The Psalms are the word of Christ

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Witness Lee said of certain Psalms they were "human sentiment." Initially, I think he used this expression on verses like "Lord, avenge me of my enemies."

Comparing this to the Lord Jesus who "opened not His mouth," it seemed to Lee that the Psalmist was venting "human sentiment," rather than being the voice of God. Then, as time progressed, with Lee's construct of "Life-Study" and "finding Christ" in the scriptures, he began to diminish both James and numerous Psalms. This was his "Crystalization" phase of ministry.

So Lee found cognitive dissonance between "Lord, avenge me of my enemies" and "Jesus" with "Love your enemies?"

He's certainly not the first to "discover" this cognitive dissonance between, actually, the Old Testament and the New Testament. This goes back to the early Gnostics. And it goes back to Marcion (c.85 – c.160), who completely dismissed the OT because of such cognitive dissonance.

I bring up the possible pagan sources for some of the Psalms for this reason. I contend that at least the Psalms that have pagan sources is not likely inspired of God. Unless, like the pagan Melchizedek (Genesis 14), God can inspire thru pagans. Which I admit is a possibility.

But still, it is hard for us to deal with the cognitive dissonance we find between Jesus and some of the OT. Most of us just gloss over it, and dismiss it in our mind.

Lee did it openly.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But still, it is hard for us to deal with the cognitive dissonance we find between Jesus and some of the OT.

And I would suggest that means we don't really understand the OT, or we don't really understand Jesus, or both. As I said, Jesus affirmed the OT. Doesn't that put a chink in the idea of tossing it like wise old Marcion did?

In other words, keep digging. But don't think we are wise enough to know which parts to throw out.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

And I would suggest that means we don't really understand the OT, or we don't really understand Jesus, or both. As I said, Jesus affirmed the OT. Doesn't that put a chink in the idea of tossing it like wise old Marcion did?

In other words, keep digging. But don't think we are wise enough to know which parts to throw out.

Good point bro Igzy. So we shouldn't trust that Lee could know which parts to throw out. After all, Lee was just the minister of the age. What did he know?

[Cal]

Harold, You would probably be interested in reading this interview with U2's Bono.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/bono-on-jesus/

It's all good and I recommend it to everyone. Here's a part relevant to this thread.

Bono: My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don’t let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that’s my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that’s not so easy.

Michka: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn’t so “peace and love”?

Bono: There’s nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that’s why they’re so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you’re a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

[awareness]

Yes Igzy, I did enjoy that. Thanks much ... great find ...

H

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, You would probably be interested in reading this interview with U2's Bono.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/bono-on-jesus/

It's all good and I recommend it to everyone. Here's a part relevant to this thread.

Bono: My understanding of the Scriptures has been made simple by the person of Christ. Christ teaches that God is love. What does that mean? What it means for me: a study of the life of Christ. Love here describes itself as a child born in straw poverty, the most vulnerable situation of all, without honor. I don’t let my religious world get too complicated. I just kind of go: Well, I think I know what God is. God is love, and as much as I respond [sighs] in allowing myself to be transformed by that love and acting in that love, that’s my religion. Where things get complicated for me, is when I try to live this love. Now that’s not so easy.

Michka: What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn’t so “peace and love”?

Bono: There’s nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that’s why they’re so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you’re a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-to-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

[OBW]

I was reading through some of the more recent posts and keep noting a kind of dissonance when thinking through the controversial texts (such as the Psa 137 lines) with the thread title of "The Psalms are the word of Christ."

I see zeek and awareness floundering with the harshness of thoughts and events as recorded in scripture. I can declare that it is really just a metaphor for something spiritual. But at some level that might not always be true. There is vengeance . . . and some still to come. It does not always fit our "enlightened" thoughts on morality.

