OccultForum.org

Original post: Lovemagus

Paul may have been a pseudopigraphical writer...nevertheless he spoke very masonically and with the elements of Qabalah...so that whether it is really written by him or not, the facts are there to prove he was a magician...anyway...Moses didn't write all five books attributed to him nor did he write the 6th and 7th , or the phony 8,9,10th books of Moses either...but the 6th book of Moses is fantastic for proving he was a wizard also...
More on this is found in a book I know about called THE MYSTERIES OF MALKIY-TZEDEQ (melchizedek) the MAGE...
David

Original post: pmcv

Ludi

We also have to remember that Gnostic Christianity wasn't the only kind of Christianity being propagated in those days, so there's no reason to suppose non-Gnostic texts would agree with Gnostic ones.

Yes, my point as well. I could probably name Christian sects numbering at least a score, just off the top of my head. Double that if I had a number of days to think about it, and if I got my books out to remind me I could probably do a hundred at least. SO, your point is important in that we are not here to make Gnostic sects fit a particular Christian model, including the one that happeneds to be primary at this point and time.

Of course, we can certainly compare and contrast these various groups, but we have to be careful not to take them as overly indicative of what Gnostics thought.

There is debate about how much or how little Paul may have been Gnostic, or whether he may have been influenced by Gnosticism, or whether he was fighting it, etc.. I think that in order to explore this we have to be pretty critical of things like, which books may have actually been his.

The question of whether or not he existed seems a little bit over the top. I grant that there is a question as to whether Jesus existed, but while Paul does have some legend around him, there is little doubt that he existed from what I see. I know in some popular books, like the Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, it is claimed that even the other apostles did not exist and Paul literally invented Christianity, but this does not work for many reasons. I am not aware of any critical historians that have doubted the existance of Paul, OR the people he had to deal with like Peter and James.

Concerning whether he was Gnostic? I have some doubts, but the arguements for it have some substance as well. I think in truth he was perhaps a middle ground between some Gnostic elements and some of the Mystical Jewish elements of the time, and this made him an important unifying source that later "Orthodox" Christians could not refuse to ignore. Instead they simply wrote some new "letters of Paul", to make him fit thier mold.

Valentinus claimed to have come directly from the school of Paul, and when we read the writings that modern scholors have seperated as probably genuine it becomes interesting just how believeable that is. At the very least, it seems that Valentinus may have had a good grasp of which letters were genuine.

Let it also be made clear though, that Paul is not a particular hero amongst Gnostic sects in general. Thomas gets just as much, and it seems that the "Orthodox" recognized that. Dr Pagels is somebody that I have been known to disagree with, but her observations that the Gospel of John is essentially an attempt to take Gnostic language and argue against Thomas is compelling.

This would make John one of the first anti-Gnostic attacks.

PMCV

Original post: Lovemagus

As I have said before there are interesting points in the MALKIY-TZEDEQ book I am referring to (you really ought to get it)...the fact is that Paul WAS a gnostic...a point in case scripture is: 2 Timothy 6:20...here we see the word "science" is gnosis....he warned against those that would oppose gnosis....so the Bible itself proves it so simply!!!! It says he was against sects that forbid GNOSTICISM...this is according to the Greek which Christians treasure so (even though on a sidenote Greek ISN'T THE ORIGINAL!!!!!)...I CAN PROVE THAT WITH ONE SCRIPTURE TOO!!!

He uses the word gnosis!

So yes he was a gnostic or one who sought llumination according to the order of the priesthood of Malkiy-Tzedeq (MELCHIZEDEK) which he couldn't even tell anyone about cause it was a secret order and part of a mystical secret society as well which even Jesus said it was (Hebrews 5:10,11) --- that is why today most Christian churches have no part in all in what Paul or Jesus really taught or what they were really about - what a sobering truth but it is true right from the scriptures!!!! (Matthew 13:10-17) See these quoted scriptures that expressly declare the truth contrary to what Christians today say!!!! They don't know their bible really...

So then...it follows that we must know divine language and allegory to go any further with things..

