Christology

[immortal]

"The church is the body of Christ "

I'm not swallowing that.

http://en.wikipedia....cramental_bread

 

In higher forms of teachings the church is the mystical body of Christ.

 

Body of Christ

 

Mystical Body of Christ

 

• In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Eph. 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12).

• This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).

G. H. JOYCE

 

 

 

 

 

"The term Pleroma represents the totality of God's powers which we call the Aeons. Its very clear and precise. That's how the term should be understood."

So, based on the experimental evidence, it is equivalent to this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set

 

It would have been much easier if someone had said that in the first place.

 

I don't think one can quantify the pleroma of God.

[LimbicLoser]

This immediately above is what you had written in your post number 7' date=' on page one. The assertion is incorrect. Do you understand how it is incorrect? Please respond honestly to this question.[/quote']I have brought this to your attention again, immortal, because you did not answer it. Please see my post above for the link to your original sentence. It will be of the utmost importance to touch on every detail from the bottom up, correcting the error as we go, in order to help you see this more clearly. At the moment I credit you with the cognitive agility and plasticity, the reasonableness and fairness in your concern, and the character of your being well-balanced. I await the answer to that question, but wish to go on into some detail here which should help out too. I will deal in facts, and work with facts; being sure to give the proper weights of likelihoods and possibilities of any various points which are not as securely supported as one would like. I will respond to your comments above (your#24) later--though a good bit later, probably, once I have cleared out the error which had come first.

 

Words have meaning automatically and simultaneously. Definition and referent is never created for zero, for a word which has been sitting around from some time without meaning, definition, or referent, within a living language. Spoken sounds can become words, but as soon as they have, they have the meanings, definitions, and referents; etc. This is basically how language got started, and is evidenced in the early script forms--Chinese is a good one to study for that, and the character for 'fish' is a nice and easy one, as is that for 'field,' as well. In English, like most all languages, there are various parts of speech, nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Cutting the chase a bit, we can take the English verb 'fill.' Taking that all will know the literal and figurative imports, I will present the forms--since that has been one error which is basic. (see immortal's #20, pg 1)

 

The verb 'fill,' in the infinitive form, will be just as it is written. It has a meaning (definition and referent act) which is determined by contextual setting and habitual usage (which are sometimes exactly the same things). When the form changes to 'filled,' to demonstrate a past event, the meaning of the verb does not change. When the past participle 'filled' is used as a quasi-adjective, the meaning does not change. Whether we have 'filling, filled, or having been filled,' the meaning does not change. We can then take the related adjective 'full.' When the cup has been filled, the cup is full. What the cup is full of will depend on additional information in the contextual setting of that sentence. When a person has been filled, they will be full. Again, that which is filling them will be determined by the contextual setting, and habitual usage, as mentioned above.

 

One can take other form changes, and see the same thing. Take the Russian demonstrative (and I will simply transliterate to save my time) 'etot' which is assigned the English word 'this.' (That means that the Russian 'etot' is translated 'this' in English.) This form is the nominative, but the dative is 'etogo,' the instrumental 'eteem,' and the prepositional, 'etom' (with an 'ob' before it). All these different forms, and the meaning of the word, the definition, does not change at all. (The above is the masculine attribution, the feminine is 'eta,' and the neutral is 'eto.' ) In English 'this' is always 'this.'

 

In the Koine Greek, there was a certain verb. that verb is (and I will transliterate to save time) 'plerow' (using the 'w' to simulate the Greek omega). The basic meaning is to 'fill,' like our English above. It has a number of forms which English will of course ignore in character terms, but will acknowledge in syntax when translating into good English. There is the adjective function, and there is the noun which comes from it--as fullness is quasi-noun built from the pure adjective 'full.' In all cases, the word must be translated using a proper methodology, and practice. One word assignment (explained earlier on) is the most proper and proved correct translating rule of thumb.

 

The Hebrew word which the Greek LXX most persistently assigned a form of the verb 'pelow' to, and the quasi-noun 'pleroma' to, was a from of 'male.' We can check out the full range of usage, and we can see that the English assignment to the Hebrew word equals that given to the Greek word. The contextually determined definition and meaning of the LXX usage matched the Masoretic text on all counts, and the English translation fits within a very high range of equally assigned terms. (Sometimes it depends on the what is being placed, poured, inserted, injected, etc. to fill, or make something full, and the difference in a verb that points to time limitations has having become full [a deadline met, a particular alloted time zone finished, etc.].)

 

At Gen 6:11, a form of 'plerow' is used which the NRSV (with Apo.) assignes 'filled with.' The 'what' of that which is doing the filling, is violence. The receiver, or receptacle, or that which holds that which fills it, is the earth.

 

At Exodus 16:12, a form of the same is used in an almost noun like fashion. The American Standard (AS) renders that with 'be filled.' The 'what' is bread, the receiver is the people of Israel.

 

At 2 Chron 5:13, 14, a form of the same is used twice. The New World Translation (NWT) assigns both instances 'filled.' The 'what' is the cloud of YHWH, the receiver is the temple.

 

At Mk 2:21 the same form (pleroma) that had become the focus of the OP, is found. The 'what' is strength of a shrinking piece of cloth pulling at old cloth. The receiver is that new piece of cloth. (the strength in it fills up, so to speak... this is a bit of a Hebrewism)

 

At Mt 13:48, a form of the verb (which is the root, by the way) 'plerow' is found. The Diaglott translates that with 'is filled.' The 'what' is fish, and the receiver a fishing drag net.

 

At John 7:8, a form of the same verb is used in a kind of unfulfilled present perfect tense. The New American Standard (NAS) gives it as, 'has not yet fully come.' The 'what' is time passage, and the receiver is a decided period (length).

