Al Gore spoke today. It is really good stuff, check it out.

And now for something mildly Heretical, or at least non-Canonical!

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]

From: "Chris Halverson" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
To: dfalk@oregon.uoregon.edu
Subject: Re: Re: The Diary of Mary, daughter of Damion, the Bishop of New Antioch
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:08:02 -0600

Attached, as a PDF file, is my translation of the Christian diary the 82nd airborne recently found in Baghdad. As you can tell by all the brackets it was not in the best shape of its life. I hope it helps you with the book you and Judith are doing about early Christian feminism.

=====
In the Grace that has redeemed all,

C.L. Halverson
http://luthermatrix19.blogspot.com/



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com

>From: Big D. Falk < dfalk@oregon.uoregon.edu >
>To: "Chris Halverson"
>Subject: Re: The Diary of Mary, daughter of Damion, the Bishop of New Antioch
>Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Yes Chris, I would be very interested in this manuscript your GI friend found in Baghdad. Send me more >information as soon as you can.
>
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Chris Halverson" | This is spam | Add to Address Book
>>To: dfalk@oregon.uoregon.edu
>>Subject: The Diary of Mary, daughter of Damion, the Bishop of New Antioch
>>Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:32:04 –0600
>>
>>Hey! I have a GI friend with the 82nd over in Iraq. A rocket recently misfired and blew open an old cave. >>In it were several Christian scrolls. These included variable copies of the Gospels of Thomas andJohn. >>The feature I think you might be interested in is a diary. I remembered you were going to work on >>that feminist book, “The Dead Sea Codes” and I think this diary, of a teenage Christian girl, might be a >>real help.
>>=====
>>In the Grace that has redeemed all,
>>
>>
>>C.L. Halverson