THe Lovemagus speaks


[QUOTE=pmcv]Ludi


Yes, my point as well. I could probably name Christian sects numbering at least a score, just off the top of my head. Double that if I had a number of days to think about it, and if I got my books out to remind me I could probably do a hundred at least. SO, your point is important in that we are not here to make Gnostic sects fit a particular Christian model, including the one that happeneds to be primary at this point and time.

Of course, we can certainly compare and contrast these various groups, but we have to be careful not to take them as overly indicative of what Gnostics thought.

There is debate about how much or how little Paul may have been Gnostic, or whether he may have been influenced by Gnosticism, or whether he was fighting it, etc.. I think that in order to explore this we have to be pretty critical of things like, which books may have actually been his.

The question of whether or not he existed seems a little bit over the top. I grant that there is a question as to whether Jesus existed, but while Paul does have some legend around him, there is little doubt that he existed from what I see. I know in some popular books, like the Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy, it is claimed that even the other apostles did not exist and Paul literally invented Christianity, but this does not work for many reasons. I am not aware of any critical historians that have doubted the existance of Paul, OR the people he had to deal with like Peter and James.

Concerning whether he was Gnostic? I have some doubts, but the arguements for it have some substance as well. I think in truth he was perhaps a middle ground between some Gnostic elements and some of the Mystical Jewish elements of the time, and this made him an important unifying source that later "Orthodox" Christians could not refuse to ignore. Instead they simply wrote some new "letters of Paul", to make him fit thier mold.

Valentinus claimed to have come directly from the school of Paul, and when we read the writings that modern scholors have seperated as probably genuine it becomes interesting just how believeable that is. At the very least, it seems that Valentinus may have had a good grasp of which letters were genuine.

Let it also be made clear though, that Paul is not a particular hero amongst Gnostic sects in general. Thomas gets just as much, and it seems that the "Orthodox" recognized that. Dr Pagels is somebody that I have been known to disagree with, but her observations that the Gospel of John is essentially an attempt to take Gnostic language and argue against Thomas is compelling.

This would make John one of the first anti-Gnostic attacks.

PMCV[/QUOTE]

Original post: pmcv

Lovemagus....

He uses the word gnosis!

I'm sorry, but you only get kudos for precociousness here. Modern Catholics use the term "Gnosis" also. This alone does not make one "Gnostic".

2nd Timothy is not one of the books that is generally accepted as genuinely written by Paul

He does not forbig "Gnosticism" because the word was not even invented yet. The word "Gnosticism" was invented in the late 1800s. there is a difference between "gnosis" and "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism.

When you talk about your so called "MALKIY-TZEDEQ"... are you talking about the one form the Nag Hammadi, or from the DSS? You need to be specific here for the crowd.

BTW, we have already talked about the term "Qabalah" in here, and while one side uses thier own definition, the official stance here is from the academic meaning.... which is to say it did not exist in the time of Paul. I believe what you may be talking about is Merkabah, fine... no big deal.... and the Mason allegation is better left to the likes of "Bloodline of the Grail"... and books like that which have absolutely no genuine understanding of Gnosticism. UNLESS you back it up point by point.

Now, let me point out something important here. I am not against any of your ideas.... but... I have made very clear in this forum from the beginning of my involvement that there is a certain methodology that you must stick to. AND, I have done so you you personally.

Consider this a sort of unofficial warning, that could turn into your second warning if you don't pay attention to it.

Listen, I think you could have some good things to add here.... but first you need a good understanding of exactly what Gnosticism is. You have absolutely just demonstrated that you don't seem to have a good understanding of where the term "Gnosticism" actually came from, and that would be fine if you did not use it in such a pedantic outline considering the assumptions (such as whether Greek was the original language).

Though the Lovemagus speaks.... the wise Lovemagus better understand the mod who knows the meaning of "Gnosticism" pretty well. That mod has nothing against debate, just against undemonstrated dogmatic interperatations.

