Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[OBW]

I don't think Paul is the source. The source is God Himself who spoke in the Son.

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.

The word of the Lord Jesus are the words of God, and so were those of the apostles.

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.)

You mentioned the importance of doing. It is a very important issue, but before that we should know who we are. Are we Jews? Are we Gentiles? I am a Gentile, and for such as me God prepared and apostle (as He appointed the 12 to send them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel), Paul.

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?