The Diary of Mary, daughter of Damion, the Bishop of New Antioch
Translation and commentary by Chris Halverson
Entry 26, [The year of our] Lord 221
But for the crucifixion of the Lord I would not believe there is a more painful state than that of being a woman. I say this not for melodramatics or effect, but from the fabric of my heart.
Father has [chosen this] man, this supposed super-deacon. He is a man with the social skills of a goat and the aptitude of a bucket of swill (the meaning of this word is uncertain). Yet by father’s account he is a wondrous thing, a man who will be quickly raised to his status. I can not imagine Alexander as a Bishop and I told father as much. I said to him, “gazing into Alexander’s eyes is like looking into blank space.” Of course he rebuked me, listing off what Paul says qualifies a man to be a Bishop (1 Tim. 3:2-4). He thinks Alexander has every one of those qualities. I told [him I] didn’t think he was hospitable, or an apt teacher in any sense of the word. Father got [in a huff] and mentioned offhand that I was not being submissive in every way (1 Tim. 3:4).
It just doesn’t make sense to me. I have no problem being a good daughter, but this decision is a decision about my whole life. It reminds me of the story of Thecla. She was forced to marry Thamyris, but with silence she refused (Acts of P and T 20). Maybe I should re-read the story.
Entry 27, The year of our Lord 221
I spent much of yesterday as well as today in contemplation of the scriptures. I also read The Acts of Paul and Thecla, as well as the Gospel of the others, (from Mary’s quotations of this Gospel I believe she is referring to the Gospel of Thomas or a variant thereof) which father has a deep hatred for.
After reading the scriptures while thinking about my present situation I am left wondering. I like the Gospel of the others, and I adore Thecla. In the other [Gospel] (once again it is understood this is the Gospel of Thomas) it says, “when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that [the male not be male nor] the female female… then will you enter the kingdom.” (Thomas 22) I suppose father would think this to be just a fanciful thought, not to mention heresy, but it releases my heart up toward the highest heavens!
It makes sense too! In Paul’s letter to the Romans he praises both men and women (Romans 16). Would Julia, or Prisca or Aquila bend down and accept their father’s yoke? No, I think not. So why should hard working Mary? (Contrary to various pseudo-scholars already in Iraq no reputable academic would believe the Mary writing this diary is the same Mary from Romans 16:6, instead she is making a joke referring back to Romans 16:6). Further, it was a woman who anointed Jesus (Mat 26:7) and women who first realized our Lord was raised (Mat. 28:6). Was it not the woman from Syrophoenicia who’s fearlessness earned her daughter the crumbs of the table? (Mrk. 7:28-29)
It all makes sense, until I find other places [that say] I am told not to speak (1 Corinthians 14:34) and not to fight against my father’s ill wishes for me (Tim. 3:4). My father’s favorite book (1 Timothy) goes on to claims those who are like Thecla are hypocrites, and those who listen to them are, “paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons.”(Tim. 4:1-2) I don’t understand. If women were good enough for Jesus and his good news, why does Paul object to us? For that matter does Paul object? He praises individual [women], why will he not praise all of us? Why does he change his message in Timothy and parts of 1 Corinthians?
It is all very infuriating. The more I come up against these inconsistencies the more I like the story about Paul and Thecla. All I need to do is, “fear only one God and live in chastity.” (Acts of P and T 9) It seems it at least is quite clear, “There is for you no resurrection unless you remain chaste and do not pollute the flesh.” (Acts of P and T 12).
Paul says slaves must be submissive to their masters, and women submissive to their husbands (Titus 2:5, 2:9) but I refuse to become a slave to a husband. I can see [myself as] a noble Lioness, (Acts of P and T 28) owning myself. I am more than just a gossip and a busybody (1Tim. 5:13). I am a Lioness. It is late, and I’ve worn myself out. Maybe I will write again tomorrow night.
Entry 28, The year of our Lord 221
Things are horrible. I’ve been too contrary with father; he has been of a very ill sort over it. He has in fact said he can’t control the family with the way he is acting. He is worried that he is a failed Bishop (1 Tim. 3:4-5). I am so worried about him, but at the same time I can not, I will not [submit]. I am scared and still very confused.
Entry 29, The year of our Lord 221
I can not believe these things that have happened. Father knows I have been reading those books. He said if I did not submit to Alexander he would resign as bishop. I responded that none of this would be a problem if he saw me neither as male nor as female (Thomas 22). He said the Gospel doesn’t allow for such things. I responded, “Make me a living spirit father, resembling that of a man,”(Thomas 114) he knew where I was gaining this knowledge (Mary is referring to gnosis) and burned with anger because of it. He yelled that I have no authority because I am a daughter, an Eve (1 Tim. 2:13). I responded badly, worsening the situation. I said, “And for that I am not ashamed!”(This may be a response to Acts of P and T 10). He chased me out of the house. I am writing this underneath a fig tree. By tomorrow I must decide. Will this lioness face the lion, or rip Thecla to shreds? Why must I decide?
Entry 30, The year of our Lord 221
O’ paper, sweet [paper], you listen to my every ill. I [cry upon] you. The lioness becomes a martyr to the lion. I raise my bonds to the air, and kiss them as Thecla kissed Paul’s bonds (Acts of P and T 18). I shall become Alexander’s wife. I submit, but within myself my hair is cut off (Acts of P and T 25), and this knowledge (gnosis) is mine. As the passions of the fire did not touch Thecla (Acts of P and T 22) the passion of Alexander shall not touch me.

I guess I'd never actually searched for links to my blog. Check this out !!! Ain't it cool? Man, with all this "exposure" I should blog more often!

Big news!
Killing the Buddha has me down as a place to go to!