PMCV

Original post: Lovemagus

Okay...well we have arrived at semantic junction...gnosis and Gnosis...capital letters don't change the meaning just like god and God...there ain't no difference as far the English and etymology is concerned....which is my standpoint...etymology...and the Greek texts use gnosis....and that word has its meaning...to apply something to it like Christian does...is more so of a personal application or sect...but I'll respect you that you know what you are talking about from your perspective of a SPECIFIC Gnostic group...anyway...I am referring to a book published by Church Government International ([url="http://www.churchgovintl.com)...it"]www.churchgovintl.com)...it[/url] is called

THE MYSTERIES OF MALKIY-TZEDEQ THE MAGUS

Anyway...I can appreciate your assessments but I think u missed my points but anyway...i guess i am off track so i leave this thread alone...see ya...

[QUOTE=pmcv]Lovemagus....


I'm sorry, but you only get kudos for precociousness here. Modern Catholics use the term "Gnosis" also. This alone does not make one "Gnostic".

2nd Timothy is not one of the books that is generally accepted as genuinely written by Paul

He does not forbig "Gnosticism" because the word was not even invented yet. The word "Gnosticism" was invented in the late 1800s. there is a difference between "gnosis" and "Gnosis" and "Gnosticism.

When you talk about your so called "MALKIY-TZEDEQ"... are you talking about the one form the Nag Hammadi, or from the DSS? You need to be specific here for the crowd.

BTW, we have already talked about the term "Qabalah" in here, and while one side uses thier own definition, the official stance here is from the academic meaning.... which is to say it did not exist in the time of Paul. I believe what you may be talking about is Merkabah, fine... no big deal.... and the Mason allegation is better left to the likes of "Bloodline of the Grail"... and books like that which have absolutely no genuine understanding of Gnosticism. UNLESS you back it up point by point.

Now, let me point out something important here. I am not against any of your ideas.... but... I have made very clear in this forum from the beginning of my involvement that there is a certain methodology that you must stick to. AND, I have done so you you personally.

Consider this a sort of unofficial warning, that could turn into your second warning if you don't pay attention to it.

Listen, I think you could have some good things to add here.... but first you need a good understanding of exactly what Gnosticism is. You have absolutely just demonstrated that you don't seem to have a good understanding of where the term "Gnosticism" actually came from, and that would be fine if you did not use it in such a pedantic outline considering the assumptions (such as whether Greek was the original language).

Though the Lovemagus speaks.... the wise Lovemagus better understand the mod who knows the meaning of "Gnosticism" pretty well. That mod has nothing against debate, just against undemonstrated dogmatic interperatations.

PMCV[/QUOTE]

Original post: Space Debris

[QUOTE=Lovemagus]the fact is that Paul WAS a gnostic...a point in case scripture is: 2 Timothy 6:20...here we see the word "science" is gnosis....he warned against those that would oppose gnosis....so the Bible itself proves it so simply!!!! It says he was against sects that forbid GNOSTICISM...this is according to the Greek which Christians treasure so (even though on a sidenote Greek ISN'T THE ORIGINAL!!!!!)[/QUOTE]
It seems this argument is based on 1 Timothy 6:20 (there is no chapter 6 in 2 Timothy) as it appears in the KJV: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." However, more recent translations (and even a carefull reading of the KJV, i.e. noticing the "falsely so-called" after science) make clear that what the author condemns here is not opposition to gnosis, but rather the opposition of "false knowledge" to what he perceives as the true religion. Here are some examples from other translations:

"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge" NIV

"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge' " NASB

And taking into account other evidence in the epistle, such as the author's opposition to asceticism (1 Timothy 4:1-3), and his support of faith in place of elaborate mythology and theological speculation (1 Timothy 1:3-4), it seems much more likely that the author of 1 Timothy would be an enemy, not a proponent, of Gnosticism.

