Parallelomania and Schizophrenic thinking

Does our academic discipline drive us to see patterns that aren't really there?

Does anybody really believe any of this?

 We're just making stuff up as we go along, right, just to keep the sluggish academy to pretend to get fit for the cameras like Bill Clinton jogging into McDonald's for a BigMac. 

Isn't this "institutional wink" stuff really petty?
Maybe we are trying to make ourselves feel better about ourselves because we know that we don't have anything important to offer to society that the most insurmountable obstacles we face are in in fact in our heads. 

Booger, Booger, and Fartybutt

Insurance!

El means Power.

In the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, Jesus's words from the cross are strangely, "my power, my power, why have you abandoned me?" This phrasing, instead of "my God, my God," has puzzled commentators and lead some to speculate on the mystic or Gnostic nature of the exclamation.
Justin Martyr refers to El meaning Power.
Epiphanius accepts that El means "power" in discussing a heretical Judaic sect called the Ossaeans (Panarion 2.19.2.1)
The Ossaeans also had a doctrine of Christ as a giant (Panarion 2.19.4.1).

Also the Gospel of Peter presents the crucified Jesus as feeling no pain, which led it to be condemned. The Odes of Solomon also attest to a tradition that Jesus felt no pain on the cross. They also attest to the tradition that Mary felt no pain in labor. Epiphanius also agrees with this in responding to the Ebionite sect that considered Jesus a mere man (Panarion 2.30.19.4).

August 11 2021: Note in Acts, Simon Magus is hailed as "the great power of God," or perhaps, "the Great Power, being God." Possibly "the Great Power" here was the word El--perhaps reflecting colloquial usage? I really don't know. Justin Martyr came from Samaria. Maybe that connection means something; maybe it means nothing. 

Early Influence of Acts on Heretical Baptism Narrative?

But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days

of Herod, king of Judaea, < in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas >, that

< a certain > man, John < by name >, came baptizing with the baptism

of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of

Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto

him.”26And after saying a good deal it adds, “When the people had

been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came

up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit

in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there

came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am

well pleased,27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.28 And straightway

a great light shone round about the place.29 Seeing this,” it says, “John said

unto him, Who art thou, Lord?30 And again (there came) a voice to him

from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.31 (8)

And then,” it says, “John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord,

do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is

meet that all be fulfi lled.”32

Epiphanius, Panarion 19.13.6-7, Frank Williams 142.

depending on when this was written, it could be early attestation for Acts!

Also, why is John experiencing what Paul does in Acts? Is John a good guy or a bad guy?

New thought, Aug. 11th 2021: The Clementine Homilies, in a few sections, portray Paul negatively through the guise of Simon Magus. The Homilies also claims that Simon was originally a student of John the Baptist, albeit a hubristic student. If both this heterodox gospel and these sections of the Clementine Homilies originally came from an Ebionite source, then it could help explain this strange insertion of words from Acts 9 into Christ's baptism narrative. Perhaps John the Baptist is also a negative cipher for Paul? Or perhaps this source wants to connect John, Paul, and Simon as anti-Christ figures? 

Perhaps this baptism narrative is a "put-down" of John? Perhaps it reflects the Homilies' syzygus theory where error precedes truth--here John would represent error and Christ truth, of course. 

If there is a connection between the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Clementine Homilies, then we have here a bit of reconstruction of the historical thinking of a particular lost Christian community.

Goodbye to Booze.

Goodbye booze!
You ruined my life by making me fat, slow, and stupid.
Except you're not you; you're me. You're the shadow on the wall when the moon shines through the window in the witching hour saying I'm not allowed to dream without you. You took two years from me and destroyed relationships and hopes. Then you had me all alone. Well today I worked and saw new friends and now I have band practice. You might be fate, but I don't believe in fate. Chocolate milk is better.

Well, Protestant Apologists can't take outside criticism; they immediately use cheesy latin-sounding attacks.

Glenn <peoples.glenn@gmail.com>	12:19 AM (1 hour ago)
to martin

It's pretentious to make this anything about Gospel bridge building. What made you think your vague, unhelpful, basically content-free and completely public scolding would be well-received or that you and I have a relationship where it was appropriate? Don't imagine that you have any sort of high ground.

martin arno <mchrisarno@gmail.com>	12:53 AM (25 minutes ago)
to Glenn

Dear Glenn,

     As we say in California: you need to take a chill-pill. 

You post great stuff, and then sometimes you post corny stuff, which deserves to be criticized. There's no need for you to go on the attack; I understand how rhetoric works so don't bother accusing me of trying to take the high-ground. This isn't about either of us; this isn't personal at all; it's (at least meant to be) constructive.

The criticism was public because you're a public figure and should expect public criticism. But your response was overly hostile, lacking in a genuine attempt to understand why someone might find some of your posts questionable.

As to your question about our personal relationship: you and I don't have a personal relationship (why should we?), save when you asked for facebook friends a number of years ago. I followed you because I thought you were smart; but now your persona gives off the impression that you're not intellectually prepared to deal with followers who have any criticisms of the way you've phrased certain internet-comments. 

In terms of your fun question on why Martin has the right to question Glenn's intellect: your attack on my motives conflates persons and ideas. You know better than that. Furthermore, why are you so concerned with your relationship with me? You know that both of us nothing and the Gospel is everything. 

As to your ultimate question about my motives: neither of us has a "high-ground." (I'm not even looking for a high-ground; I don't care. The point was to return your confusing statement with an equally confusing reply.) There's no high-ground. 

In sum: I like what most of what you have to say and I don't like it when you post pointless non-Christian posts. So cut it out. You're better than that. 

Love, 

Glenn	1:00 AM (23 minutes ago)
to me Glenn 1:00 AM (23 minutes ago) to me None of this seems to apply. I never said I never accept criticism. I think your comment (it really wasn't any kind of sensible criticism, but I didn't even see the need to delve into it because of your terseness and rudeness, I think) was arrogant and pretty vacuous. I also didn't say anything about you questioning my intellect. Is that what you were doing? I said nothing about your motives, and your continued condescension with "you know better than that" for something I didn't do typifies the spirit to which I responded at Facebook. Making that kind of remark while saying that you don't think you have a high ground must surely grate, even as you type the words. We do not know each other. Hear this: You seriously lack social skills if you thought your comment at FB or your attempts to privately advise me are a good idea. I don't think you have an appropriate perspective on what you did. I don't really wish to have a protracted conversation about this, Martin. All the best. l

     There's no need to invoke non-sequiturs. I'm not trying to argue with you. The original post was about the way you present your ideas to non-Christians.

Again, this isn't about us. God doesn't care about us; there's a million of us. You know this isn't about us, so there's no need to get personal. 

If you want me to attack your criticism of my criticism of you: you're using a obfuscation-technique to dismiss my criticism by calling it unintelligible so that You don't need to get so nasty against me. I'm not an enemy, and I genuinely care about the way you present your ideas.

Your criticism against my criticism missed the point of my criticism. My criticism's point what that your post was totally unrelated to Christian evangelism and swayed into Trumpogetics. It's politically polarizing. So stick to what you do best.

Glenn Posts "DIdn't read; will delete."


Ok so the copy and paste thing is messed up.

My point is that i've dealt with folks before who claimed to speak for God and then couldn't. Here's another Protestant example. When faced with criticism, he goes balistic and says you're incoherent and violent.
There is is everybody.


There's an issue with the formatting here. Basic point: Protestant can't stand up to most mild criticms; Protestant accuses you of being evil; Protestant bans you from protestant land; protestants burn in hell.

Ther

	1:15 AM (3 minutes ago)
to me

Didn't read, will delete.