 

While this could go on and on--going back to the Masoretic text as well--what I have presented will suffice. In all cases, the verb 'plerow,' has the same meaning base, namely, to fill; and only the grammatical differences in translation occur to fit the rules of the language. Likewise, the noun form 'pleroma' always has the meaning 'fullness.' And thus, for example, at Romans 11:25, the full number of gentiles who are destined (as Pauline theology has it) to be taken into the church, is what is being talked about. Speaking of Barnes' Notes, a very bad source for interpretation, he footnotes that the number of gentiles is being talked about. When he writes that the meaning is unknown to him, he is talking about the details (as seen in what he further writes) of just when and how that will be. He is not talking about the meaning of the Greek word, for he gives that right there, as 'fulness. (p 635)

 

There is no mistake at all. The Greek verb 'plerow' has the meaning fill. The Greek word 'pleroma' means fullness; that is, the state or condition of having been filled with something. What that something is, is always to be determined by the contextual setting in which it comes. In proper translating, no one will ever transliterate that word. The person, or party, who does, is doing so out of false pretense, if not pure intellectual dishonesty. It is therefore most important to pay attention to that, and not copy such gross misgiving. (Additionally, that information you had provided from the other forum, immortal, is misleading on a number of points. John 1:16 (pleromatos) is talking about 'undeserved kindness and truth,' having been given from the abundance of all that fill "the word" (or, as is being pointed to by such wording, the Jesus of that document.) It's the same meaning, or course, 'pleroma' always means, and only means, 'fullness.' Like I have clearly demonstrated, the 'what' is to be determined from context. You have been mislead by some, and I hope you can see this more clearly... though it may take some thinking over a bit. The Greek word 'pleroma' carries no other meaning at all, other than the English word 'fullness,' and that is talking about the degree, amount, or quantity of whatever it is that is filling something. It is not saying anything else. What that is, will be given in the contextual setting, and it's not always the same thing.

[immortal]

I have brought this to your attention again, immortal, because you did not answer it. Please see my post above for the link to your original sentence. It will be of the utmost importance to touch on every detail from the bottom up, correcting the error as we go, in order to help you see this more clearly. At the moment I credit you with the cognitive agility and plasticity, the reasonableness and fairness in your concern, and the character of your being well-balanced. I await the answer to that question, but wish to go on into some detail here which should help out too. I will deal in facts, and work with facts; being sure to give the proper weights of likelihoods and possibilities of any various points which are not as securely supported as one would like. I will respond to your comments above (your#24) later--though a good bit later, probably, once I have cleared out the error which had come first.

 

Words have meaning automatically and simultaneously. Definition and referent is never created for zero, for a word which has been sitting around from some time without meaning, definition, or referent, within a living language. Spoken sounds can become words, but as soon as they have, they have the meanings, definitions, and referents; etc. This is basically how language got started, and is evidenced in the early script forms--Chinese is a good one to study for that, and the character for 'fish' is a nice and easy one, as is that for 'field,' as well. In English, like most all languages, there are various parts of speech, nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. Cutting the chase a bit, we can take the English verb 'fill.' Taking that all will know the literal and figurative imports, I will present the forms--since that has been one error which is basic. (see immortal's #20, pg 1)

 

The verb 'fill,' in the infinitive form, will be just as it is written. It has a meaning (definition and referent act) which is determined by contextual setting and habitual usage (which are sometimes exactly the same things). When the form changes to 'filled,' to demonstrate a past event, the meaning of the verb does not change. When the past participle 'filled' is used as a quasi-adjective, the meaning does not change. Whether we have 'filling, filled, or having been filled,' the meaning does not change. We can then take the related adjective 'full.' When the cup has been filled, the cup is full. What the cup is full of will depend on additional information in the contextual setting of that sentence. When a person has been filled, they will be full. Again, that which is filling them will be determined by the contextual setting, and habitual usage, as mentioned above.

 

One can take other form changes, and see the same thing. Take the Russian demonstrative (and I will simply transliterate to save my time) 'etot' which is assigned the English word 'this.' (That means that the Russian 'etot' is translated 'this' in English.) This form is the nominative, but the dative is 'etogo,' the instrumental 'eteem,' and the prepositional, 'etom' (with an 'ob' before it). All these different forms, and the meaning of the word, the definition, does not change at all. (The above is the masculine attribution, the feminine is 'eta,' and the neutral is 'eto.' ) In English 'this' is always 'this.'

 

In the Koine Greek, there was a certain verb. that verb is (and I will transliterate to save time) 'plerow' (using the 'w' to simulate the Greek omega). The basic meaning is to 'fill,' like our English above. It has a number of forms which English will of course ignore in character terms, but will acknowledge in syntax when translating into good English. There is the adjective function, and there is the noun which comes from it--as fullness is quasi-noun built from the pure adjective 'full.' In all cases, the word must be translated using a proper methodology, and practice. One word assignment (explained earlier on) is the most proper and proved correct translating rule of thumb.

 

The Hebrew word which the Greek LXX most persistently assigned a form of the verb 'pelow' to, and the quasi-noun 'pleroma' to, was a from of 'male.' We can check out the full range of usage, and we can see that the English assignment to the Hebrew word equals that given to the Greek word. The contextually determined definition and meaning of the LXX usage matched the Masoretic text on all counts, and the English translation fits within a very high range of equally assigned terms. (Sometimes it depends on the what is being placed, poured, inserted, injected, etc. to fill, or make something full, and the difference in a verb that points to time limitations has having become full [a deadline met, a particular alloted time zone finished, etc.].)

 

At Gen 6:11, a form of 'plerow' is used which the NRSV (with Apo.) assignes 'filled with.' The 'what' of that which is doing the filling, is violence. The receiver, or receptacle, or that which holds that which fills it, is the earth.

 

At Exodus 16:12, a form of the same is used in an almost noun like fashion. The American Standard (AS) renders that with 'be filled.' The 'what' is bread, the receiver is the people of Israel.

 

At 2 Chron 5:13, 14, a form of the same is used twice. The New World Translation (NWT) assigns both instances 'filled.' The 'what' is the cloud of YHWH, the receiver is the temple.

 

At Mk 2:21 the same form (pleroma) that had become the focus of the OP, is found. The 'what' is strength of a shrinking piece of cloth pulling at old cloth. The receiver is that new piece of cloth. (the strength in it fills up, so to speak... this is a bit of a Hebrewism)

 

At Mt 13:48, a form of the verb (which is the root, by the way) 'plerow' is found. The Diaglott translates that with 'is filled.' The 'what' is fish, and the receiver a fishing drag net.

