Posts by TerryWalstrom

16

TERRY EXPLAINS JAZZ (to those who hate jazz)

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

terry explains jazz (to those who hate jazz)_______________________________.

there are too many reasons to cite.

suffice to say, we all know annoying people.. we don't become a hermit because of a few annoying people.

CONFUSION about what MOVIES REALLY ARE . . .

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

confusion about what movies really are.

.. the word 'movies' is a vernacular reference which popped up pretty early in the history of filmmaking.

before movies moved they were still photographs.. but those still photographs began moving, didn't they?

TerryWalstrom

CONFUSION about what MOVIES really are. . .

The word 'movies' is a vernacular reference which popped up pretty early in the history of filmmaking. Before movies moved they were still photographs.

But those still photographs began moving, didn't they?
Yes, they did!

Movies MOVED long before they began to SPEAK.

When they began talking, they became "TALKIES."

Ah the brilliance!

I don't really know what they are today other than a bafflement to many critics who seem to feel they alone know the secret.
But, they don't.

Read on . . .

Movies are a VISUAL medium which exists in time. Just like music.
(I want you to put a Post-it note on that sentence, will you?) You'll find out soon enough why.

What does NOT exist in time is the written word. A slow reader can read S-L-O-W-L-Y. A fastreadercanreadveryquickly!

Is that important? Yes.
Before Radio, music recordings, and movies people READ books.

Now pause. . .

Who controls how fast you read and how quickly you understand? YOU DO!

However, when radio came along and acted out stories which people had read, the pace quickened. (How do you get a whole book into a half hour radio show?)

Movies came along and the tempo quickened apace. (i.e. quickly)
When music was added to the soundtrack of movies a continuum of storytelling entered the consciousness of human beings for THE VERY FIRST TIME.

So what?

So this. . .

Movies are a visual medium which are misunderstood by critics and audiences and filmmakers quite often.

Those frustrated with film don't know why--but they think they know--something is often 'just not right' with what they experience when they sit in the audience.

Critics often ASSume the flaw is in the storytelling, the plotting, the editing, the THIS-ing and the THAT-ing. (Fill in your own best theory.)

No. No. And NO.

The perfect film is VISUAL. Remove the sound and you can understand everything perfectly just from what you SEE onscreen. Words, exposition, explanations, plot summaries by characters VIOLATE the visual nature of movies. (It doesn't MOVE, you see.)

Silent films inserted dialog cards with conversation and transitional information on a separate stretch of film in between the visuals. It was clumsy and ham-handed for a reason. It was not visually interesting!

The best early TALKIES were singers and dancers, chases, pratfalls, as well as any active motion which could be introduced. The motion and the sound were synchronized to prevent SLOWING DOWN the scenes.

That didn't last long. Filmmakers with a strong sense of culture wished to inject literature and classicism into movies. European composers were brought in to inject classic ROMANTIC orchestral scores. (Or a facsimile.)
European actors, directors, etc. lent an air of 'importance' to what was essentially an American invention gone off the rails.

Critics for movies aped the classical music highbrow critics by fault-finding and making arch commentary which belittled the whole enterprise of movie-making.

Studios began making IMPORTANT films every once and awhile to keep the critics at bay. NOVELS were turned into movies. It was hoped that great and popular novels made great and popular films.
------Meh.----
The films which were MOSTLY VISUAL worked the magic.
The films which relied on talking heads and long speechifying. . . not so much.
(Non-visual.)

Along came Orson Welles and used many visual tricks to solve his central mystery ("Who is Rosebud?")
If you only listen to the AUDIO of CITZEN KANE you'll discover it to be a radio program which virtually plays itself out.) However, the striking visuals were the double-whammy.

Has movie-making learned the lesson of Orson Welles' CITIZEN KANE?

Sometimes and by accident.
You see, there are really two streams of audiences for motion pictures.
The intellectual and the popular.
Intellectuals want a solid story well-told, with perfect continuity and cleverly plotted.
Popular movie lovers want EXCITING VISUALS with a story.

What are the most popular films of all time as far as money earned?
Are they talkfests with pictures or are they visual feasts with dialog?

I'm going to attach a list from MOJO of the 100 top-grossing films of all time.

