once upon a time in hollywood (a brief memoir).
when i lived in los angeles, i was an art consultant with creative galleries.
among other things, we sold and rented art to movie studios.i worked with the set decorators who picked out whatever was needed.
I don't generally dwell on what is behind, but every once and awhile something will trigger a random thought. . .
and off we go!
For a kid who had only been a JW, a Federal Prisoner, a Pioneer, and a small town (Fort Worth) Texan--it was the adventure of a lifetime.
There's a lot more . . .
But, I'm not in the mood at the moment :)
once upon a time in hollywood (a brief memoir).
when i lived in los angeles, i was an art consultant with creative galleries.
among other things, we sold and rented art to movie studios.i worked with the set decorators who picked out whatever was needed.
ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD (A brief memoir)
When I lived in Los Angeles, I was an art consultant with Creative Galleries. Among other things, we sold and rented art to movie studios.
I worked with the set decorators who picked out whatever was needed. We became friends.
Two of the decorators divulged a little business they had going on "the side."
The two guys worked for MGM on the TV show CHiPS. Joe and Mel set up a business as a kind of 'broker." They would buy the art from us and sell it to themselves. Then, they would pretend to rent it from their "front" company. After the art was used for the scenes they needed it for---they would return the 'rented' art to their front company.
They did this not only with art but just about everything else.
They paid themselves and kept everything.
On my birthday, Joe arranged for me to be picked up by a long stretch limousine and chauffeured to MGM to watch an episode of CHiPS being filmed.
Joe provided me with a V.I.P. pass.
I was wearing a suit. I had my hands behind my back with my eyebrows arched and an insolent Elvis sneer on my lips. I stared at the A.D. and looked straight through her. She went up to all the non-essential personnel and barked at them. Finally, she headed my way.
I feigned boredom and malevolence, but--I'll tell you straight out--my widdle heart was pounding away like a blacksmith with a hot hammer!
The A.D. eyeballed me like a wolverine sniffs fresh meat, but she never said a word and passed me by within a comfortable zone of deference. I WAS IN!!
The guest Director that week was John Astin (Gomez) of Adaams Family fame. It was a Halloween episode being filmed in January!! One of the guest stars was Cassandra Peterson (Elvira Mistress of the Dark) and the sound stage was filled with the weirdest assortment of actors and supernumeraries you could imagine! I don't know what any of that had to do with California Hiway Patrol!
The A.D. blew her whistle like a volleyball coach and deathly silence reigned supreme. I prayed I wasn't standing in the wrong spot. John Astin nodded and the whistle blew again. It must have been the signal for "ACTION!"
The sound stage came alive with noise, movement, and a tiny Indian Runner motorcycle ridden by a "little person" in a CHiPS uniform. My eyes were as big as UFO's.
That was among my favorite all-time memories. It was a wonderful birthday present.
I was invited by Set Decorator Joe Kroesser one other time.
It was in Agoura. This is where Joe himself lived. He told me Agoura was very flat and sprawling, so it had been used a lot in Westerns in the past. Among the TV shows shot there had been a favorite of mine as a kid, SKY KING.
On this day, a small airport was the scene.
Evil Knievel JR. was going to do a wild stunt by jumping over a WWI biplane (flown by legendary stunt flyer, Frank Tallman) on his motorcycle.
There had to have been at least 200 people standing around waiting to shoot this scene. Why weren't they shooting already?
Joe told me.
Eric Estrada was holding production up! He had a really big ego by this time. He acted like King of the World. All because of Saturday Night Fever's popularity.
The show's writers saw the extraordinary interest in Disco becoming a national sensation. So, they wrote a silly episode around Estrada in a similar disco dance routine as had made John Travolta a superstar.
It worked like dynamite!
Overnight, Eric Estrada was launched as the superstar and the CHiPS budget was quadrupled!
Since Estrada knew he was responsible for all that money being thrown at the production, he took full advantage.
On this particular day, about 45 minutes late, a limousine pulled up in the muddy ruts of the airfield. While hundreds of crew members stood with their jaws agape, Estrada and a very, very Bimboesque (worse for wear) blonde stumbled out as "Ponch" marched her in front of all the men's envious eyes. She was wearing high heels in the grass and mud and each time she pulled her heel unstuck she would--um--bounce a little. (Or a lot!)
Finally, make-up ran over and seized Ponch and dragged him into a trailer. About half an hour later, he emerged looking exactly the same--but--in uniform.
The biplane's engines roared to a start. Evel Junior revved his engine on the motorbike. A practice run-through was commenced. The timing and coordination were choreographed to the half-second! Every single element was planned out for the jump to work. The cycle had to hit the ramp at the precise instant to gain altitude enough to clear the overshoot. The cycle would go over the top of the biplane exactly as it crossed low enough to the ground to allow it to pass.
Let me cut to the chase!
The signal to begin was a loud starter pistol. At the "Bang!" the clockwork stunt commenced, worked the miracle and ended before you could say, "Bob's yer Uncle."
Estrada had a single line on camera. Then, he and his bimboette paraded once again back to their limo and zipped off to--each of us had our own imagined destination in mind.