Here were last weeks D+D questions.
The Questions
1. Do angels fit into your picture of “Religion”? What is the point of angelic beings?
2. There is a process of knowing God by looking at humans and saying God is the reverse. E.g. Humans are mortal therefore God is an unmortal (immortal) does this process make sense? Or can it only be taken so far?
3. Does the written word hold spiritual power? If so how?
4. Is mysticism a spiritual reality, or is it simply a way to tap into unconscious thought, or both?
5. What is the resurrection of the dead?
6. How should Christians resolve conflicts with one another? with non-Christians?
7. There was a Reformation, can there be a Reconciliation?
8. If other letters of Paul were found would they become scripture?
9. How should Christians view the non-Canonical Gospels?
It was a really good D+D, we had a new member, Samuel, he added quite a bit to the conversation.

Hey, here is a really good article about how the rhetoric of war/diplomacy has gotten all off kilter.

Oh, one final post for the day. Here were last weeks D+D questions.
The Questions
1. What does it mean to “Believe” is it purely a cognitive thing or is it a trust thing or something else?
2. Will there be an “end times?” Or just an end of time? Is the end times a literal thing or a metaphorical thing?
3. What exactly are the “hosts” that the LORD is Lord over?
4. What is the proper method of prayer?
5. Does God change God’s mind?
6. What is Evangelism and what is its point?

Oh, just thought of another page to link to. The college Dems.

Hey, my cousin has this really cool site. check it out.
Other than that not too much is going on. I've started my second draft of Faith and Grace, my latest novel. I had a migrane last night, which was no fun.

Hey, I've been slacking when it comes to blogging. Well, let's see what has happened since I last blogged. I lectured on Genesis on Thursday Friday, I kicked some butt! It was a beautiful thing. I finished Faith and Grace! Oh man, the ending is wonderful, full of so much Grace it is crazy mad! Finishing my third novel... man, I need to get published. Anyway, I listened to Bush's address to the nation tonight. I'm going to send the following editorial out and see what people thing. So, you see it here first!

According to Mr. Bush’s speech tonight his administration has 3 overall goals in Iraq.
1. Destroy the Terrorists in Iraq
2. Receive help from other countries/the UN
3. Bestow Democracy upon the Iraqi people

This sounds great, but let’s look at the Bush government’s record thus far at:
1. Destroying Terror in Iraq:
The only evidence that Iraq harbored terrorists was that a single Al-Quada member had sought medical attention in Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Since our attack on Iraq, resentment against America has skyrocketed throughout the world; Islamic anger against our action has boiled to the point that terrorists have flooded into Iraq. They do this not because Saddam was their ally (In fact Bin Laden declared a holy war to free Kuwait from Saddam during Bush the First’s Gulf War), but because the power vacuum created by his removal has become a harbinger of extremism and violence. Iraq has changed from a land controlled by a dictator, to a battleground, a “central front” in the war against terror, thus diverting our resources from our battle against the criminals who caused the attacks of September 11th. Instead of curbing Terrorism, we have in fact allowed it to spill over into Iraq.
2. Receiving help from other countries/the UN:
“Freedom Fries” “Old Europe” “The UN is Irrelevant”… Need I say more? Okay, I will. According to Bush it is the UN’s “Duty” and “Responsibility” to help him out in Iraq, but as you will remember Bush was more than happy to snub our traditional allies and attempt to delegitimize the UN. This is why so many of us wanted Bush to deal with the world in a multilateral way. We shunned unilateralism not because we didn’t think America is a strong, proud nation able to act militarily on its own, but because we didn’t want to eat crow when we realized we needed allies to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous nation Bush promised. Bush has disgraced America by failing to think through America’s entire mission in Iraq; by being forced to slink back to the UN, after claiming America is strong enough to go it alone, we are showing incredible weakness, which tonight Bush himself claimed is the cause of Terrorism.
3. Bestowing Democracy Upon the Iraqi people:
If Bush really wanted the Iraqi people to vote, he would not have had Paul Bremmer cancel the June mayoral elections in Najof Iraq.

Hey, T+T went wonderfully today. One of my questions was about Jesus only being 33 when he died. I wondered if his age makes a difference? AKA he never got to see his mother die, he never ached like an old man, he never experienced life after age 33.
The best quote of that T+T was, "Jesus never got to experience old age. He died when he was still young enough to think he was immortal."
Isn't that kind of funny? The whole group laughed for about a minute after I said it. Man, Lutheran humor.
One conclusion was that "faith o' a child" is the belief that we are immortal.
It is kind of fun to be back.

