Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
That particular reference (In Hebrews, at least sort of) was not talking about the writings of various prophets or others in the OT, but where God was quoted . . . "Thus saith the Lord." The speaking in the Son is the speaking of the Son, not the speaking of Paul. Paul's speaking, though inspired, is not on par with the speaking of Christ.
And in any case, my point was not to be disparaging about any of the things that anyone wrote. Rather, it was to note how we tend to read some things in a vacuum, providing ample opportunity to misunderstand, then move out to other areas and use our "in a vacuum" understanding as the lens through which other things are read. And the propensity of much of Evangelicalism, including that wayward sect, the LRC/LCM, has been to start with Paul and then layer that over Jesus.
I am not suggesting that it is impossible to misread Jesus and then layer that over everything else. But if we start with Jesus, we are at least starting with the source and not the commentary. (What I mean by that is that in the OT times, even to this day, the Jews consider the OT in two primary parts. There is what God spoke or gave directly, such as the law. Everything else is commentary. It is examples. Applications. Metaphors. All of which must be read in the light of the source, not in the light of something else.)
And all of which is among the documents that we refer to as the Bible, or the word of God.
In the case of Nee's and Lee's teachings, they would often tell some story. it worked out a certain way and seemed to be a good way for things to work out. They then took that story and used it as a basis to declare that something in the scripture meant something that might not easily fit. The scripture didn't go there. Just the story. So now we have reinvented the meaning of scripture because of a nice-sounding story.
Paul makes reference to the law being abolished. But what is he talking about there? Righteousness, obedience, etc., or rituals. But in Matt 5, Jesus not only leaves the core of the law intact, he makes it clearly more demanding and declares that anyone teaching less than this was least in the kingdom. But Lee read Paul (incorrectly) as saying the law is now abolished, so that part in Matt 5 no longer applies in the way it would appear.
I have not disparaged Paul. Nor Jesus. Only Lee who disparaged them both.
This is a problematic statement to me. I would agree that the words of the apostles as recorded are part of the inspired revealing of God in the Bible. But God did not speak them. The disciples did. And they did not declare that it was God's words coming out.
I do not deny that those words are now part of the book that we refer to as the word of God. But the Word of God is not synonymous with the Bible. The Word of God is only defined in one place (that I can recall) and that was in John 1. The bible is a testimony of God as told by men (for the most part). They used their words. It is truly the story of God. It was inspired by God. But not dictated. Therefore it is their words.
I realize that there is a comment about jots and tittles. But I don't think that it was understood in those days as meaning that the punctuation, or even the specific words used, were necessarily ordained. Rather, it was still a world of narratives. The narrative that was given was correct. There was nothing to add to or take away from it that would make it better. Only worse. But if we think that it is about punctuation and words, then it is essentially impossible to understand God in anything but original languages. There is no obvious English equivalent to everything. That is the reason that we can read a King James, NIV, Living, Message, etc., and come to essentially the same conclusions as to what is being said. (Yeah, KJV is harder to read centuries later, but it can sill work.)
Huh? As Christians, there is no more Jew or Gentile. I do not mean that I have problems with those who retain many Jewish traditions after salvation. Nor do I fail to recognize that in those terms I too am a Gentile. But where is there a call to know who you are before you obey the one who you have chosen and committed to follow? I don't see it.
It might have a nice sound to it, but why is there any reason not to immediately obey to the extent that you see the command? I know Lee would say to wait for enough "dispensing." Why are you waiting?
|
I apologize to our
excellent moderator, br. awareness, and ask him to forgive my last response (under this thread) to br. OBW (we need to find another place).
Almost 7 years ago on your blog (yes I am reading it and I find it interesting, and touching) commenting on Eph. 5:21-25, you still considered Paul's words as God's words.
"But instead of relying on Paul’s words (acknowledging that they are also God’s words), let’s look at those of Jesus." If you have changed your view we could start a new thread under the title, THE BIBLE (what is it?), or something like that. This issue is more important to me than the difference about Jews and Gentiles.
In the Body there is no more Jew nor Gentile. And yet, I am still a Gentile. Again I will quote what you said on your blog (same one, n. 7),
"Scripture is correct when it says that we become “one flesh.” But that does not mean that we cease to be “two flesh.” It is not a contradiction, but is about different things. He is always who he is, and so is she. At the same time, there is a new entity that joins to be “married,” and do the things of marriage, including bearing and raising children."
This should not be an excuse for not doing. I agree with you 100%. Love your neighbor doesn't require any "illumination", it is something written in the Law, in the Gospel, in the Epistles. It is something we just have to do!
But let me ask you a question, which gospel do you preach today?
The gospel of the kingdom of God? Mar_1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel( A gospel that doesn't contemplate the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus)
The gospel of the grace of God (Acts 20:24).
Or the everlasting gospel? Rev. 14:7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters (A gospel that tells people to fear God and worship Him as the Creator).
These are your words to Dancing on ... What HE says! (post 51)
"Dancing,
The thing is that the verses that you have quoted were all things said to people at a particular time and place, not statements made in a manner that indicates permanence and ongoing fact. Said to Abraham. Said to the children of Israel as they were about to enter the good land."
These words come "close" (if they do not excuse me for posting them) to the belief in what is called different dispensations, do you agree that there are different ways of God dealing with different people, at different times, etc.?
I have to stop now.
“It shall greatly help ye to understand the Scriptures if thou mark not only what is spoken or written, but of whom and to whom, with what words, at what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what goeth before and what followeth after. ”
Miles Coverdale (1488 – 20 January 1569). (from my thread
Putting To Test The Recovery Version, post 51, there is an example how to read James)