Go through the list and separate the MOSTLY VISUAL from the MOSTLY STORY films.

I think you'll realize my point.
Which is?

DON'T LET INTELLECTUAL CRITICS review Popular Films!

Would you listen to a country music critic's review of a Rolling Stones album?
Oh--excuse me--there is no such thing.

Country music fans simply relax and enjoy the music!

Popular film lovers just relax and enjoy VISUAL movies.

The FANBOYS are the (excuse my use of the word) INTELLECTUAL hoople-heads who destroy movies for the rest of us by nitpicking the plot, construction, continuity, etc. instead of simply relaxing and enjoying THE VISUALS!

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

(n scanning the list, I'd place THE DA VINCI CODE in the mostly prattle department. It's success was driven by a runaway best-selling nonsense book. Next, THE SIXTH SENSE was mostly plot-driven with a dynamite twist ending (like an O Henry story.) LIF OF PI was a stunningly visual rendition of a wonderful novel. It is the Citizen Kane of the group.)

16

TERRY EXPLAINS JAZZ (to those who hate jazz)

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

terry explains jazz (to those who hate jazz)_______________________________.

there are too many reasons to cite.

suffice to say, we all know annoying people.. we don't become a hermit because of a few annoying people.

TerryWalstrom

TERRY EXPLAINS JAZZ (to those who hate jazz)
_______________________________

Step one:
We all know annoying people. You may even be one of them! There are too many reasons to cite. Suffice to say, we all know annoying people.

We don't become a hermit because of a few annoying people. We simply avoid THOSE people if we can.

Yes, JAZZ is like that. Only SOME Jazz is annoying. Avoid THOSE.
_______________________________

Step two:

Some people are quick about saying something clever. It just pops out! Others seem to take way too long to say nothing worth hearing.

JAZZ is like that.
Good Jazz is like somebody clever saying something they've thought up at the very instant of conception--and it comes out surprising and thoughtful.

________________________________

Step three:

If you stand next to Foreigners and listen to them converse--doesn't it sound like gibberish? Sure! Is the unintelligible part THEIR fault or yours?

Just asking. For a reason I bring this up: Jazz is a language. Its vocabulary has to be absorbed. Once taken in both intellectually and emotionally--WOW!

________________________________

Step four:

Are you a cat person or a dog person? Maybe both?
Jazz is like that. If you are a cat person trying to listen to dog Jazz--you will NOT like it. Vice-verse.

If you're lucky, you're both and have a jump on a wider range of enjoyment.

Knowing yourself is important. How do you use music in your life?

1. Do you listen to music to relax?
2. Do you listen to music to help you do other things with energy?
3. Do you listen to music to challenge yourself and your imagination?
4. Do you just have music on in the background for 'company'?

JAZZ is like that.

______________________________________

Step five:

What if you could magically add another room to your house? What if you could miraculously have another and completely different car or wardrobe?

By adding another category of LISTENING music, you have done yourself a huge favor. You've made your world MORE INTERESTING!

HOWEVER--you become more interesting as a person by being interested.
Learning begins with personal curiosity!
If you take a class or a lesson and you're NOT INTERESTED--you're wasting your time, money and energy.

JAZZ requires your interest and curiosity. ARE YOU WILLING?

___________________________________

Step six:

What Jazz is like. . .

1. Some people can tell a joke and make you laugh. Jazz is like that.
2. Some people cannot tell a joke. Jazz is like that, too.

What's the difference between the two?

Personality, character, intelligence?

JAZZ is a joke you don't laugh at because you either don't 'get it' or the person playing it 'can't tell the joke funny.'

What's the difference between the two?

_______________________________

Step seven:

I'm going to challenge you to listen to a piece of music and have curiosity about what you're hearing. I want you to ASK questions about what SPECIFIC things you LIKE and DON'T like about it.

Okay?

Here is your lesson for the day. Listen and ask questions.

BILL EVANS trio "Gloria's Step take 2"
______________________________
Fans who want to appreciate the artistry of Bill Evans must start with the great live Village Vanguard session from June 25, 1961. Evans never led a better band, and this ensemble never performed at a higher level than on this date. It is no exaggeration to claim that the essence of the piano trio in jazz was permanently altered by this seminal event. The idea that bass and drums should support the piano is replaced here by a different conception—one in which each instrument enters into a musical conversation with the others. The trio also adopts what Evans called the "internalized beat" in which each musician feels the rhythm, but doesn't always emphasize it in his playing. As a result the music floats over the bar lines in a way that no previous jazz ensemble had attempted.