This is an Op/Ed piece I just wrote. I sent it to a dozen newspapers around the country, hopefully someone reads it!
People of peace, stand as patriots
By Chris Halverson

It seems we have lost. I’ve seen America’s government deciding to be an invader for the first time in history and, after initial doubts, the American people supported it. I’ve seen those of us who marched against war relegated to “focus groups.” Like a scene out of the Third Reich, people who would seem to be sane individuals, burn Dixie Chicks’ CDs in the streets; “Freedom fries” reign supreme.
At the presentation of our flag at the 4th of July fireworks display here in Cheyenne Wyoming, my hometown, the presenter mentioned that there are too many Americans who, “don’t respect the flag.” He separated the sheep from the goats, the patriots from the protesters.
To say the least, this marcher for peace felt down in the dumps. Then something happened to strengthen my resolve. The fireworks display began with a reading of the names and ages of each American soldier killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. With each name read, a single white firework was shot into the air, rose up through the solemn night sky, began to descend back down, and fizzled out. Robert M. Rodriguez ptttwp, a white light, a falling star, then darkness again. It was as if we were sending our national heroes up into heaven.
As I sat there between my parents, my father looking a little bored, my mother’s eyes glistening with tears, I got to thinking about those names of soldiers, so many about my age (19). Each firework retort was also the retort of an Iraqi rifle, a miss-lobbed grenade, the crash of a helicopter. Bam Frederick E. Pokorney Jr dead. It was the light of Lori Ann Piestewa’s life, acceding through existence, then fizzling out, descending to the dead.
This is why I marched. I didn’t march for the United Nations. I didn’t march for a certain political ideology. I marched for peace. I marched for the life of Brendon C. Reiss.
The patriots holler and shout at the explosions while Toby Keith sings about putting “a boot in your ass” The protesters realize “an eye for an eye makes the world go blind,” and anger against anger makes a graveyard. The patriots smile and cheer about the troops we sent off to die. The protester sit somber, eyes glistening, knowing America chose this war, America chose to be the aggressor, America chose to let those soldiers die.
Don’t be embarrassed that you strove for peace. Don’t be embarrassed that you want to know about the legitimacy of the documents used to justify our war. Don’t be embarrassed that you want to know where the weapons of mass destruction are. Don’t be embarrassed; our cause is just, our motives virtuous, our actions commendable.
We protesters may not wrap ourselves in the American flag, but rest assured we did not protest as traitors to our country, but as a people standing against needless death.

Hey. East High school held graduations today! Congrats to all the grads. I'm sorry I can't make it to all your parties and such.
Speaking of parties the church bible study barbque starts really soon. I should get ready.
Shalom

Hey. Heres the first draft of my trinity paper. You might enjoy this thing.
Trinity
By Chris Halverson

