolf Steiner who rejected the authority and sufficiency of God's word.
             
          • Br. Ron
            ... G: Can you please tell us what is your intension in this pagan world of anthroposophy list? It looks as if you were coming into someone s house whose
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment


                  >Michael wrote:
                 > I am not a Roman Catholic. In fact, I believe that Roman Catholicism
                 > is not a Christian church. But neither is Anthroposophy a Christian worldview.

                 
              >The "dead intuitions", "unworked ideas", etc., came through Rudolf Steiner
                  >who rejected the authority and sufficiency of God's word.
               
                  G: Can you please tell us what is your intension in this pagan world of
                  "anthroposophy" list?  It looks as if you were coming into someone's
                  house whose door happens to be open, and slap everyone's face
                  who says in a gentle way that he does not wish to buy from you.




              Ghamin, I want to express my amazement and appreciation
              at your calm patience with Michael. You no doubt would
              make an excellent teacher in a head-start program (or even
              a loving nurse or doctor at a mental institution)
               
              I am trying hard to develop these characteristics in myself
              and am making at least 'some' progress.... however slow.
               
              I know it seems like I'm mean to this poor guy, but heck,
              I have at least learned to be in a large white room of
              shuffling bathrobes without strangling some wild eyed
              bloke who walks up and crams a crayon into my forehead.
               
              Keep up good work. This debate with fundamentalism is good
              to highlight what we are growing toward.... and especially,
              what we are growing FROM!
               
              Br. Ron
               
               
            • DRStarman2001@aol.com
              ghamin@ctimail.com writes:
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                ghamin@... writes:
                << Dear Michael,
                Elohim is a plural Hebrew word. Please read Gen. 1:26! We are created
                according to THEIR image, which must not imply many gods but the Father God
                and Mother God, the universal masculine and faminine aspects of Creation.
                Here shows another distortion of the bible!
                Ghamin
                >>
                *******Yes, when the scripture says "Thou shalt have no other gods before
                me", the word translated as "gods" is "elohim". The same word is used in the
                opening line of Genesis, "Bereshith barah elohim...." which thus should be
                translated as "In the beginning the Gods created...." This is why they speak
                amongst themselves in Genesis, saying "Behold, the man is become as one of
                us" and "Let us go down and confound their language..."

                However, a human being must think about Holy Scripture to begin to understand
                such things. Those who refuse to think about them are not open to
                conversation.

                As we know from spiritual science, the creative gods were a plurality, and
                the god Jahve was one of them who later became the particular god of the
                Hebrew tribe. In the Bible the word Elohim is first used, then Adonai, then
                YHVH, the Tetragrammaton. Each signifies a different level of the divine.
                (The word "Jehovah", BTW, is a bastardization, the result of some guy about
                150 years ago taking the vowels from Adonai and putting them in the
                consonants for YHVH, whose vowel points were never written with it, because
                the sacred Name was only spoken once a year by the rabbis in the Holy of
                Holies, so we don't know how it was really pronounced.) This is the only way
                to make sense of an allegedly-universal god siding with Joshua's tribe and
                ordering them to massacre other tribes, as Mark Twain reflected on over a
                century ago in his "Letters From The Earth".

                As the Clarence Darrow character says in "Inherit The Wind", "The Bible is a
                Good Book; but it is not the only book". The reason why we have the freedom
                to think for ourselves and decide what Scripture means is because we rejected
                the intolerant theocracy of Rome, which allowed no such freedom---and
                imitations of it still do not.

                Starman
              • Ghamin
                Michael wrote to Br. Ron: Why haven t you replied to my answers below? You seem to be a bit stuck for words, no?! Dear Michael, Once again, you have not
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 5, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael wrote to Br. Ron:
                   
                  Why haven't you replied to my answers below? You seem to be a bit stuck for words, no?!
                   
                   
                  Dear Michael,
                   
                  Once again, you have not answered my questions and questions of several others!  Just be fair! 
                   
                  Is it not a waste of time to speak to anything that cannot receive?
                   
                  Ghamin
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.