 

At John 7:8, a form of the same verb is used in a kind of unfulfilled present perfect tense. The New American Standard (NAS) gives it as, 'has not yet fully come.' The 'what' is time passage, and the receiver is a decided period (length).

 

While this could go on and on--going back to the Masoretic text as well--what I have presented will suffice. In all cases, the verb 'plerow,' has the same meaning base, namely, to fill; and only the grammatical differences in translation occur to fit the rules of the language. Likewise, the noun form 'pleroma' always has the meaning 'fullness.' And thus, for example, at Romans 11:25, the full number of gentiles who are destined (as Pauline theology has it) to be taken into the church, is what is being talked about. Speaking of Barnes' Notes, a very bad source for interpretation, he footnotes that the number of gentiles is being talked about. When he writes that the meaning is unknown to him, he is talking about the details (as seen in what he further writes) of just when and how that will be. He is not talking about the meaning of the Greek word, for he gives that right there, as 'fulness. (p 635)

 

There is no mistake at all. The Greek verb 'plerow' has the meaning fill. The Greek word 'pleroma' means fullness; that is, the state or condition of having been filled with something. What that something is, is always to be determined by the contextual setting in which it comes. In proper translating, no one will ever transliterate that word. The person, or party, who does, is doing so out of false pretense, if not pure intellectual dishonesty. It is therefore most important to pay attention to that, and not copy such gross misgiving. (Additionally, that information you had provided from the other forum, immortal, is misleading on a number of points. John 1:16 (pleromatos) is talking about 'undeserved kindness and truth,' having been given from the abundance of all that fill "the word" (or, as is being pointed to by such wording, the Jesus of that document.) It's the same meaning, or course, 'pleroma' always means, and only means, 'fullness.' Like I have clearly demonstrated, the 'what' is to be determined from context. You have been mislead by some, and I hope you can see this more clearly... though it may take some thinking over a bit. The Greek word 'pleroma' carries no other meaning at all, other than the English word 'fullness,' and that is talking about the degree, amount, or quantity of whatever it is that is filling something. It is not saying anything else. What that is, will be given in the contextual setting, and it's not always the same thing.

 

Oh my gosh, there is no need for all this linguistic mumbo-jumbo, the term "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it means only one thing "the totality of divine powers(Aeons)" which forms the body of Christ. This is as simple a fact as a straight line is the shortest distance between any two points. When Euler was asked to prove his axioms he said the words which I have used in my axioms are everyday words, they are basic intuitive facts that anyone with a rational mind should understand.

 

Pleroma

 

 

 

"Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full",^[1] and is used in Christian theological contexts: both in Gnosticism generally, and by St. Paul the Apostle in Colossians Colossians 2:9 KJV ^[2] (the word is used 17 times in the NT)."

Religious traditions have insights which linguistic scholars don't have and the methodology to study the scriptures should be in the context of the way the religious tradition interprets the text and one should understand the text in its own milieu. Take this very example as to how the Valentinian tradition interprets the same Pauline epistles and bring forth so much knowledge, insights and wisdom from the same very text where as modern scholars just sweep through the very text with out finding any kind of soul in them. What you are doing is trying to destroy the very soul of the text.

The Gnostic Paul

"The Gnostic Paul is a book by Elaine Pagels, a scholar of gnosticism and professor of religion at Princeton University. In the work, Pagels considers each of the non-pastoral Pauline Epistles, and questions about their authorship. The core of the book examines how the Pauline epistles were read by 2nd century Valentinian gnostics and demonstrates that Paul could be considered a proto-gnostic as well as a proto-Catholic.

 

Her treatment involves reading the Pauline corpus as being dual layered between a Pneumatic, esoteric Christianity and a Psychic, exoteric Christianity."

 

 

 

Look at the insights, knowledge and wisdom presented in the left hand side which is the Valentinian interpretation of the same Pauline epistles. I would advice just leave the scriptures to religious or traditional scholars who know how to interpret the scriptures because your methodology of understanding the scriptures truly sucks.

 

 

"Hence passages which, when once fathomed, reveal a depth of knowledge & delicacy of subtle thought almost miraculous in its wealth & quality, strike the casual reader today as a mass of childish, obscure & ignorant fancies characteristic of an unformed and immature thinking. Rubbish & babblings of humanity’s nonage an eminent Western scholar has termed them not knowing that it was not the text but his understanding of it that was rubbish & the babblings of ignorance."

 

- Aurobindo

Its just sheer double standards, just not able to swallow the fact that ancient goat herders were far more intelligent than a 21st century modern Phd holder.

 

 

[Phi for All]

Oh my gosh, there is no need for all this linguistic mumbo-jumbo, the term "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it means only one thing "the totality of divine powers(Aeons)" which forms the body of Christ. This is as simple a fact as a straight line is the shortest distance between any two points.

There are multiple sources that disagree with your assertion. One of them defines Pleroma as a region of the Abyss, home to demons. Add the fact that you're basing this assertion on your own interpretation, and the fact that you're using a Greek word to add vagueness to the meaning and you've got a pointless mix of languages that's worthless as a definitive subject.

 

This whole thread is worthless, imo, since the first claim you make is that preserving this vague and arguable point will make your religion live forever. Deception can't be fed ad infinitum. I think eventually enough people will see through it.

[LimbicLoser]

Quite well said, Phi for All, the claim and presentation of OP is worse off than mere ignorance; although I would not tend to go so far as to say the 'whole thread' is useless. There is some information herein from which learning can be obtained. Even taking the view that learning just what type of error and misguiding there is out there, and how to avoid and counter it, would be something making the thread worth the while for those still learning.

 

I have been in this field for at least 13 years, and though I am no longer active in the study, I do keep up with it all. It is not the first time to have to work towards protecting the public from the fanatical-like positions which come flooding in, from time to time. I agree that most will by now have understood the error upon error which is rampant in the presentation immortal is giving. It can be argued (at least) that people have the right to be wrong, but it cannot be accepted at all, that people have the right to wrong! The OPP is doing just that, and what is being wronged in the locked-in-time intention of the author of that letter, within the contextual setting therein, which setting was written so as to have the understanding of the direct and immediate audience of that letter. Also, better knowledge, understanding, and methodology of linguistic concerns is being wronged. I will not let that go unattended to.