When I watched the scene play out on TV some years later, it looked like nothing. In fact, it looked easily as though it could be faked. But--it wasn't!
A fortune was spent on all that nonsense.
From 1977-83 Joe made a great living with his double-dealing "props for sale" side business. It was great fun knowing him.
He invited me to his house once. It was quite lavish. He was a lonely divorced man living alone in a sprawling ranch house. He threw parties and invited attractive women. He tried to live the Hollywood life and trade on his "fame."
Well, it didn't seem to do him much good with the ladies.
We all know what happened to Estrada when his stardom turned to cow plop.
He became a self-joke. He'd pop up in TV commercials as a parody of his CHiPS character. He was about 50 pounds heavier.
can history really be destroyed?.
would otherwise moral authorities participate in such destruction?.
can we believe there is accuracy in historical documents pertaining to the early christian church?.
The (Catholic) Church became a self-appointed clearinghouse of VALID vs INVALID
writings. It was the gatekeeper of orthodoxy.
Which writings were "inspired" and which weren't? Were any?
These are portentous matters.
What I find fascinating about Papias is what sets him apart from all the others.
Papias asked questions and got answers. He conducted interviews and wrote down his process. When you compare this process with his contemporaries, the distinctions mark a difference.
In my personal view, every speaker got their favorite chewy nugget from somebody ELSE. It is ALL hearsay. But--wouldn't it be delicious to discover what wide disparity and divergence had entered the teaching, the story and the biography of Jesus so very early on?
In Math class, you are instructed to "show your work." Why? Because the 'answers' are beside the point--the process by which the student works out the chain of logic tells the teacher the important thing: state of mind+quality of reasoning.
I like Papias. I don't like Eusebius. An honest historian allows ALL the evidence to be seen. I think we don't have Papias works because they were held back or destroyed--or--made to appear worthless.
But the greater question is this:
Why are these authorities in the Early Church so high-handed and peremptory rather than humble, modest, and open-minded?
#notsatire.
thanks to wifibandit and pixel for collaborating on this.
more to come.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxce4duetw8.
Saying without saying is clever, because you can't be quoted as having come out against the rights of others.
Chalk one up for Morris.
ever wonder why jehovah's witnesses have almost nothing but words instead of love?.
every wonder why jw's praise their corporate leaders rather than jesus?.
every wonder why faith is only demonstrated by allowing children to die and molesters to escape, or disasters to be welcomed through obstinate demonstrations of loyalty to the org?.
I was talking to a current, active JW on Monday.
I was asked, "What would it take, in your opinion, for the average JW to hear, learn, become aware of, which would make them suddenly 'wake up' and decide to abandon the whole religion?
Here is how I responded.
I said, "I think of Jehovah's Witnesses as passengers who have boarded a large jet airplane. They are confident of their ultimate destination and very happy with their Pilot and Co-Pilot.
Now observe! What happens if a series of errors on the part of the Pilot brought them into the middle of a terrible electric storm, with bad weather buffeting them about?
Do you think everybody on board would ask for a parachute? No way! Just the opposite!
They'd fasten themselves in tighter than before and place even MORE confidence in the flight crew because--as they see it--TRUSTING THE FLIGHT CREW IS THEIR ONLY HOPE OF SURVIVAL!
This is human nature: to FEAR LOSS more than taking a risk for GAIN.
Cognitive Dissonance describes the process perfectly. When a person's most cherished beliefs are challenged--it causes them to cling more tightly and defend against loss no matter what.
WAKING UP for a JW is like the thing which happens to an alcoholic. They have to hit bottom and see there is nothing left to lose and everything to gain.
the jw religion is sort of like norman bates' mother.
she was supposed to be a proper caretaker, teacher, and role model--but--instead she was a corrupting influence.. even after 'mother' is gone--it is so easy to keep her embalmed in our subconscious like norman did in the fruit cellar.. when pressures weigh heavily on us and we start losing it--well, something like the character and personality of 'mother' may creep into our thinking.
mightn't it?we really have to exert our individuality at all times and rise above.
And they see themselves as Neutral in time of War!
can history really be destroyed?.
would otherwise moral authorities participate in such destruction?.
can we believe there is accuracy in historical documents pertaining to the early christian church?.
Concerning the disambiguation of JOHN THE APOSTLE and JOHN (the Presbyter or writer of Revelation) we read:
From wiki:
After quoting Papias, Eusebius continues:
Eusebius identifies John the Presbyter as the author of the Book of Revelation, the canonical status of which he disputed as he disagreed with its content, especially the Chiliasm implied in the "millennial kingdom".
The view of Eusebius was taken up by the Church Father Jerome in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men). In Chapter 9, which deals with the Apostle John and his writings, he ascribes to him both the Gospel and the First Epistle, and continues to say:
In Chapter 18, discussing Papias, Jerome repeats the fragment quoted above and continues:
can history really be destroyed?.
would otherwise moral authorities participate in such destruction?.
can we believe there is accuracy in historical documents pertaining to the early christian church?.
I understand what you're saying, jhine.
