Poor poor Christianity?

[jeff of jesus grace]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee's idea of an organic Body of Christ is based on John 15 where Jesus says "I am the vine you are the branches..." I don't see that being incompatible with the Net Bible's exegesis of Colossians 3:15. Most of Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's teachings could have been maintained without creating division had it not been for Lee's sectarian spirit. Instead of holding his doctrines with humility he saw himself as being unique. All other Christian organizations were merely human. Lee supposed that his group was uniquely of God.

I don't think so.
Most division is happening when the truth is preached, no matter where.
Even Jesus said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and warned those who want to follow Him, those who are willing to seek and to stand up for the truth, that they will be cast of the their own family (if the family does not believe), and out of the churches/ congregations/ groups they are (or were ) in , since most families, churches, congregations and groups (unions, governments, schools, all that is of the world)
cannot comprehend, cannot grasp, and do not receive nor welcome the truth - thus they reject Jesus' disciples because they first reject Jesus, as Jesus stated clearly in the New Testament.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by jeff of jesus grace

I don't think so.
Most division is happening when the truth is preached, no matter where.
Even Jesus said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and warned those who want to follow Him, those who are willing to seek and to stand up for the truth, that they will be cast of the their own family (if the family does not believe), and out of the churches/ congregations/ groups they are (or were ) in , since most families, churches, congregations and groups (unions, governments, schools, all that is of the world)
cannot comprehend, cannot grasp, and do not receive nor welcome the truth - thus they reject Jesus' disciples because they first reject Jesus, as Jesus stated clearly in the New Testament.

The sword is a powerful but ambiguous symbol depending on how you interpret it. You don't suppose Jesus was advocating violence do you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The sword is a powerful but ambiguous symbol depending on how you interpret it. You don't suppose Jesus was advocating violence do you?

jeff of jesus grace grew on me real quick. I miss him. He may have flown the coop. But while waiting for him to possibly come back I thought I'd chime in.

Matt. 10:34 is not specific enough to be determinant. I doubt that Jesus meant that families were going to be having sword fights against each other. That's not the author's point. I won't extend my exegete of that section of Matthew here. v. 37-39 I think makes the author's point.

Instead I'd like to bring up the other mention of swords, brought up in Luke :

Luk 22:35-38 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors," but two swords wasn't enough for a insurrection against the Roman occupation of the holy land.

Remember what happened to John the Baptist. And then, Jesus was called the King of the Jews, that was an open provocation to the Roman occupiers.

Was the Jesus movement, headed up by the 12, a bunch of insurrectionists against the Roman occupiers? Or was Jesus an apocalypticist, soon expecting a supernatural intervention?

I posit the latter. The two swords support the apocalypticist view. They certainly don't indicate a insurrectionist view. Jesus wasn't making military preparations.

In the least, just the two swords doesn't indicate that Jesus was advocating for violence. Or not enough to call Jesus a violent man.

Well, not until Revelation. There, Jesus forgets all about love your enemies. And he has a sword coming out of his mouth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

jeff of jesus grace grew on me real quick. I miss him. He may have flown the coop. But while waiting for him to possibly come back I thought I'd chime in.

Matt. 10:34 is not specific enough to be determinant. I doubt that Jesus meant that families were going to be having sword fights against each other. That's not the author's point. I won't extend my exegete of that section of Matthew here. v. 37-39 I think makes the author's point.

Instead I'd like to bring up the other mention of swords, brought up in Luke :

Luk 22:35-38 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors," but two swords wasn't enough for a insurrection against the Roman occupation of the holy land.

Remember what happened to John the Baptist. And then, Jesus was called the King of the Jews, that was an open provocation to the Roman occupiers.

Was the Jesus movement, headed up by the 12, a bunch of insurrectionists against the Roman occupiers? Or was Jesus an apocalypticist, soon expecting a supernatural intervention?

I posit the latter. The two swords support the apocalypticist view. They certainly don't indicate a insurrectionist view. Jesus wasn't making military preparations.

In the least, just the two swords doesn't indicate that Jesus was advocating for violence. Or not enough to call Jesus a violent man.

Well, not until Revelation. There, Jesus forgets all about love your enemies. And he has a sword coming out of his mouth.

