BartBaconshereticalBibleclass

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 8-6-23 CLASS >> From 1:02:22 Bill asked “So that’s a little confusing … he would not be considered the one that was writing it down but considered to be the one that was saying it? He was trying to avoid attribution as the one who was actually speaking?” My response “Yes, exactly” was directed towards the first way he framed his question but would be erroneous in response to the second way he framed his question. The point I was making is that Peter didn’t mind being recognized as the one who was speaking but wanted to make sure that everyone understood he was not the one who wrote it. >> From 1:20:35 with regards to Mark 1:4 I said “although the Torah and some of the prophets agree with John the Baptist, the Second Temple Period Jewish religious leaders would have said that John was utterly out of his mind because change of mind absolutely can not bring the remission of sins. They would have said that only the death of the right type of animal, sacrificed in the proper way according to the Torah, at the one designated place, by the official Jewish priests can bring the remission of sins.” This should have been “although some parts of the Torah from J, E, and D documents, and some of the prophets agree with John the Baptist, the Second Temple Period Jewish religious leaders would have said that John was utterly out of his mind because change of mind absolutely can not bring the remission of sins. They would have said that only the death of the right type of animal, sacrificed in the proper way according to the priestly (P document) content of the Torah, at the one designated place, by the official Jewish priests can bring the remission of sins.” >> From 1:24:18 to 1:25:48 I discussed how the Gospel of John sheds light on Peter’s knowledge of John the Baptist. I said “Definitely it says Peter, his brother Andrew, and Philip” knew the Baptist, and that if the other (unnamed) disciple of John was John bar-Zebedee then that made four, and if James Bar-Zebedee accompanied his brother John then that made five. What I neglected to mention is that the Gospel of John says that Nathanael was also there. If the identification of the man named Nathanael with the apostle with surname Bartholomew is correct, then in fact there were at least four (not three) and maybe as many as six (not five) of the twelve apostles who had known the Baptist. >> At 1:40:33 my statement “… but I don’t think we can ever make it [the Holy Spirit] our only authority” was not really an accurate statement of my belief. A more accurate statement would have been that hearing individual inner guidance is not the only source of guidance.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 7-16-23 CLASS At 8:58 “inherently guilty of love …” obviously was meant to be “inherently unworthy of love …”