For me, this all comes down to the tendency to make everything about each and every word be infinitely important. "The Psalms as the word of Christ," or "God is love," or "vengeance is mine." We had this kind of discussion back in the thread on Job. Each of these statements, if absolute in the most extreme way of understanding, creates a bipolar god. He is absolutely love. Yet he is absolutely righteous and just. And he exacts vengeance — absolutely.

Each of these views demands that the one view rule absolutely. God is love, therefore he cannot exact vengeance. In the thread on Job, someone said something like "Job called out for the God of mercy (or justice) but got the God of power (or something else)" as if we are really dealing with a service center full of gods to deal with certain issues. One for mercy. One for justice. One for healing, etc.

So then we say "The Psalms are the word of Christ." What do we mean by that? Do we mean that every word written is a declaration by Christ as if spoken while walking around Judea and Samaria during his earthly ministry? Of course not. It is a record of God, who He is, and his interaction with his people. His people are often a mess, or in dire circumstances and that is reflected in what they write.

If we take the Psalms as mostly a record of the prayer and praise life of Israel (or at least certain ones of them) then the words, emotions, etc., captured are those of the writers, not God (or often not of God). In that sense, Psalms are the word of Israel about God. But the parts written and collected together as Psalms are also revealing concerning the nature of God (just, loving, forgiving, guiding, etc.) and of the ways that He has interacted with Israel. That is the "Word of God." And as such, it is the "Word of Christ," or, more accurately, it is Christ, because Christ is the Word of God.

But that is different from saying it is words "spoken by God." If we think that "God-breathed" means that he stood by with a megaphone so that someone would hear him and they then wrote them down, we don't understand "God-breathed." Or "the word of God." God did not say "Have mercy on me, Oh God, according to your steadfast love." That was David. But the prayer, and the expectation of response is a true statement about God. As such, it is the word of God. And its content is inspired by God. It is the fact of a loving and forgiving God that caused David to cry out in repentance.

Parsing verses does not answer the questions. That is the legacy of our modern view of scripture. "There's a verse for that." God answers the questions and the needs . . . and not always with a verse. Sometimes with nothing more substantial than a sense of peace. Or unexplained comfort during hardship.

And the revelation of such things in scripture is "the word of God," or "the word of Christ" even though God did not literal speak the thing recorded.

How do you know the difference? If God actually said it, there is a different consideration for its meaning than if someone else said it. Jesus said "love your neighbor as yourself." I probably cannot declare that to have no ambiguity, but surely not much. It is what God directly said. But "happy is he who takes your children and dashes them against a rock" has some kind of meaning, even if not literal.

As long as we are wandering around in the "what about this word" kind of thinking, I think we are simply lost. But I believe that the premise of the thread was to counter Lee's declaration that most of the Psalms could have essentially been omitted. They really were not of "scripture" quality. God's breath was not in them in any way. And I agree that Lee was wrong.

I am encouraged that our real enemy will be defeated. Even his offspring will be terminated so that there is no Hatfield-McCoy kind of continuing battle. I want those "children" to be dashed against "the Rock."

Napalm and carry on.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So then we say "The Psalms are the word of Christ." What do we mean by that? Do we mean that every word written is a declaration by Christ as if spoken while walking around Judea and Samaria during his earthly ministry? Of course not. It is a record of God, who He is, and his interaction with his people. His people are often a mess, or in dire circumstances and that is reflected in what they write.

If we take the Psalms as mostly a record of the prayer and praise life of Israel (or at least certain ones of them) then the words, emotions, etc., captured are those of the writers, not God (or often not of God). In that sense, Psalms are the word of Israel about God. But the parts written and collected together as Psalms are also revealing concerning the nature of God (just, loving, forgiving, guiding, etc.) and of the ways that He has interacted with Israel. That is the "Word of God." And as such, it is the "Word of Christ," or, more accurately, it is Christ, because Christ is the Word of God.

I am encouraged that our real enemy will be defeated. Even his offspring will be terminated so that there is no Hatfield-McCoy kind of continuing battle. I want those "children" to be dashed against "the Rock."