In Arthur C. Clark’s 3001: The Final Odyssey Frank Poole, an astronaut from the 21st century, finds himself in the midst of a theological discussion in the year 3001. The question of the hour is if God is more or less than one. The arguments the theologians of the 31st century threw around were quite confusing to Poole.
No more confusing are the theological questions of the middle to late 300’s (Gregory of Nyssa), as well as those of the late 700’s (Timothy I). Their questions are often about monotheism in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity is, “The conception of God as having three ‘persons’ or manifestations: as father, as son, and as Holy Spirit” (World Religions: Western Tradition Oxtoby 335). Instead of asking if God is more or less than one, they instead ask if God is one or if God is more than one.
The relationship Monotheism and Polytheism have with the Christian Trinitarian view of God is a tricky one. Looking back at the origins of Christianity it is quite apparent that it flows from the heavily Monotheistic doctrine of the Jewish faith. However, as this Jewish sect expanded, meet the non-Jewish world, and converted it, the Jewish tradition of Monotheism occasionally got watered down. Looking at Acts 17:23 Paul tells the Athenians that their “Unknown God” is in fact his God. What should the Greeks think of this? Do they just stick this Adoni into their pantheon? Similarly, on occasion Catholic missionaries in Latin America would replace local pantheons with the saints of the church, or at least that was how many of the natives saw the Christian religion. While Christianity was derived from a very Monotheistic religion, sometimes when it was accepted by Polytheistic cultures some of the traditions of those cultures rubbed off onto Christianity.
In Gregory’s Essay, “Not Three Gods” he refutes a critique that says either there are three Gods, or the Trinity is bogus. Timothy, in Apology for Christianity, refutes an attack on the Trinity by Caliph Mahdi, a Muslim ruler. The ruler says the Trinity violates monotheism.
The people Gregory is responding to appear to be Polytheists, while Mahdi, being Muslim, believes in only one God. As a consequence, while both Gregory and Timothy are arguing fundamentally the same thing, that the Trinity maintains Monotheism, while still accounting for the multiple persons of God, they are arguing their points from opposite angles.
Gregory’s first argument against the Trinity’s detractors is in the way they framed the debate, which was saying either, “there are three Gods,” or “not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is the debate equivalent of asking someone if they have beat their wife again today; either answer would be erroneous.
Gregory’s major line of argument against Christianity being polytheistic is that the Godhead, the multiple persons of God coming together into a single unity, does not refer to the nature of God; the nature of God is not what binds the three persons together. Instead, he asserts that the uniting factor betwixt Father, Son, and Spirit is operation. By this he is arguing that while, “men, even if several are engaged in the same form of action, work separately” “the Holy Trinity fulfils every operation… not by separate action according to the number of the Persons, but so that there is one motion.”
He is saying the action of the Trinity is like a mechanic tightening a bolt with a wrench. The mechanic might start out with a gentile tug, but as he continues he might pull harder, and continuing this overall tightening motion he may jostle the wrench handle back and forth to finally get the bolt as tight as he wanted it. Just because multiple forms of pressure were applied to the bolt, does not mean the bolt was tightened multiple times, or that it was tightened by multiple mechanics.
Gregory does not stop arguing against trinite polytheism with his own view of Godhead as operation; he goes on and debates the Trinity with the idea that the Godhead is the nature or essence of the three persons. He uses the illustration of three gold pieces. He argues that while there are quite obviously three coins there is only one nature of the coins, which is golden. To reiterate this point, instead of saying there are many pieces of gold, he would maintain there are either many golden pieces or much gold. Likewise the persons of God do not suggest there are many Gods, instead there are many Divine persons, or much God/Divinity.
Timothy I’s first argumentation for the unity of the Trinity is that it is our human perception that messes up our understanding of the Trinity. He writes, “Even in saying of our God that He is one, we introduce in our mind division concerning Him… We immediately think of a division that singles out and separates.” He goes on to write, “when we say: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we do not say it in a way that implies division, separation, or promiscuity.” What Timothy is meaning is when we see three cats we mean we see one cat, one cat and one cat, but when we see three persons in the Trinity it is closer to seeing 1/3 of God, 1/3 of God, and 1/3 of God.
Timothy’s strongest statements against the polytheism of the Trinity are when he maintains that the persons of the Trinity are in fact the aspects or descriptions of the Godhead. He says, “I believe in one head, the eternal God the Father, from whom the Word shone and the Spirit radiated eternally.” He also says, “The Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Spirit, without any break, distance, and confusion of any kind… as the colour, scent, and taste are in the apple, without any break, confusion, and promiscuity.” Gregory’s former assertion seems to elevate God the Father into the seat of the one God, and the Word and Spirit are relegated to aspects of the divine, while the latter one makes all of the persons into attributes of God.
The reason these assertions of the Trinity as descriptors are so great for a Monotheistic argument is because they diminish the power of the Trinity. No longer are Christians worshiping three persons; they are worshiping something akin to God’s joviality and intellect. Of course the problem with this defense of Christianity is that if this is the case the persons of the Godhead have no real power. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is diminished to saying God has pretty brown eyes, and the Holy Spirit’s presence in the Christian Church is the description of the sound of his yawn. If person was the same as description Christians could add God’s beauty to the persons of God, or God’s love, or God’s mercy. In short there is a definite distinction between person and description.
The problem with all of these discussions of God is that they all use temporal examples to prove points about God, a being who is not temporal. Gregory’s example of Gold comes very close to being an example that illustrates the idea that, “God has no beginning and no end,” but it is not quite there. If he had deferred to the overflowing cup in Psalms 23:5 he could have had a more apt example. The Godhead is like water eternally flowing into three cups. Once the cups are filled they overflow, yet the water continues to pour out, and the water from the three cups will course into one another and become one stream. With three eternal, omnipresent, and omnipotent persons it is impossible to know when one stops and the other starts. In fact since all three are omnipresent they will be occupying the same place at the same time. They will in fact be one.
Gregory’s claim that there are more choices than becoming a polytheist or rejecting the Trinity lays bare one of Christianity’s problems. It can not reject the concept of one God, because “The Lord your God is one Lord.” At the same time Christianity sees more God than only the God of the Hebrew scriptures, it sees the God in Jesus of Nazareth, and the God in the Spirit who flows throughout the Christian community. The problem of the Christian Church is not that it has too many Gods, but instead its problem is that it perceives too much God, and has a hard time boxing the Deity up into one easy to swallow Monotheism.
The argument that best explains why Christianity does not violate Monotheism is the fact that the institution of the Trinity exists. If Christians had felt that multiple Gods was a “kosher” option they would not have formed an extra-Biblical doctrine such as the Trinity. The fact that they come up with this idea of Godhead to explain that the Creator, the Savior, and the Spirit are all one God suggests they were not looking to be Polytheists, and therefore Christians are Monotheists.
Of course to this idea that we can find or form truth in this world Timothy would say, “The pearl of the true faith fell in the midst of all of us, and it is undoubtedly in the hand of one of us, while all of us believe that we possess the precious object. In the world to come, however, the darkness of mortality passes, and the fog of ignorance dissolves, since it is the true and the real light to which the fog of ignorance is absolutely foreign. In it the possessors of the pearl will rejoice, be happy and pleased, and the possessors of mere pieces of stone will weep, sigh, and shed tears.”