Original post: Lovemagus

Unfortunately you are relying on ENGLISH translations which will always confuse and contradict the truth of the matter on any matter concerning interpreting the Bible...so...knowledge=gnosis don't u see??? read the Greek and if you are really slick get the original Hebrew (which I know who has the scripts!)...so that your argument MUST FAIL in my eyes!!! 4:3 is nothing more than a statement about following stupid carnal laws instead of thinking spiritually...that is a gnostic work...yes i mean 1 timothy...and no...1:4 does NOT speak of mythologies and THEOLOGICAL speculations...see once again you aren't even reading the ENGLISH there...it says geneaological speculations not theological...and the Greek don't say theological either...so there u are relying on and parroting some bible commentary i'm sure with that type of error....and the genealogy which he is referring to is the disparate one concerning Jesus where in Matthew 1:15 and Luke 3:23 we have a contradiction on the lines of Jesus...so that there is an issue with the grail....I think 1 Timothy 4:1 is very pertinent to the status of most religionists today...they are deceived and not enlightened by the HOLY SOLAR SPIRIT...Well your turn!!!

Lovemagus, the lover of magick and Venus, the shiner of hope and light of love

[QUOTE=Space Debris]It seems this argument is based on 1 Timothy 6:20 (there is no chapter 6 in 2 Timothy) as it appears in the KJV: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." However, more recent translations (and even a carefull reading of the KJV, i.e. noticing the "so-called" after science) make clear that what the author condemns here is not opposition to gnosis, but rather the opposition of "false knowledge" to what he perceives as the true religion. Here are some examples from other translations:

"Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge" NIV

"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called 'knowledge' " NASB

And taking into account other evidence in the epistle, such as the author's opposition to asceticism (1 Timothy 4:3), and his support of faith in place of elaborate mythology and theological speculation (1 Timothy 1:4), it seems much more likely that the author of 1 I Timothy would be an enemy, not a proponent, of Gnosticism.[/QUOTE]

Original post: Space Debris

...so...knowledge=gnosis don't u see???

Have you failed to notice the "falsely so-called" attached to the word gnosis/knoweldge in 1 Tim 6:20? Following your line of reasoning, Paul is condemning opposition to false knowledge. How does that make sense?

4:3 is nothing more than a statement about following stupid carnal laws instead of thinking spiritually...

1 Timothy 4:1-3 condemns ascetic practices, such as rejection of marriage, that some Gnostics practiced.

1:4 does NOT speak of mythologies and THEOLOGICAL speculations...

Oh, it doesn't?

3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.

and the genealogy which he is referring to is the disparate one concerning Jesus where in Matthew 1:15 and Luke 3:23 we have a contradiction on the lines of Jesus...

There are other possible interpretations regarding what the author means by "genealogies" here. In relation to Gnosticism, it could be a reference to the descent of Aeons through the process of emanation.

so that there is an issue with the grail

>_>

Original post: Lovemagus

Please stop referring to your chosen ENGLISH version cause the Greek don't say "myths"...furthermore...FALSELY so-called...falsely...false gnosis...not true gnosis which Paul claimed to have...this debate is degenerating into semantic injunctions...thus...i must waste no more time on it...again Paul was more of melchizedek mason than anything...so chew on that fact for awhile@! He was a masterbuilder...and he was a qabalahist and followed the line of the magi...so...there!!!!


Lovemagus, the lover of truth

[QUOTE=Space Debris]Have you failed to notice the "falsely so-called" attached to the word gnosis/knoweldge in 1 Tim 6:20? Following your line of reasoning, Paul is condemning opposition to false knowledge. How does that make sense?


1 Timothy 4:1-3 condemns ascetic practices, such as rejection of marriage, that some Gnostics practiced.


Oh, it doesn't?

3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.


There are other possible interpretations regarding what the author means by "genealogies" here. In relation to Gnosticism, it could be a reference to the descent of Aeons through the process of emanation.


>_>[/QUOTE]

Original post: Space Debris

Lovemagus wrote:false gnosis...not true gnosis which Paul claimed to have...

Regarding 1 Timothy 6:20, you said that Paul "warned against those that would oppose gnosis." But the actual wording of the verse simply doesn't support that conclusion â?? and having apparently realized that, you now seem to be shifting your position.

again Paul was more of melchizedek mason than anything...so chew on that fact for awhile@! He was a masterbuilder...and he was a qabalahist and followed the line of the magi..

Do you have even a shred of evidence to support such an outlandish view?

so...there!!!!

Well, that was childish.

