After writing “They Can’t Understand The Word,” I noticed this comment (emphasis added):
Recognising that it is exceedingly difficult to get inside the Hebrew mind from a Western position is profoundly important if one wants to understand the Bible properly. The ‘extra dimension’ in Hebrew thinking compared to Western thinking I believe is responsible for much of the error and confusion that permeates Western Christianity, especially the culture-syncretistic Evangelical church.
The point you make in your ‘Tangent’ paragraph is particularly interesting. I think the arrogant thing is holding fast to a Western Enlightenment mindset and believing that is enough to understand the Word of God. Bible College training can help but it can also make things worse. Enlightenment rationalism and scientism brought about a systematic and orderly way of thinking about the Word at the expense of the active and animated Hebrew way of thinking which was mostly by word of mouth. The best that Western-conditioned Bible scholars seem to have been able to do is sequester the active and animated aspects of Hebrew thinking into a single NT proposition – the ministry of the Spirit that characterized Paul’s missionary journeys. The result today is a heavily Pauline Christianity in the West that is rational and scientific but inanimate. We call it ‘the living word’, but we study it like a chemistry textbook.
I studied under some excellent OT teachers at Bible College and the best they could do was point to this active language problem. They couldn’t resolve it convincingly in their textual exposition because they themselves were locked into rational and scientific thinking about Scripture. The Hebrew parts of Scripture nor the Greek NT texts that draw from the animated language of Hebrew thinking cannot be properly understood by rational scientific methods. Understanding the OT better required a change of mindset rather than simply more study.
I understood easily what my teachers and many OT scholars found difficult long before I attended Bible College since I came from a more ‘spiritual’ non-Western culture. I wasn’t conditioned to the Western way of thinking. They called it ‘enlightened discernment’ but really it was just a lack of Western conditioning.
Children think in an active and animated way, untroubled by rationalism and scientism, learning how to live through the active and animated communications of the people around them. Perhaps this is what the Hebrew Jesus meant when he said ‘become like the little children.’ (Mt 18:2-5)
This is quite illustrative!
See how Jack acknowledges that “Western” Christianity follows Paul? See how Jack implicitly rejects this? He knows that Paul’s teachings contradict what is being taught by Radix Fidem. It as I said:
Citation: Derek L. Ramsey, “Mysticism and Headship.” 2024-08-12
The reference to the “ministry of the Spirit that characterized Paul’s missionary journeys” serves to isolate what Paul taught as applicable only to his own personal calling,[1] as if what the Apostle did and taught does not apply generally to you the reader.
Mysticism[2] always reveals itself in a minimizing—if not an outright rejection—of the Word of God for something else. This comes in various forms, but once you see that it is true, it is hard to miss.
Moreover, see how exclusive and presumptive—”arrogant”—these ideas are? See how easy they are to refute? After all, my so-called “Pauline Christianity” is not inanimate.[3] It is rational, yes, but it is also vibrant, beautiful, noble, and living.[4]
Perhaps Jack is projecting his own limitations onto others. Per Christ:
“Why do you speak to them in parables?”
And he answered and said to them,
“Because the knowledge of the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven has been given to you, but it has not been given to them. For whoever has, more will be given to him, and he will have an abundance, but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. This is why I speak to them in parables, because although they are seeing they do not really see, and although they are hearing they do not really hear, nor do they understand. And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
Jack incorrectly describes “Pauline Christianity” as inanimate. He simply fails to recognize this as an indication that though he was seeing he did not really see, and although he heard he did not really hear, nor did he understand. What he received and believed was rejected because of that message when it was tested:
Jack admits that his personal discontent with scripture—what he calls “Pauline Christianity”—led him to something else:[5] mysticism. As Jesus promised, what little he had was taken away.
Citation: Derek L. Ramsey, “The Occult in the Mainstream Church, Part 2.” 2024-08-15
Satan does not want you to follow the Word of God in scripture. He does not want you to believe that the Will of God has been already made known to us through scripture. He does not want you to use your intellect and your reason to test what that will of God is. He does not want you to throw out creative innovations that are not found in scripture. Rather, Satan wants you to open yourself up to his influence by being discontent with the word of God by means of the use of occult practices to gain a supposed greater understanding that goes beyond words.
In short, Satan is a Christian mystic and prophet.
Citation: Derek L. Ramsey, “Heart and Mind.” 2024-08-16
Citation: Derek L. Ramsey, “The Parable of the Four Soils.” 2024-09-04
Consider this, Dear Reader. How can you tell if what I’m saying or what Jack is saying is correct? Which one of us (if either) is describing the correct Christianity? How can you tell?
You must thoroughly examine scripture to see if what each of us is teaching is found there. Scripture itself will reveal what is true, whether or not we are in concordance with scripture or opposing (or minimizing) what it says. Do not follow anything that does not comport with what scripture teaches.
