Various by YP0534

[YP0534]

I've started twice before now to open this thread and I hit the "What Was I Thinking?" button on both occasions.

Two main problems:

1) The vanity that I should even suppose someone would care to read my musings as things occur to me. Alan just helped me out with that by saying he got something out of my previous posts on ekklesia around here.

2) Where to begin? Some of my poorly organized thinking is already on display here and there around this site and the other but I've continued to move on a bit from those end points and it seems like just starting in the middle to post something here.

Just this week I've dipped a toe into the so-called "New Perspectives on Paul" debates between Wright and Carson (at the suggestion of some others) and I've got huge issues with both of those camps (as represented by those individuals - if that's a fair characterization) but I think my musings aren't really in alignment with either side of the thing. (Carson makes some good points about Wright but he doesn't do as good a job as he pretends. Meantime, Wright himself seems to have a deep interest in issues of social justice, apparently even to the exclusion of the spiritual realities of the Christian life.)

So, I've got those old musings on ekklesia plus more recent considerations of so-called "church offices" plus my current considerations of Paul's potential religious influences.

And I was just about to hit the "What Was I Thinking?" button yet again but decided to just post this and therefore have a convenient place to post the next time something is on my mind and heart.

I guess a monologue format can eliminate the problem of my posts stifling the on-going conversation, as they do everywhere else.

I only hope something worthwhile will come about.

As a former LC member I appreciate hearing from everybody who will speak their mind. Thanks to the owners for providing this venue

[aron]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As a former LC member I appreciate hearing from everybody who will speak their mind. Thanks to the owners for providing this venue

I personally love the idea of allowing people to log on as unregistered guests. Forget the avatars and personal histories and just let your ideas float, or sink, in the collective discussion. Leave the personal stuff out, as much as we can.

Of course, the downside is anonymous flamers but still it's good to not focus on personalities but rather on ideas.

"Jesus" is somehow an idea for me, an ideal, a representation, that I hope will never be crushed, let go, or contaminated, or bypassed. What He represents is the best hope for both me and all of humanity, all of creation, even. I have never seen an idea like Jesus Christ the Nazarene.

You may say, But He's a Person, not an idea. Yes, well even if he were an idea, I would believe. Because this universe has never, and will never, offer me anything as good as what He represents.

"God loved us and sent His Son." Somebody top that idea, please.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

"Jesus" is somehow an idea for me, an ideal, a representation,

HUH? Ok Aron/alan/unregistered user....'splain your thought process a little more please. (You can bet I'll be adding my.02 worth shortly!

that I hope will never be crushed, let go, or contaminated, or bypassed.

Don't you believe JESUS is GOD? There is no contamination in Him. You know that! Are you pulling our legs and just funnin' with us ?

What He represents is the best hope for both me and all of humanity, all of creation, even. I have never seen an idea like Jesus Christ the Nazarene.

You know I'm getting ready to bonk you over the head ! I'm going to find out what kool aid you've been drinking from and I'm going to personally go and take it away from you..and de-tox you with some LIVING WATER from the River of LIFE. On second thought, I think I'll just DUNK you into the RIVER of LIFE...looks like you could use a good washing! Then I'll snatch some fruit off the TREE of LIFE for you to munch on and pour you a glass of that LIVING WATER for you to drink with as you eat the fruit.

You may say, But He's a Person, not an idea. Yes, well even if he were an idea, I would believe. Because this universe has never, and will never, offer me anything as good as what He represents.

What are you babbling about ? First you say He's an idea to you and then you say IF He were an idea, you would believe ??
NEVER MIND. DON'T answer that ! Just stop drinking that kool aid will ya!

"God loved us and sent His Son." Somebody top that idea, please.

GOD STILL loves us...and always will. Now STOP drinking that koolaid !! Don't go making JESUS something He's NOT. You know very well HE is not an idea! He is the WORD of God but not an idea! I don't know about you but I ain't marrying no idea! And if you come back and say "you're marrying the WORD of God?? I will reply and say YES because the WORD BECAME FLESH ! He is going to be our Bridegroom very soon....maybe not YOUR Bridegroom if you keep talkin' like that!
Sheesh!

Ok...I don't know why you are pulling our chains here...but hopefully you are simply jesting with us...to get us riled up. 'Cause if you're NOT, you are grieving the Holy Spirit and you do not want to do that. Neither do you want the Lord Jesus to REBUKE you as He rebuked the Pharasees and the way He rebuked Peter. You don't want to be like John the apostle when he was in Patmos writing the Revelation of Jesus Christ God (the FATHER) was giving him to write....that when he saw JESUS, John fell at HIS feet as if he was dead.