 

 

Oh my gosh, there is no need for all this linguistic mumbo-jumbo, the term "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it means only one thing "the totality of divine powers(Aeons)" which forms the body of Christ.

Now I know you do have a language problem, immortal. What you are doing (as more than simply what you are verbatim saying in written form here on this thread) is hard to describe in any other way than simply blatant intellectual dishonesty. What that refers to, is the matter of ignoring sound knowledge and facts while cherry picking, and twisting, and spinning things, after they have been removed from context. It is a good example of the immaturity of the less capable, those without the connectivity build which allows progress in learning, and/or those who have nothing better to do in life that run on rampant imaginary scenarios.

 

You still did not answer the question I had asked you earlier about whether you understood the error in what you had written. You are still doing the same kind of thing over and over again. This is sad. It is the down side of the world wide web--most discussion boards get all kinds of folks. No. What you have said is completely rubbish, and your efforts in presenting what in your eyes can somehow be seen as evidence to support what you have erroneously posited, is very faulty. Wording things incorrectly and misleadingly, so as to pose them as representing what you have written, is something that I will not idly sit by and let go unopposed. You are not being intellectually honest about this. Answer the question I had asked earlier on, then, see below.

 

The silly Wiki page you keep using, and which is nothing to even support the 'way-off-the-wall-out-of-the-blue' interpretation which some had held way before even the internet had been dreamed of, says the following verbatim:

 

Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full"

 

If you think conscientiously and introspectively about it--and I do wish you would demonstrate that you are doing more of that, darn it--you will note that this is exactly what I had said in my previous post. The word MEANS fullness! Could you not mentally grasp that in my post? Here is an example of sloppiness seen in your nonsensical position. You have demonstrated the inability to comprehend the difference between the verb phrases 'refer to' and 'mean. Can you not see that? If not, then I very strongly suggest you simply stop talking about something which you cannot understand the language well enough to be in a position to say anything at all about it.

 

I see error in the lists which you got from ... guess where?! Early Paul was hardly esoteric at all. Additionally, the earliest writings of the authentic documents attributable to Paul, is the first Thessalonian letter. The other information is besides the point, and not worth thinking about (in that it has been demonstrated already to be false assertion on the part of those who had originated those lines of thinking).

 

So here, you have a few outstanding things to do: You have an outstanding request to answer what I had asked you before. You have to work on grasping the understanding of the accurate and more correct terminology of the language you are using (English) [or any other language, for that matter]. It is demanded that you understand the difference between the collective application of the word 'religion,' and the specific identifying application of it. You need to inform yourself of the more accurate, and proper standard for the origin of the capitalization of the word 'god,' and then you have a need to stick by that. You to pay attention more closely so as to be able to understand, for example, the difference in meaning between the verbs 'refer' and 'mean.' It would only do you good to pay attention, as well, to the difference between the words 'definition' and 'meaning,' and 'sense.'

 

I am waiting for you to prove your honesty here. So far you have not. Get back with me on those questions, and show me that you have learned what is correct.

Edited October 1, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[immortal]

There are multiple sources that disagree with your assertion. One of them defines Pleroma as a region of the Abyss, home to demons.

 

Do you know who Abraxas is? He is the Holy Father of the Gnostics, its the place where all the pairs of opposites reconcile into one unity. Thanks for adding an another source which validates my position.

 

Add the fact that you're basing this assertion on your own interpretation

 

This is not my interpretation, this is the interpretation of the Gnostic Christians, a legitimate Christian sect.

 

and the fact that you're using a Greek word to add vagueness to the meaning and you've got a pointless mix of languages that's worthless as a definitive subject.

 

The Greek word "Pleroma" is a well defined term and it represents the 'Mystical Body of Christ', there is no ambiguity in it, there is no need to act like kids.

 

Mystical Body of Christ.

• In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Eph. 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12).

• This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).

G. H. JOYCE

 

 

This whole thread is worthless, imo,

 

Its worthless to those who want be in ignorance and in delusion but its worth it for those who want to learn the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity and there by achieve eternal life.

 

since the first claim you make is that preserving this vague and arguable point will make your religion live forever. Deception can't be fed ad infinitum. I think eventually enough people will see through it.

 

Valentinus, the Father of the Valentinian tradition is known as the Gnostic for all seasons and therefore whether its spring, summer or the winter Christianity will live forever. Restoration to fullness is inevitable .

 

Quite well said, Phi for All, the claim and presentation of OP is worse off than mere ignorance; although I would not tend to go so far as to say the 'whole thread' is useless. There is some information herein from which learning can be obtained. Even taking the view that learning just what type of error and misguiding there is out there, and how to avoid and counter it, would be something making the thread worth the while for those still learning.

 

Two wrongs doesn't make a right. You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion.

 

 

I have been in this field for at least 13 years, and though I am no longer active in the study, I do keep up with it all. It is not the first time to have to work towards protecting the public from the fanatical-like positions which come flooding in, from time to time. I agree that most will by now have understood the error upon error which is rampant in the presentation immortal is giving. It can be argued (at least) that people have the right to be wrong, but it cannot be accepted at all, that people have the right to wrong! The OPP is doing just that, and what is being wronged in the locked-in-time intention of the author of that letter, within the contextual setting therein, which setting was written so as to have the understanding of the direct and immediate audience of that letter. Also, better knowledge, understanding, and methodology of linguistic concerns is being wronged. I will not let that go unattended to.

 

Oh yes, my main concern of starting two threads in this religious forum is the amount of misrepresentation of pagan ideas and beliefs that has manifested all over the internet, people should know what the truth is, they should be made aware of the philosophical and the intellectual beliefs of pagan religions and how much their beliefs are relevant to this 21st century world and how powerful their ideas and knowledge were. Even I will not let that go unattended.

