Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
At least part of that is true. The problem is that the way it is presented is as "simply true." To me, this was one of Lee's most problematic features. He simply had the answer to everything. He was never unsure. And he seldom gave a reason. Just said it was so.
Was he right (or at least mostly so) here? Probably. Despite seldom referencing anyone but himself or Nee, he was not isolated from basic Christian theology. It had to be the underpinning of his little following or he would have only had basket cases and no "good material" to work with.
And while the important parts of what he put in that footnote are generally true, they are not unique to him. I can pretty much see it. Might not have described it in such "this is clearly (simply?) that, and this is that" terms. More like "this seems to indicate . . . ."
But being certain was part of how we got to his version of GEP and GE (God's economy). Those overlays, along with a couple more, like the ground of locality, redefined too much of scripture. And left us with a decimated Bible (as is being discussed in the inerrancy thread). Once you gut some important parts of the Bible, how can the actual purpose of God be imagined to arise from only the remainder?
As for the "clearly" part, it is only clear in hindsight. Not saying that the allusion to his death is not present. But it was not clear. Despite all of the prophecies and his own hints (maybe some before this?) no one was thinking in terms of the Messiah dying. They were expecting him to reign in the place of Pilot, not die so that he could reign in the hearts of many more than just the Jews in Judea.
|
I think you would agree with me that the footnote is an interpretation that many protestants could accept without reservation if it were not coming from a preacher who was consistently against Christianity. That Jesus made these statements outside of the context of his last supper, argues against the conclusion that he is referring to the Eucharist. That he doesn't follow the statement with instructions about how to pray-read the Bible argues against that interpretation.
One can have a precise detached knowledge of another person, his psychological type and his calculable reactions, but in knowing this you do not know the person, his centered self, his knowledge of himself. Only in participating in his self, in performing a break-through into the center of his being, will you know him in the situation of your break-through to him. John 6:54 may be advocating that through faith we participate in Christ's existence with our own.