Footnotes
[1] But not restricted, one presumes, to the specific Greek cultures of his audience. This is special pleading because the argument is that Hebrew culture (and the Ancient Near East cultures in general) inform how we must understand God’s Word. This presumes that the apostles utterly rejected Hellenist culture. Thus, Paul’s mission to the Gentile must be restricted to his calling, lest any conclusion at all be drawn about the possible legitimacy of the Greek Gentile culture from which Paul heavily drew upon in his writings.
For example, consider this:
If Jack accepted this style of argument, he’d also have to conclude that the biblical commands to the Hebrews (i.e. all that stuff that Radix Fidem teaches about the Hebrew language and culture and Covenantal community) are only applicable within the culture of the Ancient Near East and are not applicable in the West. This would contradict his own position. That’s why Jack does not argue against the rational “Pauline Christianity” because it doesn’t match modern culture, rather he argues that Paul had his own calling that doesn’t apply to Western Christians today. This allows him to reject Pauline commands while keeping his preferred theological position. However, this is his unfounded assumption which he brings to scripture. It is an extra-biblical tradition that it is not found in scripture itself.
But since the term “Western Christians” refers to the same Greek-influenced Gentiles that Paul ministered to, and Paul himself never mandated that they become like Hebrews, then why is Jack saying that there is something inherently deficient with “Pauline Christianity” as the Greek Christians practiced it? Speaking of Paul’s calling does not resolve this inherent contradiction.
[2] That is, non-Christian mysticism. Christian mysticism always points towards scripture. The source of mystical experiences—God or demons—is determined by testing the spirits and a thorough examination of scripture. Any mystical experience that is not tested must be presumed to be demonic.
[3] Nor is “young earth creationism,” a popular belief among many Pauline Christians, particularly scientific. The idea that Western Christianity is characterized by rational intellectualism is absurd. There may be a few intellectuals, scholars, and universities that rely on “scientific rationalism,” but these do not reflect the majority of Pauline Christians, including pastors. They don’t even reflect any notable minority of Pauline Christians. The differences between Christians in the West and the East are largely superficial.
[4] He states “We call it ‘the living word’, but we study it like a chemistry textbook.” as if a so-called Pauline approach to scripture were clinical, voiceless, difficult, and dead. We’ve heard that before.
[5] What he already believed:
This is called eisegesis, and is a form of confirmation bias. To be consistent, he should reject his own conditioning and judge different approaches on their own merits.
Speaking of ‘enlightened discernment’, see this analysis of Ephesians 5:10 (a parallel passage to Romans 12:2):
Frank Thielman is correct when he comments,
For others reading, I found the term “enlightened discernment” in this translation of the Dakshinamurti Moola Mantra.
Jack incorrectly describes “Pauline Christianity” as inanimate. He simply fails to recognize this as an indication that though he was seeing he did not really see, and although he heard he did not really hear, nor did he understand. What he received and believed was rejected because of that message when it was tested:
And the one that was sown on the rocky places, this is the one who hears the message and immediately receives it with joy, yet he does not have any root in himself, and thus is short-lived. When hardship or persecution arises because of the message he immediately falls away.
Jack admits that his personal discontent with scripture—what he calls “Pauline Christianity”—led him to something else:[5] mysticism. As Jesus promised, what little he had was taken away.
That is just insincere tradcon jack being Jack tradcon trolling blackpillers!
He was saying up until recently ”AWALT”=”ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT” E.G. (hos going to always ho) NOW SEE WHAT HE SAYS HERE as he recently also said he passed up ”unicorns” on his way to a bad first marriage that led to him yanking & cranking like nobody’s business?:
Men are not like Women
Men seek serenity, stability, and sufficiency. Women must have it ALL! And they’re still not satisfied.
Men can be content with clean running water, electricity, a bed, a shower, a barbecue or fire pit, a refrigerator to keep his meat and drinks ice cold, and a place to work and/or to engage in his hobbies. Men won’t buy a 30 million dollar mansion in Beverly Hills just to have a posh pad to vegetate in and be the talk of the town.
But women do and will.
Men might try to amass wealth and hone their game / rizz, but they’ll do it to better themselves and/or to get access to better opportunities and better quality women. Men don’t create temptations to the opposite sex just to make the next guy look like a dork or to steal his girlfriend / wife.
But women do and will.
Men buy gadgets, tools, and machines because it is efficient, it ‘works’, and they love the sense of autonomy, mastery, and self-sufficiency it gives to them. There might be some exceptions (among Alphas) due to the strict demands of maintaining dominance, but men typically don’t buy a new lawnmower or a BMW just to “outdo the Joneses”, or to bolster their ego after a sh!tty day, or to feel good about themselves.
But women do and will.
Men, if you find a woman who dresses to please you, and only you, who wears her hair as long as you like, and who values your opinion more than that of her female peers, then you’ve found a rare and valuable gem. Such behavior deserves to be rewarded with lots of marriage licenses and expensive pagan(I’ll teach him to throw that word around) ceremonies & the opportunity to divorce-@SS raped you boy with her ”Father” happily watching the government do it to ya!