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance

Awareness,
I'm with Igzy on this one. Don't you think that the cognitive dissonance you're fond of pointing out is on our side, has to be on our side, instead of within the text. God is not dissonance. God is peace and not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). His righteousness, His Justice is higher than ours, just as His love far far exceeds love as we understand it.
In this case I think cognitive dissonance is just fancy speak for misunderstanding God's character.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness
... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance... cognitive dissonance

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Awareness,
I'm with Igzy on this one. Don't you think that the cognitive dissonance you're fond of pointing out is on our side, has to be on our side, instead of within the text. God is not dissonance. God is peace and not confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). His righteousness, His Justice is higher than ours, just as His love far far exceeds love as we understand it.
In this case I think cognitive dissonance is just fancy speak for misunderstanding God's character.

Hey bro ABrother, I admit I'm not all that smart (after all I fell for the local church).

But I do realize ya'll would be much happier if I only pointed how the Psalms is the word of Jesus.

And I certainly agree that I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."

And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I admit that it may be my failing that I find cognitive dissonance upon encountering these seemingly contradictions.

And that I short-circuit to the point of timing out and system shut down.

So I react to and dismiss these contradictions like Lee did. I conclude that something non-Jesus was slipped into the Psalms.

And there. Cognitive Dissonance is gone. My mind is at peace.

And you and others are free to find your own methods or interpretations to resolve any cognitive dissonance you may have, between parts of the Psalms and Jesus in the NT, if any.

Just not thinking about it is another way. But that's my way. Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey bro ABrother, I admit I'm not all that smart (after all I fell for the local church).

But I do realize ya'll would be much happier if I only pointed how the Psalms is the word of Jesus.

Bro awareness, it seems you need to have a little perfection in your life in order to reduce levels of cognitive dissonance. See ... now you even got me saying that.

For example, I have become somewhat content with my LC experience, choosing not to forget all the good that came with the bad. I realize that no church is perfect, and they all got issues, as you say "His fan club." But has not God allowed or even planned for all the ingredients that cause this cognitive dissonance? Once He got involved with His creatures all sorts of contradictions surfaced. It seems for you, life would be so much better if God would have just written the Book Himself, and sent you a copy directly, bypassing all the failings of His Fan Club.

I'm thinking that life was more simpler for you before you learned how much cognitive dissonance exists in life. Blame it all on God if you will, because He has charted this course. Call us naive or whatever, but most of us Christians are a lot more peaceful in life just trusting that the Bible is His word, and not having all the answers.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I certainly agree that I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."
And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

I think what you're missing here, what you call cognitive dissonance, is that these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God's divine nature cannot be reconciled by us. Cognitive dissonance is a shortcoming of man's mind. I admit, there are things in the Bible that I do not (CANNOT) understand; there are things that seem horrible to me (Psalm 137:9), but I realize that my problem with them is precisely that, my problem. It isn't God's lack, His not constructing things well enough or whatever. His wisdom is more profound that what we have to work with.

Of course you're smart enough to recognize the seeming disparity in the verses you've quoted. Most people are. People who want to dismiss God's word use such verses to do so because of such seeming disparity.
As Christians, however, we need take those parts of the Word that are difficult in faith. That's not the same as ignoring them. That's just recognizing that God is not contradictory no matter how it seems.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

I think what you're missing here, what you call cognitive dissonance, is that these seemingly contradictory characteristics of God's divine nature cannot be reconciled by us. Cognitive dissonance is a shortcoming of man's mind. I admit, there are things in the Bible that I do not (CANNOT) understand; there are things that seem horrible to me (Psalm 137:9), but I realize that my problem with them is precisely that, my problem. It isn't God's lack, His not constructing things well enough or whatever. His wisdom is more profound that what we have to work with.