 

Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture Cambridge University Press 2012

 

 

Academics tend to look on "esoteric," "occult," or "magical" beliefs with contempt, but are usually ignorant about the religious and philosophical traditions to which these terms refer, or their relevance to intellectual history. Wouter J. Hanegraaff tells the neglected story of how intellectuals since the Renaissance have tried to come to terms with a cluster of "pagan" ideas from late antiquity that challenged the foundations of biblical religion and Greek rationality. Expelled from the academy on the basis of Protestant and Enlightenment polemics, these traditions have come to be perceived as the Other by which academics define their identity to the present day. Hanegraaff grounds his discussion in a meticulous study of primary and secondary sources, taking the reader on an exciting intellectual voyage from the fifteenth century to the present day, and asking what implications the forgotten history of exclusion has for established textbook narratives of religion, philosophy, and science.

 

- Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected knowledge in Western Culture, 2012

Wouter J. Hanegraff

 

Its very evident as to how ignorant some of the members here are about pagan ideas and how less it is being discussed in this forum but the time has come to take the highly philosophical and intellectual ideas coming from pagan roots highly seriously. Just because it doesn't suit their values and their culture a whole set of ancient wisdom is seen with contempt eyes and that attitude has to change, its not ancients who spoke nonsense, its your understanding of them that is nonsense. Most people don't know that Esotericism has testable consequences.

 

Now I know you do have a language problem, immortal. What you are doing (as more than simply what you are verbatim saying in written form here on this thread) is hard to describe in any other way than simply blatant intellectual dishonesty. What that refers to, is the matter of ignoring sound knowledge and facts while cherry picking, and twisting, and spinning things, after they have been removed from context. It is a good example of the immaturity of the less capable, those without the connectivity build which allows progress in learning, and/or those who have nothing better to do in life that run on rampant imaginary scenarios.

 

I like to speak in very simple words, for me the term "Pleroma" is not a verb, adverb or an adjective, for me its a noun, it represents something, it represents the Mystical Body of Christ. The same is with the Mind, the capitalization is necessary to avoid the common misunderstanding of associating the mind with the brain. Mind and brain are two different things.

 

You still did not answer the question I had asked you earlier about whether you understood the error in what you had written. You are still doing the same kind of thing over and over again. This is sad. It is the down side of the world wide web--most discussion boards get all kinds of folks. No. What you have said is completely rubbish, and your efforts in presenting what in your eyes can somehow be seen as evidence to support what you have erroneously posited, is very faulty. Wording things incorrectly and misleadingly, so as to pose them as representing what you have written, is something that I will not idly sit by and let go unopposed. You are not being intellectually honest about this. Answer the question I had asked earlier on, then, see below.

 

The silly Wiki page you keep using, and which is nothing to even support the 'way-off-the-wall-out-of-the-blue' interpretation which some had held way before even the internet had been dreamed of, says the following verbatim:

 

Pleroma (Greek πλήρωμα) generally refers to the totality of divine powers. The word means fullness from πληρόω ("I fill") comparable to πλήρης which means "full"

 

If you think conscientiously and introspectively about it--and I do wish you would demonstrate that you are doing more of that, darn it--you will note that this is exactly what I had said in my previous post. The word MEANS fullness! Could you not mentally grasp that in my post? Here is an example of sloppiness seen in your nonsensical position. You have demonstrated the inability to comprehend the difference between the verb phrases 'refer to' and 'mean. Can you not see that? If not, then I very strongly suggest you simply stop talking about something which you cannot understand the language well enough to be in a position to say anything at all about it.

 

All I am saying is that the Greek word gives some amazing insights into that passage of Collosians 2:9 if one uses the word 'pleroma' instead of fullness. The English word 'fullness' doesn't allow an allegorical interpretation of that passage. This is all what I am saying, hardly a few people would realize the depth of knowledge that can be obtained from that single verse if one uses the word "fullness" instead of "pleroma"

 

I see error in the lists which you got from ... guess where?! Early Paul was hardly esoteric at all. Additionally, the earliest writings of the authentic documents attributable to Paul, is the first Thessalonian letter. The other information is besides the point, and not worth thinking about (in that it has been demonstrated already to be false assertion on the part of those who had originated those lines of thinking).

 

Gnosticism is an open question and one is free to interpret the Pauline Epistles in the Gnostic sense and the work of Elaine Pagels put sufficient light on them. Don't be dogmatic and assert that my line of thinking is wrong or incorrect. Do know that your view may be wrong.

 

So here, you have a few outstanding things to do: You have an outstanding request to answer what I had asked you before. You have to work on grasping the understanding of the accurate and more correct terminology of the language you are using (English) [or any other language, for that matter]. It is demanded that you understand the difference between the collective application of the word 'religion,' and the specific identifying application of it. You need to inform yourself of the more accurate, and proper standard for the origin of the capitalization of the word 'god,' and then you have a need to stick by that. You to pay attention more closely so as to be able to understand, for example, the difference in meaning between the verbs 'refer' and 'mean.' It would only do you good to pay attention, as well, to the difference between the words 'definition' and 'meaning,' and 'sense.'

 

I am waiting for you to prove your honesty here. So far you have not. Get back with me on those questions, and show me that you have learned what is correct.

 

From now on I will prefix the word religion with Esoteric and will put all the religions into one category called the Esoteric Religions. This will avoid the confusion of using the term religion in a capitalization sense, the Esoteric religions was what ought to be called as serious religion but since orthodox religions have corrupted that term in modern days, I will use the term Esoteric Religions for separating them from orthodox religions and that will help people to see my arguments in a clear light and also from where I am coming from.

Edited October 1, 2012 by immortal

[LimbicLoser]

While you are making false claims and assertions as usual, you have a number of jobs in your 'to do' box, actually. You need to answer the question I had asked you first. There is error in the quotes from the citations too. (Another example of cherry picking to support a completely groundless and unsound claim!) Some things you are saying are correct, some aren't. I am not pointing out the correct (such as Pauline treatment of the congregation at large [church] being figuratively the body of the messiah) because they are correct. I am working on correcting the wrong.