Next, I’ll examine a couple of ways women compete against other women by having lots of butthext -offs.
Men, if you find a woman who dresses to please you, and only you, who wears her hair as long as you like, and who values your opinion more than that of her female peers, then you’ve found a rare and valuable gem that up until recently I said didn’t exist but that was for blackpillers to hear yo!!!!
That’s from the same guy who was saying AWALT just a while back to better connect=relate with ”blackpillers”!
But remember he also told this to somebody before he deleted their link as they must offend the RF cult members as they do wordpress who threatens Jack with banning their site after hearing talk of executing for @dultery:
”WE need to find a way to get your message out better before I start actively persecuting you by deleting your site link in a few months”
{Derek should know who he told that to on their now actively persecuted by Jack & the RF cult site}
I still can’t believe he complained so bitterly about me removing his site from my blogroll and then removed my blog from his blogroll without any hint of regret or guilt.
This is a blatant contradiction.
In college, decades ago……you were required to take a “church history” class (It was a Methodist affiliated college) in order to graduate.
I scoffed at it at the time, but I ended up actually enjoying it. As did many of my peers.
It was taught by the Methodist minister on campus. He was a bit unorthodox is in his teaching, but he did I believe bring a “decent” well rounded approach to the class as a “history” class.
I remember the class was thrown into an actual discussion about The Apocrypha (several books) which The Methodist Church (as most if not all Protestantism does not recognize as as Cannon) did not recognize……but the Catholic Church did, kinds-sorta, maybe….
The discussion got so off track, the Minister offered a further discussion that night in the lounge of one of the dormitories on campus. The class had seven of us in it. All of us showed up.
It was so long ago, and I cannot recall all the statements made, or recall all the discussion. A small fire in the fireplace in the lounge crackling that evening (applewood, smelled wonderful), some tea, coffee availible. A cold and crisp October Vermont evening. He opened in a prayer that asked for “guidance” and “an objective attitude of study for the discussion of this topic”
The Apocrypha was not considered “divine” inspiration under the authority of God. It was included in early Bibles of the Protestant Church, but since it was not “divinely inspired” it slowly faded.
He mentioned that it contained a lot of “mystical” writings / letters that dated centuries after some of the events actually happened. He quoted some verses and the like from Judith, Esrdas and other books from this collection. He spoke of how these books could be given a backwash to the culture and the people of the time.
He did mention that The Catholic Church in many instances in their Bibles DO have “The Books of The Apocrypha” in them, but it is not quoted and probably has not been used in Liturgical practice since the end of the Renaissance.
He mentioned that some of the writer(s) had incongruent dates and times to events that did not match to Holy Scriptures of The Old Testament…..hence why it was not considered “divinely inspired”
He mentioned that Christians who use these “books” as scripture probably are more Gnostic than Christian.
It was an interesting discussion of a few hours, and I found it I guess informative for the time.
When I hear people speak and use the term “Pauline” about Christianity, to me…..it comes off that Paul was wrong (according to them) and I guess Jesus was too….because he chose him.
Way over my head for the most part. Its like when an Orthodox tells me “this is how The Saints and the 12 practiced ‘the way’ and its its held by a patririchal tradition from Jesus himself”
Praying to Icons? Jesus never stated this, or did this. Reading “Liturgical” texts to said icons? Never happened with Jesus, nor anywhere in Acts and the like. Bishop? Jesus never said that word. Priest? Yes…..but he also said “I have ordained you” not “study under the saints and read their writings” (most if not all were illiterate back then)
To be fair now…it didnt say “elder” or “church father” or “praise team” or “building ministry” either
The Apocrypha faded among the Anabaptists because of the lack of printing presses to print it in English in America. Anabaptists brought it over with them from their home countries, but it was in their native language. It simply wasn’t available in English. It rapidly fell into disuse because it simply wasn’t available. There wasn’t really an active suppression going on. When I was in High School, the Bibles the Mennonites used contained the Apocrypha, for once printing became more common it was added back in. But the damage had already been done.
I’ve attended countless dozens of churches, including Roman Catholic. I’ve never once heard anyone ever quote from it. I’ve read parts of it and I’ve quoted from it on this blog. That’s about it.
There is another analog to this. In the modern church, few read the Old Testament. There has long been a practice of distributing only the New Testament, although obviously the Old Testament is here to stay. But the point is clear: if access is restricted, its use will decline.
The Bible uses various Greek terms for deacon, bishop, apostle, elder, teacher, preacher, but many of these terms are used ambiguously and interchangeably (and some describe women). There is very little scriptural warrant for the “episcopal” structure that most churches now have.
Pingback: Reviewing "Hellenism Is From Hell" (Part 2)
Pingback: Do Witches Exist?