Of course you're smart enough to recognize the seeming disparity in the verses you've quoted. Most people are. People who want to dismiss God's word use such verses to do so because of such seeming disparity.
As Christians, however, we need take those parts of the Word that are difficult in faith. That's not the same as ignoring them. That's just recognizing that God is not contradictory no matter how it seems.

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

I count 55 passages from the Psalms that are quoted in the New Testament, and many of these passages are quoted in multiple places. Every gospel quotes them, Acts quotes it, Paul quotes them in multiple epistles, Hebrews quotes them, and Peter and John quote them. I don't think the fact that Awareness has trouble with one verse in one Psalm is much basis to come to the conclusion that these Psalms are not revelation of Jesus.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Or maybe our premise that, The Psalms are the word of Jesus, is wrong. There's always that possibility, that the Psalms are just songs ; a sort of Jewish hymnal.

And faith can sometimes just be a way to live in denial. Not saying that's what you're doing. I can't know such things.

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

You're right. The Psalms is not a red letter book.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, cuz if they were the words of Jesus, wouldn't they be red?

Silly rabbit, they are red when Jesus quotes them in the Gospels.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I do realize ya'll would be much happier if I only pointed how the Psalms is the word of Jesus.

... I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."

I admit that it may be my failing that I find cognitive dissonance upon encountering these seemingly contradictions.

So I react to and dismiss these contradictions like Lee did. I conclude that something non-Jesus was slipped into the Psalms.

Also, David did not behave in a very much like Jesus when he threw the rock at Goliath, did he? Wouldn’t it have been much more Christ-like if David had turned the other cheek?

One way around this conundrum – dissonance, so-called – is by way of analogy. “Now, the things which are seen (David, Goliath, a slingshot) are not real, but the things which are not seen (spiritual forces) are real” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Also, David did not behave in a very much like Jesus when he threw the rock at Goliath, did he? Wouldn’t it have been much more Christ-like if David had turned the other cheek?

One way around this conundrum – dissonance, so-called – is by way of analogy. “Now, the things which are seen (David, Goliath, a slingshot) are not real, but the things which are not seen (spiritual forces) are real” (2 Corinthians 4:18)

Hey bro Aron, I'm down with this. I've done this, and am handy with it still today. I can see things in a spiritual way. That's one of the ways I look at things.

But it's not the only way. I prefer every way available as a means to look at things. And I weigh them against each other.

And yes we can, spiritualize the Psalms, and say they are the words of Jesus.

But that doesn't make it so. It's just, as someone said out here, a hippie way of looking at it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can see things in a spiritual way. That's one of the ways I look at things.

But it's not the only way.

For the record, I didn't suggest that allegory was the only way to look at things. But it does deal with the cognitive dissonance part. And I prefer allegory to dismissing the scriptural text as "unchristian" and therefore either irrelevant or mistaken.

And I think that I have good company in allegorizing the unseen spiritual realm behind the physical OT stories, in that we can see this with both Paul and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews (who of course may also have been Paul). Not to mention extensive allegorizations by "church fathers" who followed immediately behind, such as Origen of Alexandria.

So I don't feel that I am too far out on a limb here. But at the same time I can accept that certain independent thinkers such as yourself may not be very attracted to these allegories. As I mentioned in my posts, these interpretations are more intimate and personal ("this is what the text reveals to me"), and are thus somewhat provisional and shouldn't be argued over.

There are plenty of "blank spots" and "grey areas" in scripture where we may strongly feel the LORD speaking things to us in His Christ and of His Christ. But we shouldn't insist that these speakings must now hold in all the churches. And if we don't get any speaking, a la WL in the bulk of the Psalms, we also shouldn't try to discourage others from seeing Christ revealed there. What I argued was that WL was the one being "natural" when he imposed his "fallen concepts" on the text, and he thereby robbed the LC saints of experiencing the speaking Son.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not smart enough to figure how Jesus in the NT says love your enemies, and says in Psalms 18:37 "I have pursued mine enemies, and overtaken them: neither did I turn again till they were consumed."