 

The deal you have from the OP with the meaning of the noun in question, is a fatal error. The Greek word which is the noun form, which is rooted in connexion with the verb, means simply, and only, 'fullness.' What matter it is that is given which is doing the filling, is another thing; and will always come from the immediate and overall contextual setting. What that had been referring to at the textual point in question, is no problem--you have that right, it seems. The meaning you are trying to bury with untrue statements.

 

Additionally, in translation there is no need at all to transliterate (for the n^th time). Also, the meaning intended by the author within the confines of the historio-cultural point in time and position of both the author and the direct and immediate audience, cannot be altered. Interpretation best be left within the boundaries of such too--for the most part, usually.

 

And now, the answer to that first question is ... ? I am still waiting.

[immortal]

And now, the answer to that first question is ... ? I am still waiting.

 

Sure, I will address that.

 

@LimbicLoser said, "One does not (and I guarantee you that such will not be found in scholarly handling of the texts, and translations) mix transliteration forms in with the translated text (of the target language) unless it is a proper noun, or its original meaning (referent) is in some material degree of question and uncertainty. The only instance of any exception to that rule-of-thumb that I am aware of, is when an original language word is held in transliterated form within an otherwise translated textual portion, so as to hold the translation aside for the moment. This tooling is aimed at getting the contextually more accurate translation in the target language, and to avoid misguided, misunderstood, and otherwise simply incorrect traditionally proposed translations, leaking in while translating. It is usually used in papers arguing for a more correct translation. We do have a pressing need to be as correct, and accurate as we can, on as practical a range of points as possible, when doing this kind of work."

 

I have read books which are translated from the native language to a target language and in majority of the situations to avoid the change in context or the meaning of the word as understood in the native language the transliterated term is kept as it is without introducing a new term from the target language which fails to convey the same meaning which was conveyed by the original term in the native language.

 

For example:

Collosians 2:9 In Christ all the pleroma ¹ of Deity lives in bodily form.

 

[1] Pleroma refers to totality of Divine powers.

 

This is a better translation than using the term "fullness". That's what I think.

[LimbicLoser]

That does not answer the question, please go back to your #7, and see this:In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,. Then go back to my #23 on page two, and check the question one more time. Also, your using my text to construct your answer has caused a seeming syntactic error, of sorts. I believe you have not read properly, or simply didn't pay attention; for whatever reason. What you have said, again is totally incorrect. I do not understand how you can sit there and be so dogmatic about it. Go out there and count the number of translations into English of the NT, and come back and tell how many times that very noun, as well as the verb form which is its root connexion, is transliterated. You simply will not find it, immortal, and there is a very sound and valid, as well as methodologically correct, reason for that. The fact of the matter is that what I have presented herein is the truth of the matter.

 

I am waiting for you to proper answer that question !

[John Cuthber]

 

Its worthless to those who want be in ignorance and in delusion but its worth it for those who want to learn the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity and there by achieve eternal life.

 

 

 

Two wrongs doesn't make a right. You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion.

 

 

I'd bet that practically all the people in church, the last time I was there, would have had little or no understanding of "the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity"

I'm amused as hell to see that they face eternal damnation.

 

They didn't read the right books. God sends them to hell

"Two wrongs doesn't make a right."

Tell God.

 

 

"You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion."

OK, and the next question is "how do you have religion without group thinking?

 

 

BTW, am I right in thinking that next weeks topic for discussion will be "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin- with particular focus on the correct Latin/ Greek/ Hebrew translations and transliterations of the word 'pin'?"

[immortal]

That does not answer the question, please go back to your #7, and see this:In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,. Then go back to my #23 on page two, and check the question one more time. Also, your using my text to construct your answer has caused a seeming syntactic error, of sorts. I believe you have not read properly, or simply didn't pay attention; for whatever reason. What you have said, again is totally incorrect. I do not understand how you can sit there and be so dogmatic about it. Go out there and count the number of translations into English of the NT, and come back and tell how many times that very noun, as well as the verb form which is its root connexion, is transliterated.

 

What makes you think that I have not looked out those translations, you are being unnecessarily rude with me.

 

The original Barnes quote was taken from here - http://bible.cc/colossians/2-9.htm

 

So I am well aware that the term pleroma is not transliterated but instead "all the fullness" is used instead of it.

 

You simply will not find it, immortal, and there is a very sound and valid, as well as methodologically correct, reason for that. The fact of the matter is that what I have presented herein is the truth of the matter.

 

No, the fact of the matter is that the orthodox Church has simply suppressed the clear meaning of the pleroma and even you are arguing blindly without noticing its historical and theological context.

 

I am waiting for you to proper answer that question !

 

The term should be understood in a historical and a theological context.

 

 

“The term pleroma, we may presume, was common to St. Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its abode in Him.”

 

- Lightfoot, J.B., The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon, 1904, (Macmillan co., New York, NY) pg 265.

 

J.B. Lightfoot has an excellent commentary on The Epistles of St. Paul, Colossians and Philemon. All your queries will be answered by this chapter named -

 

On the meaning of Pleroma

 

 

That chapter sums it all and dissolves all our confusions. Thanks so much to J.B. Lightfoot for his excellent commentary. He talks both about the Pleroo (verb) and also the Pleroma (noun) and also the Valentinian view of the term Pleroma.

[immortal]

I'd bet that practically all the people in church, the last time I was there, would have had little or no understanding of "the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity"

I'm amused as hell to see that they face eternal damnation.

 

They didn't read the right books. God sends them to hell

 

 

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing."

(Gospel of Philip)

 

One doesn't get to enter the Kingdom of God by just reading a different book or by just knowing the higher teachings of St. Paul and Christianity.

 

"Unlike most religious movements, the Valentinian eschatological myth does not present events that are postponed until the afterlife or the end of the world. They believed that those who had gnosis experienced the restoration to Fullness (pleroma) here and now through visionary experiences and ritual. The orthodox teacher Irenaeus reports with some bewilderment that Valentinians claimed that they were "in the heights beyond every power" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1:13:6) and that they were "neither in heaven nor on earth but have passed within the Fullness and have already embraced their angel" (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:15:2). They described the experience of gnosis itself in terms of the eschatological myth."