I'll stop here. I have more...but it's Your turn...IF you dare!

[aron]

"Jesus" is somehow an idea for me, an ideal, a representation, that I hope will never be crushed, let go, or contaminated, or bypassed.

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Don't you believe JESUS is GOD? There is no contamination in Him. You know that! Are you pulling our legs and just funnin' with us ?

Jesus said that the kingdom would be like a woman with a measure of meal who put in some leaven and sifted it until the whole thing got leavened (Matt 13:33). I take that to be an idea (that Jesus the Nazarene is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the foretold Messiah) getting contaminated until you find yourself sitting in a large stone building with gargoyles and candles and stained glass windows and the guy up front in a red robe is waving a smoky censer through the air and chanting something which you guess is Latin, but you're not sure and you wonder how to be saved but the stained glass windows just look down on you silently and you stumble back out onto the street and rub your eyes and wonder what to do with your life.

Or, perhaps, you cut off fellowship with other believers simply because their 'way' is not 'New Testament-ish' enough for your liking.

No, Jesus is not contaminated, but our hearts and especially brains seem to get that way. That was my gist. You have reality (Jesus the Nazarene) and you have people's representations of reality floating in their brains. So I'm just trying to sift through the latter to find the former.

The Bible, by the way, is full of examples of this. For instance, the disciples had to be shed of many ideas, conceptions, and representations of reality, which did not conform to actuality as it was living and breathing before them in the person of Jesus Christ.

You have ideas. I have different ideas. Yet we all believe into the same Lord. I find that interesting, and I may add, rather heartening. There is, indeed, hope.

Originally Posted by YP0534

I guess a monologue format can eliminate the problem of my posts stifling the on-going conversation, as they do everywhere else.

I only hope something worthwhile will come about.

I think a fair percentage of the time we have overlapping monologues on these threads, not true conversations (i.e. mutual exploration). Occasionally, however, things connect and there is a transmission. For that we can only say, "Praise God!"

The above, of course, is merely my observation, and may in no way reflect the true state of reality.

"aron" (still learning how to log in)

[UntoHim]

Alrighty guys, I hope that the forum permissions have been adjusted properly.

I think it is now set so that an unregistered user can only "reply" to a blog entry, but not do anything else. Let me know if you find any other quirks in the system

Oh and don't worry about "guests" becoming a problem. They will be held to the same standards as everybody else.

-

[Ohio]

It would be nice if "unregistered guests" could be identified some way, otherwise I could never "recognize" who is talking to me.

-

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I've started twice before now to open this thread and I hit the "What Was I Thinking?" button on both occasions.

"What was I Thinking" is exactly why I opened the blog forum! Far as I know, this is what blogs are all about. I really love to know what is REALLY on peoples minds and hearts (especially us LCers - current and ex and anything in between), and I want them to be able to do so without being tied to any particular subject. Let's all keep in mind that this is YP's little domain. I want to see HIM make the lion's share of posts here. He is to be the one to set the mood and tempo and direction.

I'm going to address the "guest" posting situation somewhere else.

-

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"What was I Thinking" is exactly why I opened the blog forum!

That's my "Oh... never mind!" function. I use it a lot. To me, it's the one's who are absolutely convinced that there is no leaven whatsoever in their service to God that are the most dangerous. They have no brake, no correction, no way to "restrain the madness of the prophet" (2 Pet 2:16). In my estimation, we are all at least a little bit batty. The only truly sane One I have come across is Jesus.

So my "Never Mind" button is quite useful. I believe in the NT it's listed under "Repentance".

[YP0534]

I'm still not 100% sure what to make of the so-called "New Perspectives on Paul" debate which apparently has been around for nearly 50 years according to Conrad.

The main point of contention between the two camps seems to be a conclusion drawn by some that because first-century Palestinian Judaism (sometimes also referred to as "Second Temple Judaism")was actually loosely based upon fundamental concepts of God's grace, Paul wasn't advocating such a radical departure in his epistles. The other side argues, essentially, that there is no such thing as a monolithic first-century Palestinian Judaism and even to the extent that you might argue that there is, Paul's writings represent a strong reaction to that very thing rather than a continuation of it.

From what I could tell, Conrad and Wright are both in the business of talking past each other.

Those two positions don't really seem inconsistent to me, other than in perhaps bragging rights of who is more correct than the other.

In any event, without going into what I see as the problems on both sides, I just have to say that so far the topic only vaguely interests me anyway. My curiosity about Pauline Jewish practices is not with a view to drawing connections or denying that such connections exist (which more or less seems like the focus of the NPP debate) but rather I am simply trying to identify if Paul's word, for instance, about head-covering is a cultural thing that can be ignored by modern students of Paul or if this is an issue for which the alleged Biblical infallibility principle of Paul's epistles should be applied.