And how Jesus in the NT says suffer the children to come unto me, and Jesus says in Psalms, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

... I find cognitive dissonance upon encountering these seemingly contradictions.

... So I... dismiss these contradictions like Lee did. I conclude that something non-Jesus was slipped into the Psalms.

I remembered awareness' comments the other day, while reading Revelations 2:23, about the evil prophetess Jezebel in the Thyatiran church, that "I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."

Wow! Striking children dead!?! How very not Jesus-like!

Again, one of the ways commonly used by Christians to deal with these seeming contradictions is to identify different levels of meaning, or different dimensions of spiritual reality.

Just because something doesn't read "spiritual" to you, doesn't mean it isn't spiritual. And if you do happen to read something "of Christ" into the text, don't think you have likewise exhausted all its possibilities.

Looking back, WL's teachings had some utility, the way "See Spot run" was new and exciting in first grade. I was advancing, learning to see meaning from these combinations of letters and words. But I certainly hadn't exhausted their possibilities.

And I don't say this as one who has "laid hold", but rather, as one who has recently realized that he wasn't supposed to stay in first grade forever. Second grade, and beyond, awaited.

Remember that WL's "dismissing these contradictions" led to him dismissing the scriptures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Remember that WL's "dismissing these contradictions" led to him dismissing the Scriptures.

All of WL's pray-reading, and all of his calling, didn't keep him from treating these scriptures in a light and superficial way at best, and from bulldozing them away at worst.

We should be wary lest our ecstatic experiences lead us away from reliance upon the Word. We may begin to trust our "feelings", our "sensual responses", more than the words of Scripture themselves. And if the mental constructs which are built upon these sensations are challenged, we may be tempted to dismiss the very Word itself.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by aron

All of WL's pray-reading, and all of his calling, didn't keep him from treating these scriptures in a light and superficial way at best, and from bulldozing them away at worst.

We should be wary lest our ecstatic experiences lead us away from reliance upon the Word. We may begin to trust our "feelings", our "sensual responses", more than the words of Scripture themselves. And if the mental constructs which are built upon these sensations are challenged, we may be tempted to dismiss the very Word itself.

Hi Aron,
I was not in the LC when Lee began to trash the Psalms. From skimming through this thread, that is my perception of what Lee did. Why more people didn't just walk out of the LC when he did this, proves to me people preferred to "amen" him than amen the Word of God.

That said, I do not understand anything about this post. I have read the Psalms several times. I love the Psalms. They draw me so close to the Lord. They are so comforting. Don't they comfort you?

If you don't mind can you explain your comments?

[countmeworthy]

I read posts 269 - latest. The one difference between the tongu e speaking people I know is some of them feel / believe they get revelation from God. About what? They don't say! They also believe it edifys oneself...cause that what the Bible says.

They also believe Satan cannot understand the prayer language of tongues.

And regarding "enemies" being killed in the OT...including children....often times those enemies are demons. For example in Daniel 7 (I think), he prayed for 21 days. When Gabriel finally shows up, he tells him the Prince of Persia tried to stop him and he had to recruit Michael to help him.

This Prince was not human. Remember we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against the PRINCapalities and powers of the AIR, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places. The prince of Persia (Iran) was one of those principalities of the air.

Remember also that in Genesis 6 fallen angels married pagan women and their offspring were hybrids..nephelim or giants, which is the real reason God desired to destroy the earth. Giants some how continued to roam after the flood because the 10 spies saw themselves as grasshoppers and Goliath and his brothers were giants. They were "bad seed".

Blessings,

Carol G

[aron]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

If you don't mind can you explain your comments?

Of course; let me try to recap my argument on this thread.

Paul twice (Eph. 5 & Col. 3) encourages the saints to sing the Psalms, likening them to "being filled richly with the word of Christ" and also "being filled in Spirit". (Of course, Paul didn't say exclusively to sing the Psalms, but I never said that, either.)

