Poor poor Christianity?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it is clear that the NT is the foundation of the church (the rock the church is built on is the revelation of Jesus Christ).

So I assume when you use the term "Christianity" in this post it is referring not to the church but to the "poor, poor christianity" of this thread.

Therefore they are both based on the NT, the difference is that Christianity is based very much on the interpretation of these verses by particular Christian teachers whereas the church does not suffer such a limitation.

For example, Witness Lee greatly limited the way in which the NT could be understood, interpreted and even what the members of the LRC could read, write and say.

My point was simply that the New Testament writings we have are from hellenists who were of the educated class of that era.

It's possible that the fact that Paul was educated gave him an advantage over the 12 apostles who weren't. The gospels were written anonymously so we don't actually know if Matthew or John wrote the gospels that are attributed to them. Likewise the Epistles of James Peter and John.

But, even if they did write those documents, what about Andrew, Phillip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Simon the zealot, or late comer, Matthias? Despite the fact that Jesus chose all but Matthias to disseminate his teaching we have nothing from them. Jesus appointed them. Where are their teachings?

Paul didn't know the pre Resurrection Jesus. He conveys little of Jesus's pre Resurrection teaching in his letters. And Paul also dominates the story in Acts. Since his Epistles came before the gospels were written Paul's brand of Hellenism may have influenced them as well.

In 2nd Corinthians 5 Paul says "...from now on we regard no one according to the flesh even though we have known Christ according to the flesh yet now we know him thus no longer." Was Paul suppressing the teachings of those who actually knew Jesus before the resurrection in favor his own Hellenistic gospel? If so, he succeeded.

It was the Pauline vision that prevailed and was used to build the church. In his epistle to the Galatians Paul questions the authority of James Peter and John calling them "reputed pillars". He boasts that he opposed Peter to his face because Peter disagreed with him about eating kosher food.

If the Galatians were to accept Paul's teaching over that of Peter and the other apostles then Paul would would be the dominant authority to them. This in fact seems what transpired among the churches eventually. The Hellenists prevailed. Those that didn't accept it came to be called Judaizers when in fact they may have simply been adhering to the practices of Judaism like Jesus did as the Book of Matthew presents him. What do you think?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's possible that the fact that Paul was educated gave him an advantage over the 12 apostles who weren't.

No doubt his ability to connect Jesus' ministry with the OT into one coherent revelation has helped.

Originally Posted by zeek

Despite the fact that Jesus chose all but Matthias to disseminate his teaching we have nothing from them. Jesus appointed them. Where are their teachings?

Since I don't know it is simply conjecture. Perhaps their teaching is precisely what we see in the gospels and acts and therefore we have no need of writings from them. Perhaps the gospels, like Luke's writings, represent a thorough summation of all their teachings.

Originally Posted by zeek

Was Paul suppressing the teachings of those who actually knew Jesus before the resurrection in favor his own Hellenistic gospel? If so, he succeeded.

This is the problem of being a talented member, it tends to suppress others talents. That said I feel that the gospels are very well represented in the church teachings.

Originally Posted by zeek

He boasts that he opposed Peter to his face because Peter disagreed with him about eating kosher food.

The point was not about kosher food, that point was resolved earlier by Peter and his vision. The point of contention was about not eating with believers because they were not "Jews".

Originally Posted by zeek

The Hellenists prevailed. Those that didn't accept it came to be called Judaizers when in fact they may have simply been adhering to the practices of Judaism like Jesus did as the Book of Matthew presents him. What do you think?

I don't think the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as a Judaizer. I define a Judaizer as one who requires believers to be circumcised, to convert to Judaism, to separate themselves from believers who have not converted, and who still keep the various animal sacrifices. I fully agree with Paul's understanding that Jesus death is the real circumcision and I fully agree with Peter's vision that Jesus death cleansed all of us so that we no longer have "clean" and "unclean" peoples.

[zeek]

Here are a few things Witness Lee had to say about Christianity recorded in a book entitled Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church for your consideration.

The worst titles that the Lord gives to the church are “great harlot” and “Babylon the Great” (Rev. 17:1-5). Babylon in Greek is equivalent to Babel in the Old Testament. Both words refer to confusion and fornication. Today the so-called churches in Christianity are Babylon. (Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church, Chapter 4, Section 3)

I think Babylon in Revelation symbolizes Rome not the church. What is the bass for claiming that it's the church? Elsewhere Lee says that Christianity is not the church.