I take it (John 21:25) as expressing an estimation of how many things were said and done by Jesus which were never written down in contrast to the few things which were.
First century Christians were apocalyptic in their expectations. They believed Jesus when he told them they would 'by no means' complete the circuit of cities preaching the coming Kingdom of God before He returned.
Millions then living would never die. (Wee joke)
Each new generation of Christian believers had a slightly more 'evolved' story to believe as the passage of time kept falsifying claims of "soon" for the return of Christ.
THE NEED FOR WRITING THINGS DOWN must have seemed wholly unnecessary at first--but--as time passed--more and more so.
We know the stories of Jesus and His teachings were constantly changing because they were transmitted orally among the Jewish Messianic Christians until the Bishop of Hieropolis took the trouble to interview and write down current teachings from those who had been taught by disciples and Apostles.
STILL WITHIN THE FIRST CENTURY, the tales were so wild and divergent few Gentile Christians could believe them. The first church historian, Eusebius, thought most of what Papias (the Bishop who conducted the interviews) reported was goofy nincompoopery.
since the wt organization claims 'apostolic succession " who was it that passed the torch to c.t.
russell who founded this organization of sheeple?
ask judge rutherford, or milton henschel, maybe they know.
Mr. logic: Since the WT organization claims "apostolic succession " who was it that passed the torch to C.T. Russell who founded this organization of sheeple?
_____________________
First century Christians were apocalyptic in their expectations. They believed Jesus when he told them they would 'by no means' complete the circuit of cities preaching the coming Kingdom of God before He returned.
Millions then living would never die. (Wee joke)
Each new generation of Christian believers had a slightly more 'evolved' story to believe as the passage of time kept falsifying claims of "soon" for the return of Christ.
We know the stories of Jesus and His teachings were constantly changing because they were transmitted orally among the Jewish Messianic Christians until the Bishop of Hieropolis took the trouble to interview and write down current teachings from those who had been taught by disciples and Apostles.
STILL WITHIN THE FIRST CENTURY, the tales were so wild and divergent few Gentile Christians could believe them. The first church historian, Eusebius, thought most of what Papias (the Bishop who conducted the interviews) reported was goofy nincompoopery.
Why do I mention this?
The idea of any necessity of APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION would fly in the face of Jesus coming back 'soon.'
About three to four hundred years after Jesus had disappeared, the idea of 'succession' began to seem more and more necessary for credibility.
Jesus gave Peter the "keys to the Kingdom" and the church used that as pretext for
a 'hand-me-down' situation.
So my direct answer to your question is: A fictional need for apostolic succession has no need of explaining.
In all honesty, it was the Protestant Revolution which brought a do-it-yourself approach to salvation. Martin Luther replaced the idea of an infallible Pope with a new doctrine called SOLA SCRIPTURA. That meant any Joe Blow could simply read scriptures and pray and "presto" God would reveal the 'truth' and the 'meaning' of it all.
This do-it-yourself hubris led to sects springing up like mushrooms in a forest after a spring rain!
Today we have 40 THOUSAND Christian denominations.
Pastor Russell was against sectarianism AND organization. It was his wife, Maria (pronounced Moe-rye-uh) who applied the "faithful and wise servant" parable to her hubby and regarded it as a prophecy fulfilled in the Pastor's ministry.
This Hocus-Pocus is as close as you can get to "apostolic succession" in the JW
teachings. A direct hotline to Jehovah has proved to be a powerful MacGuffin for claims of Authority, hasn't it?
can history really be destroyed?.
would otherwise moral authorities participate in such destruction?.
can we believe there is accuracy in historical documents pertaining to the early christian church?.
Mephis-I don't think you can make the leap to Papias' works being suppressed or deliberately destroyed because they are lost?
_______________
Controversies threatened the peace within Constantine's rule, otherwise he would not have given a rat's pucker about divergent religious squabbles.
There is, pragmatically, no other way to settle differences in religious belief than to resort to proscription (banning.) You can't legislate what people THINK, only what they practice.
There is a fourfold stage echoed in today's Jehovah's Witness Governing Body in its dealings with Internet material by ex-JW's, Apostates, and religious critics.
1. Undermine the person
2. Marginalize the message
3. Spread pejoratives about both
4. Propagandize counterfactually
Eusebius had to deal with the fact Papias was well-regarded for several hundred years. There was nothing he could do retroactively except what he did proceed to do.
In his official Church History, Eusebius undermined Papias' intelligence, ridiculed Papias' writings as legend, myth, and exaggeration, and undermined his reputation.
The absence of copies of so well-attested a work as the 5 volumes of a Bishop who interviewed Apostles, disciples of Apostles and pressed for explanations is, well awfully suspicious to my mind.
Tertullian's work survives--AND FOR THAT REASON--makes the non-survival of Papias all the more suspect. It isn't what Tertullian believed which is important so much as what Papias' 5 volumes report which made it dangerous to uber-orthodoxy.
Papias was too well known to be obliterated entirely, but no so protected from Church hierarchy as to escape 'other means' necessary.
I present only circumstantial arguments, certainly.
Your mileage may vary.