The fact that Paul repeats his encouragement in separate epistles is significant. Two is the number of witness. Once might be an anomaly; twice signals a trend, a confirmation.

Secondly, the Psalms were obviously an "engine of revelation", to both the gospel and epistle writers of the NT, for presenting aspects of God's Christ, who is Jesus our Lord. A lot of the aspects of Jesus' life and especially his mystical union with the Father in heaven are revealed there.

Thirdly, I didn't see anywhere that Christ or his disciples or subsequent "church fathers" of the first centuries discouraged any of the Psalms as somehow lacking in revelation for Christians. So what basis did WL have? Was he really "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" by discriminating against so much Scripture as non-revelatory? What precedent for this do we see in either within the NT text or in church history?

I noted that WL discouraged Psalm-singing among the saints, and secondly that the RecV barely covers them. And the RecV coverage is largely dismissive, calling them "natural" and "fallen concepts", versus "divine revelation". A cursory investigation of the first 35 Psalms led me to estimate that over 75% of the material was either ignored or put down. Many verses lack even the basic cross-references, much less footnotes.

Even in places where WL was forced to acknowledge the "divine revelation", i.e. "not one of his bone will be broken" in Psalm 34, he dismissed the entire surrounding text as irrelevant. So I argued that he pretty much only acknowledged as much "Christ" in the Psalms as he absolutely had to.

And I noted the disparity between this kind of treatment the Psalms versus his studies elsewhere in the OT, where he spent message after message after message gleaning "spiritual" details of the Christ from the text.

Lastly, I noted the irony that WL encouraged the LC saints to focus on the "high peak" NT revelations versus wasting time on the Psalms, when the "heart of the divine revelation" (Eph/Gal/Col/Phil) twice encouraged the saints to sing the Psalms!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

If you don't mind can you explain your comments?

I'll add to this.

WL did his Life-Study of the Bible, and then went back to certain books to do a "crystalization" study. It was mostly during this time that WL began to berate the book of James, and much of the Psalms. James supposedly was lacking in the divine revelation, and hence contained little of God's New Testament economy. It is interesting to note that many of the verses most critical of WL and LSM found in the book of James.

Lee's study of Psalms was equally critical. Besides those scriptures in Psalms, commonly known to be prophetic of Christ, e.g. Psalm 22, he relegated much of them to the trash heap of "human sentiment." Supposedly the bulk of the Psalms, especially e.g. those which spoke of "avenging my enemies," were denigrated to a lesser status because they lacked Christ, they lacked the divine inspiration, and they lacked revelation.

To a typical LC adherent, these books of James and most of the Psalms have less value than the teachings of Lee himself. Witness Lee often boasted that every page of his books was filled with the heavenly speaking, and every single book had some fresh new revelation from God.

As time progressed, Witness Lee's view of himself and his ministry grew to megalomaniacal proportions.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Lee found cognitive dissonance between "Lord, avenge me of my enemies" and "Jesus" with "Love your enemies?"

He's certainly not the first to "discover" this cognitive dissonance between, actually, the Old Testament and the New Testament. This goes back to the early Gnostics. And it goes back to Marcion (c.85 – c.160), who completely dismissed the OT because of such cognitive dissonance.

I bring up the possible pagan sources for some of the Psalms for this reason. I contend that at least the Psalms that have pagan sources is not likely inspired of God. Unless, like the pagan Melchizedek (Genesis 14), God can inspire thru pagans. Which I admit is a possibility.

But still, it is hard for us to deal with the cognitive dissonance we find between Jesus and some of the OT. Most of us just gloss over it, and dismiss it in our mind.

Lee did it openly.

Talk about cognitive dissonance! Poof. You just blew my mind. How can there be "cognitive dissonance between Jesus who said of God that He "loved His enemies" and the God of the OT?

Matt
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.