If Matthew 10:34 is ambiguous, Luke 22:35-38 is enigmatic. The numerous conflicting explanations Christians give to the passage is evidence of its lack of clear meaning. The story appears only in the Gospel of Luke. It likely says more about the life and times of the author than it does about Jesus.

According to Mark, when Jesus sent the disciples out, "he charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics." According to Matthew, Jesus directed them saying "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food. " According to Luke 9, Jesus said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece."

The passage in Luke 22 suggests that by the time of that gospel was written, missionaries were no longer holding to Jesus' direction to "take nothing..." and the author felt the need to justify the change in practice to include carrying a weapon. If so, it may reveal a swerve from Jesus' simple faith in sufficiency of the Father's protection by the time Luke was written.

[zeek]

One area in which Christianity became poor was in its treatment of women. The authentic and historical Paul held that within the Christian church it made no difference whether one was a man or a woman. All were absolutely equal to each other. See Galatians 3:28.

But in 1st Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul by later Christians but probably not actually written by him, women are told to keep silent in the church. The passage in First Corinthians that says it is shameful for women to speak in the church but correct to ask her husband's for explanations at home contradicts Paul's general attitude toward women. It was probably inserted in the margin by a scribe and into the text in later manuscripts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

One area in which Christianity became poor was in its treatment of women. The authentic and historical Paul held that within the Christian church it made no difference whether one was a man or a woman. All were absolutely equal to each other. See Galatians 3:28.

But in 1st Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul by later Christians but probably not actually written by him, women are told to keep silent in the church. The passage in First Corinthians that says it is shameful for women to speak in the church but correct to ask her husband's for explanations at home contradicts Paul's general attitude toward women. It was probably inserted in the margin by a scribe and into the text in later manuscripts.

It was a man's world back then.

"Jewish culture in the first century was decidedly patriarchal. The daily prayers of Jewish men included this prayer of thanksgiving: “Praised be God that he has not created me a woman.”"

Jesus had female followers, but his disciples were all men. All the New Testament was written by men. In fact, the whole Bible mentions men 90% of the time. Women are valuable, but only if virgin.

So of course Christianity would be patriarchal. It came up in patriarchal times. And Christianity may have been better had it not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It was a man's world back then.

"Jewish culture in the first century was decidedly patriarchal. The daily prayers of Jewish men included this prayer of thanksgiving: “Praised be God that he has not created me a woman.”"

Jesus had female followers, but his disciples were all men. All the New Testament was written by men. In fact, the whole Bible mentions men 90% of the time. Women are valuable, but only if virgin.

So of course Christianity would be patriarchal. It came up in patriarchal times. And Christianity may have been better had it not.

Yes Judaism was patriarchal in the first century as were the other cultures of the Mediterranean world. But, you simply ignored the evidence that I presented that Paul as a member of the early Jesus movement preached and practiced something other than the patriarchy typical of the first century.

Women possessed few of the rights of men in Jewish society. They couldn't be witnesses in a court of law or initiate divorce and they were not taught the Torah. They were separated from men in public life and almost invisible as they still are in the traditional parts of the Middle East.

Respectable women were not allowed to leave the house on escorted by a male family member. Meals outside the house were male-only affairs. Childbirth and menstruation were considered sources of impurity that led to a generalized sense of the impurity of women.

That's what makes the role of women in the Jesus movement so strikingly different by contrast. In every single encounter with women in the four gospels Jesus violated the mores of his time.

Jesus defended a woman who entered in all male banquet and washed his feet with her hair. He affirmed Mary's role as his discipl. He talked with a Syro-Phoenician Gentile woman.

Stories of the presence of women at his death suggest that they were among his most devoted followers. Some wealthy women supported the movement itself financially thus disproving your statement that their only value was virginity.

The evidence that women played leadership roles in the early church disproves the notion that the church started out strictly patriarchal. For example in Romans 16:1- 2.

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe a deacon of the church at Cenchreae so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints and help her and whatever she may require from you for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

In fact, the whole Bible mentions men 90% of the time. Women are valuable, but only if virgin.

Harold..seriously...what Bible are you talking about? It certainly is not the Scriptures that have been used by orthodox Christians for the past 19+ centuries. It seems you have gone from being doped by one shyster (Lee) only to be bamboozled by yet another - liberal "theologians" and secular atheists who despise the God of the Bible and the Scriptures he inspired. I wouldn't think you would have been so impressionable after being burned by Witness.
-