Hey, everyone. It has been a while since I last blogged, I've been busy with this whole 9th week of school thing. Check out the conclusion to my paper analysis of 4 translations of the first chapter of Jonah.
Now comes the big question. Which is the best translation of the four renditions provided? The TEV translation is way too loose of a translation, it loses some very important bits of information by doing just what it is supposed to do provide the scriptures in “Today’s English”. The NIV, like the TEV is interested in making the Bible readable, not making it a word for word version of the Hebrew. The NAS is a lot more literal than the first two translations, but it too veers off from the Original Hebrew on occasion, but usually only when clarity is needed. The JPS seems to make logical leaps that are found in the essence of what is in the Hebrew, but would not be found in a word for word translation. When dealing with any foreign language translations like this are always important.
In the end there can be no “better” or “best” translation, only different translations. Frost said, “Poetry is what gets lost in translation,” but sometimes translations even take poetic license to accept the lyricism of the original language. Other times a translator may emphasize literalness or readability.
Translating the Bible is especially difficult, because, for so many, the heart and soul of their belief rests in the translator’s choice of words. Writer and pilot Anne Morrow expresses this concept when she says, “The intellectual is constantly betrayed by his vanity. Godlike he blandly assumes that he can express everything in words; whereas the things one loves, lives, and dies for are not, in the last analysis completely expressible in words.”