The modernists in today's Christianity preach Christ, but they do not believe that Christ came in the flesh; they are wooden and earthen vessels. Wooden and earthen vessels refers to false believers who are not truly saved. Because God is great, His house is a great house. In His great house there are vessels of gold (those who are divine), vessels of silver (those who are redeemed), and wooden and earthen vessels (those who are constituted with the fallen human nature). We were all earthen vessels, but we have been redeemed and have had a change in nature inwardly to become vessels of silver and gold.

The church today is in desolation and has become a great tree (Matt. 13:32). In this great tree, that is, in Christianity, there are all kinds of preachers and workers, such as Paul, Timothy, Hymenaeus, and Philetus. In the desolation of the church, the Lord wants us to cleanse ourselves from dishonorable vessels, from those who are fleshly, worldly, and natural. The Lord wants us to become vessels unto honor. Although we should not argue with people about doctrines, we need to discern their nature. We should discern whether the nature of someone's work is wooden and earthen or if it is gold and silver. Is it a work of wood and earth or a work of gold and silver? Some people build with wood, grass, and stubble; others build with gold, silver, and precious stones (1 Cor. 3:12). We must discern the nature of the work.(Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church, Chapter 5, Section 2)

It's generally true that modernism which is based on modern science is antithetical to religious supernaturalism. Modernism can receive the ethical teachings of Christianity for critical consideration and accept those which pass rational and empirical evaluation.

Today Christianity is under the teaching of Balaam and the teaching of the Nicolaitans. In Christianity there are idols, wealth, position, and authoritarian control. However, it is difficult for people in Christianity to enjoy Christ, much less the hidden manna. If people refuse human teachings and organization and live a hidden life before God, they will be able to experience and enjoy the hidden Christ. This is why we do not advertise. We are willing to serve the Lord for our whole lives without being recognized by others. We are not willing to do anything in the name, organization, or realm of Christianity. The desire for even a little fame is a Nicolaitan thought. Some people eloquently argue that if we would just slightly change our methods, we would be well known in Christianity, and our work would be more effective. Their words are very persuasive, and if we were like Balaam, they would be like the bait on a fishhook to catch us and carry us away. (Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church, Chapter 7, Section 3)

Lee compares favorably to most of the televangelists I know of on this parameter.

If we want to know what attitude we should have toward today's Christianity, we must understand God's attitude toward Christianity. We should have God's attitude toward Christianity in the present age.

GOD'S ATTITUDE
The light and prophecies in the New Testament show God's heart's desire and His attitude toward Christianity in this age. On one hand, God is dissatisfied with the desolated, confused, and transmuted condition of Christianity. God condemns divisions, mixture with the world, human organization by human will, falling into Babylon, and affording opportunities to Satan. On the other hand, although God condemns these things, He does not intend to eliminate these things in this age or even to forbid them. It seems that God not only allows these things to exist but also to continually increase. Thus, the number of sects in Christianity will increase over time, and Christianity will become more and more worldly and confused. God dislikes and condemns these situations, but He seems to allow them to continue. God does not intend to eliminate them immediately, and He does not even limit them. It seems as though God does not control them but allows them to go on freely.

OUR ATTITUDE
On the Negative Side—Not Participating,
Not Interfering, Not Criticizing, and Not Mentioning
Based on God's attitude, we should have two attitudes toward Christianity. First, if we receive mercy from the Lord, we should not participate in the confused, deformed situation in Christianity. Although God does not eliminate or forbid such an improper condition, He does say, “Come out of her, My people” (Rev. 18:4). Simply stated, one who lives before God, cares for God's heart's desire, has inner light, and is willing to pay the price cannot remain in organized Christianity. I am not exhorting people to leave the denominations; this is not a matter of whether a person is in a denomination. Rather, it is a matter of avoiding mixture with the world.

Second, we are foolish if we think that we can alter the condition of today's Christianity. Such thinking assumes that we are greater and more capable than God. Some people say, “The churches are divided; let us make them one.” Twenty-five years ago I also felt this way; however, I now feel that to say such a thing would indicate that I do not know myself and that to try to do such a thing would be to try to do what God Himself will not do. To hope to correct Christianity and eliminate its mistakes is to be foolish and proud. Who can reform Christianity? We cannot do it because God is not doing it. Of course, if God wanted to do it, He would have a way. However, God's Word shows that He is not reforming Christianity. Since He is not doing it, why should we try?