If Paul was a practicing Jew and yet he protected his Gentile converts from being subjected to mandatory Jewish practices, what should we say when he himself instructs to participate in Jewish practices of one kind or another? (If that's what he does, of course!)

I guess the only point I might have in common with the NPP people is the realization that maybe Paul wasn't as thoroughly non-Jewish as Witness Lee and so many others have led me to be believe.

Maybe Paul was really the first "Jew for Jesus" who strongly wanted to give Christ a full way outside the Jewish community?

Anyways, this is sort of what I'm conisdering at the moment.

Re-reading Matthew recently, I was deeply struck with how very Jewish it is in its approach. For your consideration - first verse:

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

It don't get much more Jewish than that.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Maybe Paul was really the first "Jew for Jesus" who strongly wanted to give Christ a full way outside the Jewish community?

Anyways, this is sort of what I'm conisdering at the moment.

Reece here...glad to see you bring up the NPP...your blog got me thinking and here are some random thoughts along those lines:

reconstructing Paul in his first century Jewish context is a must in understanding the tension we find in galatians and elsewhere between jews and gentiles...

As for wright...he takes things pretty far... E.P. Sanders and his "covenantal nomism" theory is interesting...

Basically, what I gather from the NPP is that unlike Luther's understanding that the "law" was a curse because it became a human effort to gain salvation, the NPP argues that the law was more of a covenant membership and that Jews by birth were born into grace as part of Abraham's family...Gentiles on the other hand...needed conversion which was only by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. So then "justification" is not how one "gets in" but a present and future declaration that one is just before God. Luther tended to use "justification" and "salvation" synonymously while the NPP sees justification by faith in a new light.

To Paul, Jews were God's people by grace and the law was a means to "stay in" and not "get in." The issues of food laws, sabbath, and circumcision were not so much human efforts to "get in" but rather cultural markers which the Jews saw as a means to stay in covenant and stay faithful to God.

The Gospel then that Paul preached was not "say this formulated prayer and be born again" but rather, "Jesus the risen Messiah has conquered death and everything which was promised to Israel has been fulfilled in the risen Christ! The promise given to Abraham that 'all nations on earth will be blessed through you' has been fulfilled in Christ by the salvation of the Gentiles." The Jews still needed to have faith in Christ but the "law" was more of an exclusive cultural marker of God's people than a legalistic curse as ML argued as he sought to reform a legalistic roman church.

Thus, NPP is claiming that exclusivism, not legalism, was Paul's beef with "those from James."

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thus, NPP is claiming that exclusivism, not legalism, was Paul's beef with "those from James."

And I think that's mostly right.



I had an excellently composed reply, with three main points and several points under that, but I got logged out before I sumitted it and then it ate my reply completely.

So I won't be posting more than this for now.

[YP0534]

So, it's taken me nearly a year but I've gotten back around to my review of Sunday/Sabbath School literature produced from around the middle of the 19th century through around WWI.

An interesting wrinkle I came across was how the temperance movement articulated with the Sunday/Sabbath School system.

But my main focus has been on proving up my theory that much of Lee's teaching actually originated from that body of work, in accordance with a previous discovery I wrote about where a note on "carob pods" was not lifted without attribution from the original author's primary work but rather from the secondary source of the Sunday School Lesson volume.

It's a large project the way I'm going about it and may or may not yield any results in the long run but just out of curiosity I reviewed several of the works I'm in the process of doing some indexing of and discovered that, gasp, Lee's reference to the very phrase "divine economy" in the very sense he meant it (on the over-arching side vs. the dispensing side) has precedent in these works. "Economy" was apparently a somewhat familiar term of art for Bible scholars of the era referring to a dispensation or the dispensations of the ages. Thus, "God's economy" in the sense of God's entire plan in His universal administration is simply not something that could be attributed to Lee as his invention.

Some have quibbled about the term "economy" being somewhat inadequate to communicate the thought in modern English, and rightly so. But the fault is not so much in Lee inventing something new but in clinging to something old. In other words, it's barely a step out of King James English to refer to "God's economy" even though some might feel that term is best capable of conveying the thought in its being somewhat emptied of meaning through the process of obsolescence. A matter of opinion, to be sure, and a matter for linguists rather than churchmen.

[YP0534]

Notice to friends:


something has recently happened and I'm checking out as a result

feel free to keep in touch and fellowship via PM but I'm not going through all that again



YP0534