Original post: kollision

Hi Space Debris, just asking, do you know how to read Hebrew as well? Because if so, then Id think you would havea valid argument against Love Magus if what he says is from Hebrew text.

Original post: Ludi

read the Greek and if you are really slick get the original Hebrew (which I know who has the scripts!)

Lovemagus, the books referred to were not originally written in Hebrew, they were written in Koine Greek. If you get such a basic piece of historical information wrong, how are we to believe anything else you say is accurate?

Original post: Deo Volente

Grace & Peace!

Ludi, I agree with you on your interpretation of the story of the Canaanite woman, but to an extent. Of all the canonical gospels, Matthew is the one most oriented towards a Jewish-Christian community that most likely would have still followed the law (I believe the jot & tittle passage is found in Matthew). It's therefore little wonder that that community would have portrayed Jesus as having a Jewish cultural bias.

In the larger theological picture, putting all the gospels on an equal revelatory footing with the assumption that they each say, essentially, the same thing, the passage is a difficult one to interpret. But I don't believe the gospels say exactly the same thing, and their vision of Jesus is interpretted through cultural bias, among other things. Still, if I were to venture a particular interpretation of this passage, I'd do so in light of the story that follows--a version of the feeding of the multitude. I'd have to give it some more thought, but I think that there's a connection between the food language in the story of the Canaanite woman, and the multiplication of food in the following story of the feeding of the multitude.

My two cents! Sorry if this is off topic!

--Mark

Deo Gratias!

Original post: Demetrios

Lovemagus wrote:As I have said before there are interesting points in the MALKIY-TZEDEQ book I am referring to (you really ought to get it)...the fact is that Paul WAS a gnostic...a point in case scripture is: 2 Timothy 6:20...here we see the word "science" is gnosis....he warned against those that would oppose gnosis....so the Bible itself proves it so simply!!!! It says he was against sects that forbid GNOSTICISM...this is according to the Greek which Christians treasure

Actually that is 1 Timothy 6:20, and IMO the most accurate translation is "avoid... controversies of 'knowledge' that is falsely so called ". The genitive case in "antitheseis tes gnoseos" could be interpreted in more than one ways, but the attribute "pseudonymous" makes it clear that your reading is not plausible interpretation.

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B54C006.htm#V20

BTW I treasure Greek and am not Christian, and to me it seems that many Pistics treasure the Latin Vulgata more than the Greek original.

(even though on a sidenote Greek ISN'T THE ORIGINAL!!!!!)...I CAN PROVE THAT WITH ONE SCRIPTURE TOO!!!

Yes please?

So yes he was a gnostic or one who sought llumination according to the order of the priesthood of Malkiy-Tzedeq (MELCHIZEDEK) which he couldn't even tell anyone about cause it was a secret order and part of a mystical secret society as well which even Jesus said it was (Hebrews 5:10,11) --- that is why today most Christian churches have no part in all in what Paul or Jesus really taught or what they were really about - what a sobering truth but it is true right from the scriptures!!!! (Matthew 13:10-17) See these quoted scriptures that expressly declare the truth contrary to what Christians today say!!!! They don't know their bible really...

So then...it follows that we must know divine language and allegory to go any further with things..

IMHO that Matthew passage is quite obscure, it seems as if several logoi from the Q have been randomly put together. But why did Christ speak in (often obscure) allegories is interesting question (BTW according to some Gnostic texts he dropped them after resurrection and spoke directly at least to some disciples). I don't think we are much in disagreement, but I would say that the spiritual teacher had his disciples enlightment in mind, and he used allegories in way that is perhaps kin to koans of Zen Buddhism.

Original post: Demetrios

[QUOTE=Lovemagus]Please stop referring to your chosen ENGLISH version cause the Greek don't say "myths"...[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what the Greek says: "mythois", in dative case:
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B54C001.htm#V4

Word 'mythos' has meanings 'fable', 'story', 'fiction' 'myth', and during Homeric times and in poetry 'word', 'speech'.