Therefore, on the one hand, we should not participate in Christianity, and on the other hand, we should not try to intervene in its situation; we should not even criticize Christianity. It is not our place to criticize Christianity. If we understand correctly, we should not even mention the condition of Christianity. When we preach the gospel, give messages, and visit or fellowship with people, we should not mention Christianity. Christianity is not our topic, and we should not intervene in, criticize, or even mention it. Christianity should not be in our eyes and thoughts. This does not mean that because of pride we do not look at anyone else; rather, to have Christianity in our thoughts is a waste of our time because we have no way or ability to do anything helpful. (Three Aspects of the Church: Book 2, The Course of the Church, Chapter 19, Section 1)

Lee isn't practicing what he is preaching here as he he is criticizing Christianity even in the process of saying we shouldn't. This book is composed of messages concerning the course of the church given by Lee during a training on service in Taipei, Taiwan in 1956. And he didn't let up after this. He verbally attacked Christianity frequently in his sermons and lessons during the thirteen years I participated in the LCM.

I think Lee's counsel to imitate God's forbearance is wise, but I include the LCM movement under the rubric "Christianity" that needs to be forbeared.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No doubt his ability to connect Jesus' ministry with the OT into one coherent revelation has helped.



Since I don't know it is simply conjecture. Perhaps their teaching is precisely what we see in the gospels and acts and therefore we have no need of writings from them. Perhaps the gospels, like Luke's writings, represent a thorough summation of all their teachings.



This is the problem of being a talented member, it tends to suppress others talents. That said I feel that the gospels are very well represented in the church teachings.



The point was not about kosher food, that point was resolved earlier by Peter and his vision. The point of contention was about not eating with believers because they were not "Jews".



I don't think the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as a Judaizer. I define a Judaizer as one who requires believers to be circumcised, to convert to Judaism, to separate themselves from believers who have not converted, and who still keep the various animal sacrifices. I fully agree with Paul's understanding that Jesus death is the real circumcision and I fully agree with Peter's vision that Jesus death cleansed all of us so that we no longer have "clean" and "unclean" peoples.

Some Palestinian Jews hoped for a prophet like Moses who would bring Salvation from their hated oppressors the Romans and those who collaborated with them as well as present the law of God. Moses had prophesied of another Prophet like himself in Deuteronomy 18: 15 to 19. In Matthew Jesus is the new Moses. He doesn't replace the the Old Law rather he's the true and final interpreter of what the earlier Moses had recorded in the Torah. The law which Jesus gives doesn't conflict with the law of Moses rather it is its fulfillment ( 5:17). The followers of Jesus must follow the law of Moses by understanding it in the way directed by the new Moses Jesus the Messiah. I join Bart Ehrman in wondering if Paul in the author of The Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along. https://ehrmanblog.org/is-paul-at-odds-with-matthew/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Some Palestinian Jews hoped for a prophet like Moses who would bring Salvation from their hated oppressors the Romans and those who collaborated with them as well as present the law of God. Moses had prophesied of another Prophet like himself in Deuteronomy 18: 15 to 19. In Matthew Jesus is the new Moses. He doesn't replace the the Old Law rather he's the true and final interpreter of what the earlier Moses had recorded in the Torah. The law which Jesus gives doesn't conflict with the law of Moses rather it is its fulfillment ( 5:17). The followers of Jesus must follow the law of Moses by understanding it in the way directed by the new Moses Jesus the Messiah. I join Bart Ehrman in wondering if Paul in the author of The Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along. https://ehrmanblog.org/is-paul-at-odds-with-matthew/

Only paying members can read from this link.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Only paying members can read from this link.

Here's the whole thing :

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?
In yesterday’s post I indicated that I really very much wish that we could have some of the writings produced by Paul’s opponents in Galatia. They believed that in order to be a follower of Jesus, a person had to accept and follow the Law of Moses as laid out in the Jewish Scriptures. Men were to be circumcised to join the people of God; men and women were, evidently, to adopt a Jewish lifestyle. Presumably that meant keeping kosher, observing the Sabbath, and so on. Anyone who didn’t do this was not really a member of the people of God, since to be one of God’s people meant following the law that God had given.

Paul was incensed at this interpretation of the faith and insisted with extraordinary vehemence that it was completely wrong. The gentile followers of Jesus were not, absolutely not, supposed to become Jewish. Anyone who thought so rendered the death of Jesus worthless. It was only that death, and the resurrection, that made a person right with God. Nothing else. Certainly not following the Torah.