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 7-30-23 CLASS >> At about 1:02:36 I stated that Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah. Actually the book of Isaiah is an anthology in three parts. Micah was a contemporary of the prophet Isaiah who gave us the first part. The verses we had just read, from Isaiah 55, are from the second part and were written by a prophet who lived over a hundred years after Micah and the author of “First Isaiah.” >> What I meant to say with regards to slavery and the judicial paradigm should have been obvious, but I will clarify it here. 27:50 to 28:06 was meant to be “Slavery was the expression of the attitude that the people who were enslaved were not worthy of love and help and education and protection.” 28:15 to 28:33 was meant to be “Slavery was a case where the people who were enslaving others believed that the people being enslaved were not worthy of love, help, education, and protection ….” On the same topic, the earlier references to “Europeans” should have been “Europeans and their descendants in the Americas” and “African-Americans” should have been “Africans and their descendants.” >> Throughout this lecture, for the sake of simplicity, I use the name of the book “Leviticus” as a substitute the “the priestly content of the Tanakh.” In fact the same sort of priestly content that we find at Leviticus 1-7 shows up in other parts of the Tanakh, and parts of Leviticus (especially parts of chapter 19) are very elevated spiritually.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 7-9-23 CLASS At time index 1:16:04 to 1:16:32, regarding the documentary construction of the Torah, I referred to the Primary History and stated that “the third component was originally written to refute the second, and the second was originally written to refute the first two….” This should have been a reference to the Torah as follows: “the fourth component was originally written to refute the third, and the third was originally written to refute the first two….” NOTE ON STATEMENT BY REBEKAH AT THE 7-9-23 CLASS At the subsequent class Rebekah explained to us her statement in this class about the black eye. She wanted us to know that it was not caused by Alex, but in fact was due to a driving accident.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 7-2-23 CLASS In our discussion about the concept of “the cross,” I made statements to the effect that the Hindu yogis really do not believe in the horizontal bar, in interpersonal relationships as an essential part of the path. Later I remembered Sathya Sai Baba (1926 – 2011), who is known for his quote "Love All, Serve All. Help Ever, Hurt Never." In my brief check on Sai Baba I found that the category for his teachings is the “Hindu Reform Movement,” which apparently is an umbrella term for trends in modern Hinduism that advocate a greater emphasis on involvement in the world than has traditionally been the case. This paragraph is a correction to my precise statement, but the fact that making interpersonal relationships a priority is considered “reform” within Hinduism proves my point as well as anything could. At the 7-2-23 class I stated that “metanoia” is Greek for “change your mind.” In fact metanoia is the noun form and is Greek for “change of mind,” which is translated into English as “repentance.” The verb that means “change your mind” but is translated into English as “repent” is “metanoeó.” We discussed this in detail at the 7-23-23 class. At the 7-2-23 class I stated that Jesus defined our relationships with himself and with the Holy Spirit as teaching-learning relationships. At the 7-23-23 class I expanded on that: he defined our relationships with himself and with the Holy Spirit as teaching-learning relationships AND leading-following relationships.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 6-25-23 CLASS I made the statement that as far as I know the term “Logos” as a metaphysical concept occurs in the Bible only at the first chapter of the Gospel of John. At the 7-2-23 class I showed additional examples from Psalms, Luke, 1 John, and Revelation.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. NOTE ON THE 6-18-23 CLASS >> In my opinion the open discussion is a waste of time that should be skipped. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 6-18-23 CLASS >> At the 6-18-23 class I stated that “as far as I have ever been able to tell” logos comes to us only from John chapter 1 verses 1 and 14. In fact logos occurs in the Greek New Testament several hundred times. It is the metaphysical meaning of the word that comes to us from John 1. We discussed this at the 6-25-23 class. >> At the 6-18-23 class the idea was presented to the class that “only begotten son” comes to us from the Nicene Creed. In fact it comes to us originally from the Bible itself, which I should have remembered and which we would have seen if we had been using some other translation of the NT. We discussed this at the 6-25-23 class. >> At the 6-18-23 class from about 11:15 to 14:03, I stated that the Eastern paths do not put emphasis on interpersonal relations, the “horizontal bar of the cross.” At later classes we discussed that Sai Baba, the Hindu Reform Movements, and the Sikh religion are exceptions to that statement.

IF YOU LIKE THE CLASS, FEEL FREE TO SHARE IT. CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 6-11-23 CLASS At the 6-11-23 class and also probably the 6-18-23 class I referred to “reality” as an adjective. Reality is a noun, not an adjective. I addressed the issues here at the corrections section of the 6-25-23 class.

CORRECTIONS TO MY STATEMENTS AT THE 5-21-23 CLASS >> At about 31:43 to 31:46 I stated that Dr. Semmelweis introduced the practice of washing hands to surgery in “the middle of the 1900s.” I meant to say “the middle of the 1800s.” >> At about 52:20 to 52:35 I said that at Deuteronomy 30 “God defines good and life as opposites.” I meant to say “God defines evil and life as opposites.” >> At about 56:45 and after, referring to the Logos definitions of good and evil, I said “It is not possible to apply those two definitions to a human being.” That is obviously erroneous. The correct statement is that it is not possible to apply the Logos definition of evil to a human being. “Either one” at about 56:58 should be “the Logos definition of evil.” >> At about 1:27:32 I was overly critical regarding ACIM “teachers” by being all-inclusive. My statement “It is unheard of to encounter a Course in Miracles teacher who teaches anything that is consistent with the book itself, it’s always something very very very opposite” should be “It is rare to encounter a Course in Miracles teacher who teaches anything that is consistent with the book itself, it’s usually something very opposite.” In fact I know of at least three ACIM teachers who have made noteworthy contributions.