But these are more than conceptual breakthroughs. What sets this music apart is how brilliantly these concepts are realized in practice. This music doesn't sound like anyone is out to prove anything. Its innovations are subservient to the intense emotional experience of the music itself.
Musicians: Bill Evans (piano), Scott LaFaro (bass), Paul Motian (drums).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARGPAkIcw4

7

VIEWS ON RACE (My own)

by TerryWalstrom in

my views on race.

my grandmother and mother came from new orleans without any perceivable sense of superiority toward people of color.

the infamous n-word was never uttered in my household.

TerryWalstrom

Terry, you've had a very interesting life. You could write a book. Oh wait you did write a book, I mean two. But it's not the same as being inside your head and feeling all the emotions and thoughts that went though your mind- real time.

Well, I've written two books . . . so far. I've been working on a kind of semi-historical auto-biography. Which is to say, it has a bit of Texas history in it. These things I post are sort of stages of the rocket sending the real stuff into orbit :)

7

VIEWS ON RACE (My own)

by TerryWalstrom in

my views on race.

my grandmother and mother came from new orleans without any perceivable sense of superiority toward people of color.

the infamous n-word was never uttered in my household.

TerryWalstrom

Interesting OP, Terry.

Just for me: is your 'Paw-Paw' your grandfather or father?

Also, your surname interests me. Is it Swedish?

Paw-Paw seems to be a Southern nickname for Grandfather. My Grandmother was Maw-Maw.

I've also heard kids say, Pa-Paw and Mam-Maw.

My surname is Finnish.

9

PERFECTION (ISM) leaves no trace of YOU

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

the problem of perfection(ism).

the best piece of advice i got was from my art teacher, aubrey mayhew.he told me, "art isn't about 'getting it right.

' it's about your mistaken views which you give yourself permission to explore.".

TerryWalstrom

THE PROBLEM OF PERFECTION(ism)

The best piece of advice I got was from my art teacher, Aubrey Mayhew.
He told me, "Art isn't about 'getting it right.' It's about your mistaken views which you give yourself permission to explore."

Until that moment, I was an Art Perfectionist.
I would labor mightily to 'get it right.' Mine was a kind of photographic perfectionism. If my portraits did not look like pencil drawings, I was satisfied I had 'got it right.'

Mr. Mayhew showed me drawings by Michaelangelo.
"See? You can easily tell these are only drawings--but--what drawings they are!"

It was true. The not-perfect of Michaelangelo somehow seemed better than any perfection I might attempt.

The question bothered me--WHY?

I never enjoyed my portraits--while others raved and paid money for them.
Mayhew had destroyed my sense of accomplishment.

Did he hurt me or help me? I still don't know--but--I went on to pursue a career in art. I left Texas for California and worked with some amazingly creative people.

None of the superb artists I met seemed to regard perfection as any kind of goal or aspiration. I questioned them very closely.

One painter told me, "I try to add one little bit of color that makes no sense!"
"Why?"
"It's a reminder."
"Of what?"
"It reminds people not to fall for seeing what they expect to see."

_______________

Another artist explained his peculiar view to me. . .
"You see how some of the old Masters left no traces of their brush strokes? That was the result of religious mania."
"How do you figure that?"
"By removing the brushstrokes, they thought to remove the human being with all his imperfection. . . leaving only the beauty of God's nature."
"I don't get it.'
"The Renaissance was the end of the Dark Ages when men were smothered by the Church and perfectionism. But, they weren't ready to abandon their sense of themselves as sinful and corrupt in the sight of God."

"Yeah? Go on--what else?"
"If you remove yourself from the act of creation--it's an act of suicide and not self-abnegation. An artist is the God of his artwork. Why deny there is no painter? It is atheism."

"Sounds nutty to me."

"It is. It was. It took hundreds of years for society to accept anything other than nature paintings of humans, landscapes, fruit, etc. It was because these things were seen to acknowledge God and deny importance to man."