Original post: Lovemagus

Heh you must be as a "child" to enter the kingdom, so I must invoke Leo and be a child sometimes to maintain balance...and yes it was childish and following the FOOL card...but anyway...if you want to know what I am saying here: read Hebrews 2:7 and Psalm 8:5 -- you will notice in the english the word "angels"...well the Hebrew is AELOHIYM (elohim)...and the Greek has got aggelos...so that it is clear the Greek was not original by this very clear error - no writer who properly quoted from the Hebrew would have made the same mistake the English also makes...Aelohiym does not translate as angels, though they could be considered the seven planetary angels...as for the translation theories...i won't proceed into the other conversations....cause you don't know about the qabalah and melchizedek issues....get the book THE MYSTERIES OF MALKIY-TZEDEQ THE MAGUS from www.churchgovintl -- maybe that will shed some evidence for you on Paul and the magian tradition....And yes, Christ did teach the old "mystery traditions"...as I pointed out in the scripture references as did Paul and Paul was a merkabah mystic as well as clear from the scriptures too...he couldn't teach magick to the masses so he gave them what they could bear (1 Corinthians ch. 2; 3)....

I rest!

[QUOTE=Space Debris]Regarding 1 Timothy 6:20, you said that Paul "warned against those that would oppose gnosis." But the actual wording of the verse simply doesn't support that conclusion â?? and having apparently realized that, you now seem to be shifting your position.


Do you have even a shred of evidence to support such an outlandish view?


Well, that was childish.[/QUOTE]

Original post: Deo Volente

Grace & Peace!

With Demetrios, I find it difficult to make any compelling argument for the identity of Paul using the pseudo-Pauline letters (like Titus and I & II Timothy). To make the argument that he was either a gnostic or not a gnostic based on these texts, for me, weakens the argument from the get-go. Considering that the pseudo-Paulines were most likely written by proto-orthodox disciples in order to invoke the authority of Paul for proto-orthodox doctrine, it seems that there would be an especially great difficulty in making an argument for a gnostic Paul from any of them. I could be wrong, though (I often am), and since I wasn't there, I won't pretend to know for sure.

Lovemagus, re: Elohim and Angelos, there was a tradition in both Judaism and Christianity that the word Elohim referred (in some cases) to angels (the Beni Elohim). The Septuagint translators appear to have this tradition in mind with the translation of Elohim to Angelos.

In general, Lovemagus, I respect your speculations a great deal, though I must confess I often disagree. I will be honest, my source of disagreeement often involves what appears to me to be the overlaying of an interpretive system onto texts that are (I believe) rather alien to those interpretive systems. For instance, I love Marxist criticism--the temptation with it, though (and, really, what it asks of all of its disciples to do) is to apply Marxist critical thought to all disciplines, texts, etc. You can do it, certainly, but you wind up with an interpretation that is not always consonat with the text under consideration, but always consonant with Marxist critical thought. In many cases, it illuminates only of itself. I sometimes fear that this is the case with interpretative scheme of the CGI applied to scripture.

But that's just me.

--Mark

Deo Gratias!

Original post: pmcv

Mark.....

But that's just me.

No, it isn't just you. In fact, there is a name for this.... "eisegesis". I am glad you pointed it out, because you made the point quite clear.

It is especially easy to commit eisegesis when a later interperative system deals very specifically with a prior motif. This is how Kabbalah is able to take some rather poorly spliced together books we call "Torah", and turn them from a simplistic tribal religion into something deep. Of course, the original authors had nothing of the sort in mind, but that does speak to the growth of a religion over time.

However, here, we do try to keep a critical perspective, and the claims of Lovemagus about the supposed masonic ties of Paul have yet to be given any critical exegesis.

So, now.... Lovemagus... to YOUR points.

The page you keep posting is not Gnostic, don't post it here again. This is not the place to prosletize or "spam".

Concerning your points that Paul was Masonic, etc.... you had better relate it to Gnosticism if you want to expand on it any further. Otherwise, it belongs in the Off Topic Occult forum, not here.

PMCV

Original post: Deo Volente

Grace & Peace!

PMCV, thanks for clarifying so nicely and succinctly what I was thinking! Eisegesis is such a wonderful word!

--Mark

Deo Gratias!