I often wonder whether Paul and the author of the Gospel of Matthew would have gotten along.

Matthew’s Gospel was probably…

Matthew’s Gospel was probably written about thirty years after Paul wrote his letter to the Galatians; Galatians is usually dated to the mid 50s, Matthew to around 80-85 CE. We don’t know who the author of Matthew was, apart from the fact that he was obviously a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian living outside of Palestine. His book is often located to Antioch Syria, but in my view that is simply a guess based on flimsy evidence. Still, it certainly *may* have been written Antioch, a city with a large Jewish population and a burgeoning Christian church.

Matthew, like the other Gospel writers, did not produce his account simply out of antiquarian interests, to inform his readers what happened 55 years earlier in the days of Jesus. His is not a disinterested biography or an objective history. It is a “Gospel.” In other words, it is intended to proclaim the “good news” about Jesus and the salvation that he brings. When Jesus teaches something in this Gospel, Matthew expects that the teaching will be relevant to his readers, that they will want to do what Jesus says.

There is no doubt that Matthew would agree with Paul that it was the death and resurrection of Jesus that brought salvation to the world. The Gospel is not *entirely* about Jesus’ death and resurrection. But it is largely about that. It is 28 chapters long, and the last 8 chapters are focused exclusively on what happened during the last week of Jesus’ life in Jerusalem, including the crucifixion and resurrection. This is clearly the climax of the story. And for Matthew, as for his predecessor Mark, the death of Jesus is seen as “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). It is through his death that he “will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

So Matthew would agree with Paul there. But so would Paul’s opponents in Galatia. The controversy with the Galatian opposition was not over whether Jesus’ death brings salvation. It was over whether the followers of Jesus, who accept that death, need to keep the Jewish law. And it does seem to me that this is where Paul and Matthew split company. Again, remember that when Matthew decides what to present about Jesus’ life in the Gospel it is not simply so that people can know “what really happened” in the past. It is so that the life and teachings of Jesus can direct the lives of his followers in the present.

And what does Jesus say about the Jewish law in Matthew? He says that his followers have to keep it. One of the key passages is something that you will NEVER find in the writings of Paul.

Do not suppose that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfil. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away not one iota or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all is fulfilled. And so, whoever looses one of the least of these commandments and teaches others in this way will be called least in the kingdom of God, but whoever does and teaches the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is a really interesting passage. Does it contradict Paul that the followers of Jesus were *not* to keep the law? It seems to.

Now someone *could* say that here Jesus is saying simply that the entire law has to be in effect until he dies (“until all is fulfilled”). But Jesus is saying more than that. His followers must do and teach the law. None of it will pass away until the world is destroyed (“till heaven and earth pass away”). Again, Matthew is not saying this so his readers will have a good history lesson about the Savior of the world and what he taught his disciples. He is including this passage for the same reason he includes all his passages, to teach his readers how they are to believe and live. Jesus in this passage does *not* say, “Keep the law until I die.” He says he did not come to destroy the law. It is still in effect. And will be as long as the earth lasts. His followers have to keep it.

After this Jesus launches into his “antitheses,” where he indicates what the law says and explains its fuller, deeper meaning. The law says don’t kill; to fulfill it you should not engage someone with wrath. The law says not to take someone’s spouse; to fulfill it you should not want to do so. The law says to make punishments fit the crimes (an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth; not a head for an eye or a body for a tooth); to fulfill it you should show extreme mercy and not punish another for harm done to you. And so on.

I really don’t think that Matthew’s Jesus did not mean what he says. He gives no hint that following the law this closely is impossible to do. He seems to think it is possible. God gave a law. You should follow it. Scrupulously. Even more scrupulously than the righteous scribes and Pharisees. If you don’t, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

That’s a tall order. And in my judgment it seems very much opposed to Paul’s views, who insists that *his* readers not think that they must follow the law.

[awareness]

As I've come to see it so far, the early Christians were Jews, and at least the educated elite were Hellenized Christian Jews ; reading and referencing the Koine Greek Septuagint.

But there came a split in the two types of Jewish Christians. Some were called Judaizers, and some were called Hellenizers ; in Paul's terms, basically, the circumcisers, and the uncircumcisers. James, the brother of Jesus, was an example of the Judaizers. Paul an example of the Hellenizers, and prolly their leader.

That the Hellenizers won out is without question. Or rather, that the Judaizers lost out is without question. That's obvious. Maybe six of one, half a dozen of the other. I don't know.