"I'll have to think about that one!"

"Don't. Until the Impressionists like Monet in art and Debussy in music dared to deconstruct nature 'as is' and reassemble it--Art suffered a selfless claustrophobia of existential suicide."

"I think I'm sorry I asked!"

"Picasso came along and destroyed the past by exploding everything in a ruthless gesture of anarchy! He defied Art by defying perception itself as a mirror of reality. In other words, he finally gave artists permission to exist on their own terms!"

"By destroying beauty, form, and perfection?"

"Especially by destroying the stale and vicious lie called 'Perfection.'"

____________________________

SO. . . ?

Perfectionism is an excuse for not having your own point of view.
Perfectionism is a retreat into formality without commentary.
Perfectionism is a kind of legalism in which humans must 'obey' or be punished.

ART isn't art unless it does two things.
1. It stops you and challenges your sense of 'rightness.'
2. It changes you in some way. You can't walk away without being changed.

Perfectionism challenges nothing in the status quo.
By 'getting it right' you cease to be important.
You may as well not even exist as a thinking, feeling, unique life form.
Why?

Perfectionism leaves no trace of you. After all, you are imperfect!

7

VIEWS ON RACE (My own)

by TerryWalstrom in

my views on race.

my grandmother and mother came from new orleans without any perceivable sense of superiority toward people of color.

the infamous n-word was never uttered in my household.

TerryWalstrom

MY VIEWS ON RACE

(uh-oh!)

My grandmother and mother came from New Orleans without any perceivable sense of superiority toward people of color. The infamous N-word was never uttered in my household. People were just 'people.'

At the age of nine. . . (1956)
One day I opened a big white cabinet back in our barnlike storage shed. Inside I found a beautiful silk garment with a hood and red letters: KKK on it.

He explained it to me and I'll now share it with you with as much accuracy as I can recall.

My Paw-Paw, because he read the Bible a "certain way," thought it was God's will that races should not 'mingle.' But, he wasn't vocal about it unless you drew him out in a religious context. Yes, he thought Noah's son was cursed by being 'turned black.' He couldn't show me the words which specifically said that--but--people he trusted had assured him it was the case. I got that context out of him first.

Here's what he told me:

"I don't have anything against anybody, black or white. But, the Bible makes it clear God made us 'according to our own kind' and he doesn't want us mixing."
"Why?" I innocently asked.
"I don't know, but who am I to question God's will?"

As I got a bit older I learned more about the Klu Klux Klan and the outrageous terrorism they wrought upon the South after slaves were freed. So, one day I went back to my Paw-Paw and continued the conversation.

"Did you ever hurt anybody just because they weren't white?"
He assured me he had not.
"We live so close to the railroad tracks, vagrants pass through very often. Hobo camps next to the railroad lead to bums gathering together and committing crimes in the neighborhood. We (local KKK) scare them off, but we never hurt anybody."

I asked how they scared people away. He told me how the KKK would dress up in hooded outfits and surround the camp, suddenly light torches, and point weapons at all the bums (any color--not necessarily non-white.) The Grand Wizard wore a red robe. He had a low-pitched voice that boomed when he threatened doom if the men didn't leave and never come back.

All this was quite unsettling to me.

I turned to my Grandmother. I asked her questions, too. Since she had been a little girl in a French household in New Orleans, she had been raised around many people of different colors.

"Nobody I knew had any prejudice in their heart," she began, "you learned to treat people who were decent and kind with decency and kindness. That's all there was to it."

This made sense to me. So, I asked about the 'bums' and the 'hobo camps' a block away next to the Katy Railroad.

"Many of those men passed through during the Depression Era looking for jobs and food. If they knock on our door and ask for an odd-job in exchange for food I give it to them. Or--at least--I use to do it. But, I stopped when I found out they used chalk to draw special signs on the curb in front of your house. These chalk signs were a signal to other hobos. One sign meant, "Free food--no work involved." Another meant, "Food IF you work." Still another meant, "Angry person who calls the cops."
And so on. Once I fed one or two of them we were overwhelmed four of five times a day and couldn't get rid of them. One of these men broke into the house next door and threatened a woman for money."

I'm sure my eyes grew wide as I asked what happened next.

