The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

You mis-read me terribly. My point was, on what basis did Witness Lee say that 34 of the first 41 psalms were human concepts? Because the writer was a sinner? Because he struggled against his foes? Because the chapter wasn't quoted in the NT?

I don't care if you aren't interested in these questions; rather I find it quite telling that thousands of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful Christians gathered to hear these messages without any of them apparently doing so.

"Well it's only natural" -yes, quite.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

You mis-read me terribly. My point was, on what basis did Witness Lee say that 34 of the first 41 psalms were human concepts? Because the writer was a sinner? Because he struggled against his foes? Because the chapter wasn't quoted in the NT?

I don't care if you aren't interested in these questions; rather I find it quite telling that thousands of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful Christians gathered to hear these messages without any of them apparently doing so.

"Well it's only natural" -yes, quite.

Ok.... in your opinion you know what’s going on and he didn’t.

So, educate us. If you agree that there are human concepts in the Bible how does Aron identify them?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok.... in your opinion you know what’s going on and he didn’t.

So, educate us. If you agree that there are human concepts in the Bible how does Aron identify them?

Drake

If the NT reception indicates thus. Otherwise tread with care. "All scripture is God-breathed", not 35% of it. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", not 25% of it.

Lop off God's word with extreme caution. Lee lopped it off with extreme recklessness.

Conversely, how do you know if your 'oracle' was entertaining human concepts . . . how about if he cavalierly departed from apostolic precedent? In Acts 2, Peter noted David's sin and failure, but said that his word was prophetic. Paul repeated this in Acts 13. I say we have precedent. Lee noted David's sin and failure, and said therefore his word was vain and fallen, and inapplicable.

I suppose I'll stick with apostolic precedent. Of course I'll apply it judiciously. But I won't abandon it like Witness Lee did.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

If the NT reception indicates thus. Otherwise tread with care. "All scripture is God-breathed", not 35% of it. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", not 25% of it.

Conversely, how do you know if your 'oracle' was entertaining human concepts . . ..

See Aron, you keep denying this but both can be and are true.... “All Scripture is God breathed” AND there are human concepts included in it. I’m also convinced that you are “entertaining human concepts” in your posts in this forum.

That inclusion of human concepts in the Scripture is another benefit in the profitability of Scripture to us.... they are instructive in guiding us. Nothing is getting “lopped off”::: unless you lop off Psalms and other verses you think are human concepts. You might engage in the practice of lopping off scripture but Witness Lee certainly did not. He treasured the Bible more than any minister I ever knew and he left quite a volume that proves just how much he did.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nothing is getting “lopped off” unless you lop off Psalms and other verses you think are human concepts. You might engage in the practice of lopping off scripture but Witness Lee certainly did not. He treasured the Bible . . .

Sorry I occasionally lapse into colorful expressions which don't match the facts on the ground. No, WL didn't "lop off" scriptures. But he disregarded them as vain, fallen human concepts. Read my first post again. Or, read the first 21 chapters of the RecV and see the footnotes. Most of the text passes without comment. Only a few passing remarks on how it is "fallen" and "mixed sentiments" and the like.

Peter could have said that about Psalm 16. I mean, David the sinner never rose from the dead! Just vain talk, right? Empty words from a fallen human's concept! But no, Peter didn't take that route. But WL did.

But "lopped off" was probably a mischaracterization. "Disregarded" would be better put.