Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
This is simple Aron, you just agreed that some % of the Psalms are human concepts and you haven’t told us how you derive that. So, you kinda want it both ways.... you want to find fault with Witness Lee’s selection and explanations but not give us the benefit of understanding (and critiquing) your selections and explanations.
|
The DSS say that David wrote the Psalms in the spirit. Jesus and Peter agreed with that in the NT. Paul told us to be "filled in spirit" singing them.
Don't you think we should be a little less cavalier in our dismissals?
I never said, or intimated, that ALL of the words of the Psalms are exact, one-for-one images of Jesus in his human living, suffering, rejection, death, and glories that followed. Psalm 51 comes immediately to mind as a problematic text should one try that route.
What I've said repeatedly, and you've ignored repeatedly, is that there's a clear pattern of reception in the NT, and WL went out of his way to not respect that pattern but to forge his own path with his own logic. And he did great disservice to the scripture. That's what I find "fallen" and "natural".
Psalm 1 speaks of the man who does not take the path of wickedness, but chooses the good. WL said, "nobody is good". Well, there's this guy named Jesus. . .
Psalm 2 has this very man enthroned as Son of God. Coincidence?
Psalm 3 has this man in a cave. The man says, "I will lay me down, and rise again, for the LORD gives me such power". Now, I see perhaps an intimation of the coming Messiah, but Lee said, no, that man in Psalm 3 is merely a suffering sinner, whose hope is vain.
But that logic should also disqualify Psalm 16 and 22, no? I mean, if there are none righteous, no not even one, then how does the spotty-at-best "rightness of David" then somehow allow Christ to emerge?
Again I say, Peter addressed this neatly in Acts 2. David was a sinner like us but was speaking prophetically of the coming promised seed. It is not David's fitness that paves the way for Christ to emerge from the textual shadows, nor his failures that disqualify the text from consideration. Rather, he believed Gods promise, and God's command, and by faith he declared it to be so.
The NT gives a clear apostolic pattern of reception and WL went off the rails. And in WL's "oneness church" none could restrain him.
Three times in the Psalms the declaration is, "Get behind me, you workers of evil", and three times in the NT Jesus is shown using that same formula. But there's no connection, because the psalmist himself was unrighteous- right? I mean, it's perfectly logical. Right? It couldn't possibly apply, could it? I mean, nobody is right. Right?