There's power in numbers. The uncircumcisers, the Hellenists, won out. Paul proved to be the top dog apostle, over James, Peter, John, and prolly over the rest of the "silent Bob" disciples. The different gospel Paul rebuked in Galatians was that of the original Jewish Christians, the Judaizers, and they lost out.

Was that the first wrong turn in the history of the Christian movement? It is said that history is written by the victors. And they, Christians today, that aren't Jewish at all, certainly can't be trusted to offer an unbiased answer.

Was Hellenization the beginning of poor, poor, Christianity? Should Paul have won out over the original disciples?

Since they were all Hellenized Jewish Christians I guess it couldn't be helped.

I guess those pesky smarty-pants Greeks won again.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?

Zeek,

I think this question is misleading. It was Jesus in the gospels (including Matthew) that violated the Sabbath day based on "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Then it was Peter who violated the prohibition of eating with the Gentiles and baptized them into the church.

It is also clear that they were not required by Peter or by the Lord's vision, to be circumcised first. Instead the Vision said that they had already been cleansed and Peter understood that to mean that the Lord's redemptive work on the cross opened the New Covenant to them.

This was then confirmed in a council headed up by James. All of the so called "Judaizers" got to weigh in and everyone agreed that the Lord's redemptive work applied to Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised or convert to Judaism first. None of this had anything to do with Paul whose ministry came later. Since circumcision in the OT was simply the "signature of God on your flesh" that you had a covenant with God it was clearly not required when Peter baptized the gentiles.

Therefore, what is the sign in our flesh that we have a covenant with God if not circumcision? That is the question that Paul answers. He is not the one who told us Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that was already decided. He merely explained how this decision was consistent with the Bible.

Since most agree that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the Gospel of Peter and that there is a very strong correlation between Mark and Matthew this seems to be much to do about nothing.

[awareness]

I don't know that it matters, but your response should be to zeek not me.

This :

Originally Posted by zeek

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?

Not this:

Originally Posted by awareness

Is Paul at Odds with Matthew?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Zeek,

I think this question is misleading. It was Jesus in the gospels (including Matthew) that violated the Sabbath day based on "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath". Then it was Peter who violated the prohibition of eating with the Gentiles and baptized them into the church.

It is also clear that they were not required by Peter or by the Lord's vision, to be circumcised first. Instead the Vision said that they had already been cleansed and Peter understood that to mean that the Lord's redemptive work on the cross opened the New Covenant to them.

This was then confirmed in a council headed up by James. All of the so called "Judaizers" got to weigh in and everyone agreed that the Lord's redemptive work applied to Gentiles who were not required to be circumcised or convert to Judaism first. None of this had anything to do with Paul whose ministry came later. Since circumcision in the OT was simply the "signature of God on your flesh" that you had a covenant with God it was clearly not required when Peter baptized the gentiles.

Therefore, what is the sign in our flesh that we have a covenant with God if not circumcision? That is the question that Paul answers. He is not the one who told us Gentiles don't need to be circumcised, that was already decided. He merely explained how this decision was consistent with the Bible.

Since most agree that the Gospel of Mark is essentially the Gospel of Peter and that there is a very strong correlation between Mark and Matthew this seems to be much to do about nothing.

It isn't a leading question much less misleading one. All that is required is an up or down vote plus the evidence to back up your choice. I suppose it might lead someone to think and possibly do some research. It would only be misleading to someone who supposed that the Bible represents absolute authority that should not be questioned.

Those questions about the Sabbath seem to be matters of interpretation of law not it's abrogation. The sabbath laws were ambiguous so interpretations varied. So, for instance, according to Rabbi Akiba one should not desecrate the Sabbath for things that can be done the day before or the day after but no desecration exists when such a possibility is not offered. Like Akiba's, Jesus' interpretation fits within the context of Judaism.

In Galatians 2:16, Paul says that no flesh shall be justified by the works of the law. Matthew 16:17 says for the son of man will come in the glory of his father with his angels and then he will reward each according to his works. How do you reconcile those verses? It's not unwarranted to question whether Paul and the author of Matthew would have been at odds if they had been contemporaneous and aware of one another. See post # 163 for Ehrman's more detailed elaboration of the problem that Awareness kindly provided.

The document that we call Mark doesn't have the author's name on it. That it was written by Mark a follower of Peter is matter of tradition begun by Papias. Eusebius mentions it centuries later, but few historical scholars accept it as conclusive.