My Paw-Paw and his KKK minions made a raid on the hobo camp and demanded to know who this guy was--or else!
The bums gave up the man, whose name I still vividly recall to this day, Earl Bunt. He was turned over to the police without a scratch. The man claimed he was drunk at the time and meant no harm.

By now you are wondering:

Why do I tell you all this from a long time ago?

I see things with the eyes of that child I once was. My grandparents were well-meaning. They did what they thought was right. Neither of them was 100% in the safe zone of moral perfection! They gave 'reasons' for things. It was based on something and not nothing.

---------One more thing ----------

About 1961 everything changed.

Black kids went to white schools and frightened white parents removed their kids and sent them to 'special' private schools (if they could afford it.)

On the South side of Fort Worth, the 'color line' (an invisible barrier beyond which white and black did not mix) had broken at last. This was the season of something called WHITE FLIGHT.

Those who could afford it sold their beautiful houses in upscale neighborhoods and ran like hell for the suburbs. Black families (using white go-betweens) purchased these houses at way below market value. (Nobody else, i.e. white, would pay anything at all to live there.)

He called me, "Mister Terry." Wow! I didn't have the self-awareness to realize he had been taught deference by his parents when he was talking to white people. (Even kids like me.)

I was called "Nig*er Lover!" This was screamed with an explosive expression of malevolence. I can't begin to describe how ugly it was.

What I realize now I never even thought about back then--my Paw-Paw never tried to argue with me that I should have nothing to do with my black friend. Why? I don't know. He automatically took my side. I begged both of them not to go up to my school to complain to the Principal.

I was deeply offended by my treatment from school kids. Not all of them--in fact few of them--were vocal about any of this. But--you may have already noticed--I was not offended on behalf of my friend. (His name was Prince, by the way. No, not THAT Prince :)

But why?

Prince took it all with indifference. It seemed not to affect him one tiny bit. All he said was, "Consider the source."

I didn't understand what he meant, but I didn't press.

Today I do understand and I'll share that understanding with you.

There will always be people who are nasty, bold-faced and ignorant who demonstrate prejudice toward other people.

They have 'reasons' and contexts which appear to support a certain kind of 'truth."

These are almost invariably truly stupid people.

It is part of the territory. In fact--they are a very small number so loud and destructive it seems they are more prevalent than they really are.

These are the people singled out for newspaper headlines. The greater majority of regular people don't make the news.

We can't be putting on white silk robes to threaten them--even if we are on the "RIGHT" side.

Why? Because that's the big red flag of ignorance: the most dangerous people on this planet are CONVINCED THEY ARE RIGHT.

None of us knows what's in another person's head or heart.
We can't know.

We must listen. We must watch for actions.

There is no justification for violence---not ever.

(On either side.)

80

Is RIDICULE acceptable in online debating?

by nicolaou in

this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .

.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.

the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.

TerryWalstrom

A valid form of debate is REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM, whereby you reduce your opponent's argument down to its logical result and demonstrate it to be stupid, laughable and absurd.

Almost all of Watchtower teaching self-contradicts. ex falso quodlibet = if a contradiction is accepted, any proposition (or its negation) can be proved from it.

17

How EARLY CHURCH divisions destroyed HISTORY

by TerryWalstrom in

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?.

TerryWalstrom

Here is a copy and paste from Bart Ehrman's blog (I'm a subscriber) following up on his recent discussion of

Papias and the Early Church.

(I urge you--if you have in-depth interest in these matters--to subscribe to Ehrman's Blog. All subscription funds go to feed the hungry.)

_____________________________

(4 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)

Papias and the Eyewitnesses

I have been discussing the writings of Papias, his lost five-volume Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. Scholars of the New Testament have long ascribed huge significance to this work, in no small part because Papias claims to have ties to eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. In my view this championing of Papias is misguided. I say something about that in my new book on Jesus Before the Gospels (or whatever we end up calling it); I will probably be going into a more sustained analysis in my scholarly book that I’m working on next on memory and the historical Jesus.

The excitement over Papias as a link to our eyewitnesses is based largely on the following passage that is quoted from his writing by Eusebius in his early-fourth-centuryChurch History. This was written about 200 years after Papias, but Eusebius had read Papias’s book and so could quote from it. In his discussion of the book Eusebius mentions the references to Papias in the writings of Irenaeus, from around 180 CE, just 40 or 60 years after Papias.

