Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by [B
ZNP][/B]I think it was front and center in Paul's mind that he had been involved in the stoning of Stephen, that he was "less than the least" of all saints and that he didn't receive his sight until a brother we never heard of laid his hands on him.
I think it was front and center in Peter's mind that he denied the Lord at His crucifixion so that when it the Lord told him to go with the people at the door he was afraid to deny the Lord again.
I think it was front and center in James mind that he was set up as the leader because of his relationship to Jesus, and that this was something of the flesh. I think he took Paul's rebuke as from the Lord and realized his association with the Judaizers was a terrible failure. But he also realized that these temptations that befell him are common to all believers.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
But didn't Paul go to Jerusalem (with donations if I remember right) to prove to James, and the other Jews, that he wasn't negating the law of Moses? Paul lied.
|
I think that one of the problems with trying to make Paul into the source of primary information on being Christian is that we start with Paul rather than assuming that he is providing interpretation to the Gentiles.
And we may have rejected Lee, but we retain so much of his thinking in ours. For example, we still buy his version of the termination of the law. The only thing terminated in the law was the requirement to follow the rituals to be right before God. It did not make following them bad or in-Christian. The only change was that the way to God no longer included a requirement to follow such rules.
So Paul wasn't negating the law of Moses. But he did put it into the proper perspective of being no longer a requirement for salvation. Now the requirement is belief in Christ.
But there was a whole lot more law that was not abolished in any way (despite Lee's claims to the contrary). Paul referred to this as the "righteousness of the law" in Romans and was strong to insist that those who would set their minds on the Spirit (not the spirit) and walk according to it would fulfill it. Any claim that it is no longer required is a gross misinterpretation of the scripture. But then Lee (and Nee before him) was a master of misinterpretation.
Paul did not lie. He never said that following any tradition of the old Jewish system was sinful or un-Christian, or that any part of scripture (all of it, including the teachings of Christ that had not yet been settled into scripture) turned their practice into sin or error. Only that those practices do not save you, and that teaching that they are required for salvation is an error and contradicts the words of Jesus. Some claim that when Paul went to Jerusalem the last time to take a vow, he was violating his own words. But he was not. He never declared such a practice to be in error. Only that the practice does not save you. Yet even he recognized the value of a focused practice, like the vow he set to undertake, in his spiritual progression.
As for ZNP's assertions about what and how each person thought and reacted, it is nothing but speculation. It could be true. But possibly not. The only thing that can be said about it is that nothing refutes it. But then there are many other possibilities that also are not refuted. But neither are any of them established as true. They make for decent moralizations, but cannot be taught as if a truth of scripture.