 

One enters the Kingdom of God by being practical not by having book knowledge or by just keep believing in something.

 

"Two wrongs doesn't make a right."

Tell God.

 

"We are spirits controlled by God"

 

- Elaine Pagels.

 

Everything will return to fullness, the body of Christ and its inevitable.

 

"You guys do need a reality check, group thinking is dangerous and it only leads to delusion."

OK, and the next question is "how do you have religion without group thinking?

 

"On the other hand, we see how here and there a reaction took place against the sacramental rites. A pure piety, rising above mere sacramentalism, breathes in the words of the Gnostics preserved in Excerpta ex Theodoto, 78, 2:

 

But not baptism alone sets us free, but knowledge (

gnosis

): who we were, what we have become, where we were, whither we have sunk, whither we hasten, whence we are redeemed, what is birth and what rebirth."

They don't preach the gospels and try to proselytise people and they don't come and knock your doors, if its anything you have to go in search of wisdom and knock their doors because they have nothing to lose.

 

BTW, am I right in thinking that next weeks topic for discussion will be "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin- with particular focus on the correct Latin/ Greek/ Hebrew translations and transliterations of the word 'pin'?"

 

"The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition." (Irenaeus Against Heresies 3:2:1).

 

- A Valentinian.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

All very well, but it doesn't address the problem. A whole lot of people will "receive nothing" through no fault of their own.

Having done nothing deliberately wrong- but simply because they were unaware of what was "right" they are punished by God.

Bit of a bastard isn't He?

 

"The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."

So, what are the scriptures for? Is it to feed hour of debate on internet fora?

 

Or is that just an example of; exactly what a preacher would say in order to maintain mystique and power?

[LimbicLoser]

I see we have a major defect within your logical analysis processing flowchart--either that, or intellectually willful disingenuous tactics. Let me see if I can draw out your true colors here. I will take it that English is as much one of your mother tongues--if not the only one--as any other language may possibly be. I will take it that you actually hail from the Western hemispheric area of the globe, as per common usage. You have still failed to answer the question I had asked in a rational, honest, and fair way. Let me run it through one more time, please follow through on the facts of the verbatim statements and the chronological order, as well as the logical connectivity between it all.

 

In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos,

This immediately above is what you had written in your post number 7, on page one. The assertion is incorrect. Do you understand how it is incorrect? Please respond honestly to this question. I will then go on to see if I can help you learn the more, and most, correct understandings on this matter, and a little bit and inflection and conjugation. I have deadlines coming up, and may be sluggish, but will try to stick with it.

 

It is a fact that there is an error in your statement made in that post in question. It is not in relation to the transliteration you had provided. (And this is a big hint) Do you see where the fault lies? Do you understand that you have made an incorrect statement?

 

What makes you think that I have not looked out those translations, you are being unnecessarily rude with me.

I am not being unnecessarily rude with you at all. It may well be the case that you might tend to have some emotional activity which leads to such internal interpretation, but I am simply trying to correct your errors.

The original Barnes quote was taken from here - http://bible.cc/colossians/2-9.htm

For your information, I have a copy of Barnes Notes on The New Testament (1982 printing, Kregel Publications) on the shelf in my studio library. I know what it has written in it. Additionally, and just to fill you in, I have two Greek lexicons and copied portions of two different Greek grammars I had studied in the past. I have three Greek recensions, the best being Nestle & Aland's #27, so I know the various mss readings and possibilities, as well as the original tongue text. I have all this (with journal collections) in the studio library at my house.

 

So I am well aware that the term pleroma is not transliterated but instead "all the fullness" is used instead of it.

BUT see :

It is customary that everywhere the term "fullness" is used it can or must be substituted with the term "pleroma". I didn't designed that image but it makes sense. The one who designed it has used the statements from both the Colossians and the Ephesians of St. Paul.

If you substitute the word "pleroma" with "fullness" the meaning of the verse changes dramatically, in fact it leads to a different 'Father' altogether and almost a completely different religion. I think the English language should adopt words from different languages which conveys the meaning very clearly with a single precise word. The word pleroma should be substituted whenever fullness is used because that's how the term fullness should be understood.

 

You have essentially contradicted yourself. One point in the falure I have mentioned at the beginning of this post. Or, you have either corrected yourself--a display of cognitive plasticity function at work. (A very good and important thing.) I have earlier on in the thread provided the correct methodology and reasons for transliteration within the English translation of a text, and I do suggest that you pay attention to it--there is learning within.

 

No, the fact of the matter is that the orthodox Church has simply suppressed the clear meaning of the pleroma and even you are arguing blindly without noticing its historical and theological context.

Here, you demonstrate the inablity to cognitively express plasticity in a functioning manner. What I have said is true. Your statement above is completely incorrect--amounting to the value of hardly more than mere 'garbage can-bound' waste.

 

While I am fully aware of an amount of Dr. Lightfoot's work, this is the first time to see it be taken out of contextual and purpose rendered reasoning, to be twisted into an example for some immature nonsense. Anyway, I am waiting for a reasonable, honest, and fair response to the question I had asked some time ago. Thanks !

Edited October 3, 2012 by LimbicLoser

[immortal]

All very well, but it doesn't address the problem. A whole lot of people will "receive nothing" through no fault of their own.

Having done nothing deliberately wrong- but simply because they were unaware of what was "right" they are punished by God.

Bit of a bastard isn't He?

 

I don't think God is being unfair or has done injustice to anyone. Everyone is being treated equally and everyone is made into fullness whether one is poor or rich, black or white, whore or nun, ignorant or knowledgeable, everyone is truly made in the image of God and everyone can become the Father or by default has the potential to become the father.

 

The one who knows this its his strength, his divinity, his pleroma, no one can take this knowing from him.

 

 

John 10:28

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29

My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

John 10:30

I and the Father are one.”

 

 

"The scriptures are ambiguous and the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."

So, what are the scriptures for? Is it to feed hour of debate on internet fora?

 

Or is that just an example of; exactly what a preacher would say in order to maintain mystique and power?