Here is what Eusebius says:

************************************************************

There are five books written by Papias in circulation, entitled “An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.” Irenaeus remembers these as the only ones Papias wrote, as he somewhere says, “And Papias as well, an ancient man — the one who heard John and was a companion of Polycarp – gives a written account of these things in the fourth of his books. For he wrote five books.” [cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.33.4]

Thus Irenaeus. But Papias himself, in the preface of his work, makes it clear that he himself neither heard nor saw in person any of the holy apostles. Instead, he declares that he received the matters of faith from those known to them. As he says:

“I also will not hesitate to draw up for you, along with these expositions, an orderly account of all the things I carefully learned and have carefully recalled from the elders; for I have certified their truth. For unlike most people, I took no pleasure in hearing those who had a lot to say, but only those who taught the truth, and not those who recalled commandments from strangers, but only those who recalled the commandments which have been given faithfully by the Lord and which proceed from the truth itself.

But whenever someone arrived who had been a companion of one of the elders, I would carefully inquire after their words, what Andrew or Peter had said, or what Philip or what Thomas had said, or James or John or Matthew or any of the other disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the elder John, disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not suppose that what came out of books would benefit me as much as that which came from a living and abiding voice.”

THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! It costs very little money, and all of it goes to charity!

… 7. This Papias, whom we have just been discussing, acknowledges that he received the words of the apostles from those who had been their followers, and he indicates that he himself had listened to Aristion and the elder John. And so he often recalls them by name, and in his books he sets forth the traditions that they passed along. These remarks should also be of some use to us.

But it would be worthwhile to supplement these remarks of Papias with some of his other words, through which he recounts certain miracles and other matters, which would have come to him from the tradition.

We have already seen that the apostle Philip resided in Hieropolis with his daughters [see Eccl. Hist. 3.31]; but now I should point out that Papias, who was their contemporary, recalls an amazing story that he learned from Philip’s daughters. For he indicates that a person was raised from the dead in his own time. Moreover, he tells another miracle about Justus (also called Barsabbas), who drank deadly poison but suffered no ill-effects because he was sustained by the grace of the Lord.

… 11. And he sets forth other matters that came to him from the unwritten tradition, including some bizarre parables of the Savior, his teachings, and several other more legendary accounts.

Among these things he says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a thousand-year period, during which the Kingdom of Christ will exist tangibly, here on this very earth….

***********************************************************

There is a lot that can be said about this intriguing passage. Here let me just make a couple of points:

Irenaeus, around the year 180 CE, claimed that Papias was a companion of the disciple of Jesus, John the Son of Zebedee. But Eusebius, who actually read Papias’s book, claims that this is incorrect. Based on what Papias himself said, Eusebius points out that Papias was not a follower of any of the apostles. He got his information from others. In other words, Irenaeus was trying to make Papias out to be more of an authority than he was. That is very much the tendency in the early Christian tradition (and among conservative Christian scholars today), to claim direct connections with eyewitnesses where there weren’t any.
Eusebius himself is skeptical of much of what Papias says: he speaks of the “bizarre parables” that he claims Jesus spoke and of the “legendary accounts” found in his writings. So not even Eusebius thought that Papias could be trusted to convey the truth about Jesus’ life and teachings, despite Papias’s claim to have connections with eyewitnesses.
The quotation of Papias himself makes it clear what these connections were, that is, what his sources of information for the teachings of Jesus and his disciples were: he interviewed people who came into town who knew the “elders” who knew the apostles who knew Jesus. He heard from these people what the elders were saying that the apostles had said. And so in Papias we don’t have a first-hand report of Jesus’ teachings. We have a fourth-hand report. At best.
When Papias indicates that he knew what the disciples taught, then, it was not because he knew them, or knew those who knew them. He met those who knew those who said they knew them.

I have said more about Papias in various other posts I have made over the past couple of years, and don’t need to go into further detail at this point. Suffice it to say that it would be absolutely spectacular if his Expositions would ever turn up in full.

3

ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD (A brief personal memoir)

by TerryWalstrom in

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.

TerryWalstrom

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 :)