 

Neither solely relying on the scriptures alone or on the oral traditions is the way to go, the right way to go is by scriptures + oral traditions and the main reason for the downfall of religion for all these years is because we have ignored the oral traditions and interpreted them the way you want without understand in its own milieu the way the oral traditions understood it.

[LimbicLoser]

That is complete nonsensical dancing among figments of the extreme imagination, immortal, and is one great and burdensome problem with too much of the world's populace. (even today) A major fallacy in in later late Christian doctrine, is that they had abused the information source of the deity of the Hebrew system's information source. They used neo-platonist error (of course, far less substantiated as being error at that time, so some allowance for excuse can be found) to structure elements derived from the tradition of earlier, early Christian's body of information.

 

Yahweh as well as the later Christian biblical god model have both been demonstrated to be nothing more than internal fancies of their authorship. Thus to appeal in any manner at all, so as to couch the postitive propositions made within the appeal as being knowledge about the external world we live in, is of very little worth, if of any at all. You have nothing at all by which you can ground any claim to sound knowledge which backs the silly things you are saying in the post above. You are wrong.

[immortal]

I see we have a major defect within your logical analysis processing flowchart--either that, or intellectually willful disingenuous tactics. Let me see if I can draw out your true colors here. I will take it that English is as much one of your mother tongues--if not the only one--as any other language may possibly be. I will take it that you actually hail from the Western hemispheric area of the globe, as per common usage. You have still failed to answer the question I had asked in a rational, honest, and fair way. Let me run it through one more time, please follow through on the facts of the verbatim statements and the chronological order, as well as the logical connectivity between it all.

 

I am not a chameleon to change colours, I have only one true colour and the quotes from the Gospel of Philip in my OP clears tells as to where I am coming from. Those are the mystical texts of Christianity and its a legitimate interpretation of Christianity.

 

'Gnostic' Texts vs. the New Testament

 

Two scholars debate whether texts like the Gospel of Thomas are incompatible with traditional Christianity.

 

Scholarly Smackdown: Did Paul Distort Christianity?

 

BY: With Elaine Pagels & Ben Witherington III

I have nothing to hide.

 

It is a fact that there is an error in your statement made in that post in question. It is not in relation to the transliteration you had provided. (And this is a big hint) Do you see where the fault lies? Do you understand that you have made an incorrect statement?

 

That's how one reads that verse in Greek and it clearly specifies the term pleroma as used many times in the Pauline Epistles.

 

I am not being unnecessarily rude with you at all. It may well be the case that you might tend to have some emotional activity which leads to such internal interpretation, but I am simply trying to correct your errors.

 

For the Valentinians the term pleroma represents a locality, it exists somewhere in its own realm. This is something you need to understand before trying to correct my errors.

 

 

BUT see :

 

You have essentially contradicted yourself. One point in the falure I have mentioned at the beginning of this post. Or, you have either corrected yourself--a display of cognitive plasticity function at work. (A very good and important thing.) I have earlier on in the thread provided the correct methodology and reasons for transliteration within the English translation of a text, and I do suggest that you pay attention to it--there is learning within.

 

Here, you demonstrate the inablity to cognitively express plasticity in a functioning manner. What I have said is true. Your statement above is completely incorrect--amounting to the value of hardly more than mere 'garbage can-bound' waste.

 

A casual reader who is not aware of early Christianity and the historical and the theological context of the usage of the term pleroma will not know that fullness (pleroma) should be interpreted as something which has a locality and its something which exists in its own realm and if you don't clearly specify what fullness (pleroma) is then its definitely not a good translation of the original meaning of the text and I stand by this.

 

While I am fully aware of an amount of Dr. Lightfoot's work, this is the first time to see it be taken out of contextual and purpose rendered reasoning, to be twisted into an example for some immature nonsense. Anyway, I am waiting for a reasonable, honest, and fair response to the question I had asked some time ago. Thanks !

 

As Dr. Lightfoot clearly demonstrates that in early Christianity the term pleroma actually represented a locality and it exists in its own realm, its just not a substance which fills or a receptacle which is being filled. This meaning of the term pleroma as the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which forms the Mystical body of Christ is the correct meaning of the term pleroma in a theological context, what is nonsense to you it is gold for Valentinus.

[LimbicLoser]

I see. As I get a little more time, I may come back and clear this up for the third party. You are still adding error on top of error,immortal, and until you actually show a far more intellectually honest demeanor, one wiling to get down to the details in a chronological and material degree of weightiness manner, there is little other to tell you, yourself, than that you are grossly mistaken, effectively misleading and misrepresenting--almost so that it would appear that some charge such as 'lying through one's teeth' would not seem to be so far fetched a charge--and must be warned about to others. You, immortal have now fully demonstrated a wilful choice to not answer to the question asked, neither to come clean and admit to that instance of error which you have committed in such loudmouthness. Additionally, you are still, as I have just now pointed out once again, adding error upon error. For example, almost every single line you have written in your above post stems from error--and you either cannot see it, or wish to hide it for the purpose of saving face.

 

One aspect of the world-wide web, as it has blossomed out, is that information and knowledge do have a vehicle by which to be spread out more easily to thosehonest and earnest learners around the globe. It has has some progress in helping set misguided and misinformed ideas and understandings aside, has helped in allowing some to free themselves from the bindings of falsehood that is pounded into their mental and social fabric from youth, by theist-involved religious belief systems. It unfortunately, nevertheless and at the same time, has allowed gross error and misinformation to fester and swell, infecting the dispositions of learning potential and capacity of some before they will have had the opportunity to branch out and see better. Of course, we will have no fault in mentioning--as it is most obviously and only a real factor of the world we live in--that not all are going to be of the cognitive acknowledging acuity and plastic flexibility as others. Not every student who has been given the exact same information, over the exact same distribution of time, will make 100 points on the very same test given to all the students thus taught; it's a fact of life forms with ganglion-derived brains. Some we can pity, and work with, but others we may often find little else that would work more effectively, or as well, than to thus probably have censoring as the only last resort--to whatever degree, and in whatever form.