Poor poor Christianity?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay. We've now learned of Luke's textual mechanics and antics. And you're wondering if we gather all of Luke's 3s together, if we'll then figure out his purpose.

Will we then learn that Christianity went poor in Acts? Acts did happen some 20 years after Jesus, when Paul was active. Was Paul a later version of Jesus? or did he misrepresent the historical Jesus? Was Paul the first to make Christianity poor? or did it happen before Paul?

I don't see how calling the author's use of repetition for emphasis "antics" is warranted. I do think that it's indicative of his intent. I wouldn't expect to find Christianity going poor in the book of Acts. Christians generally look to Acts for a standard of how Christianity is supposed to be. Before something it can become poor don't we need a standard for comparison? Of course the author may recognize elements that the true Faith fought against which may be sources for Christianity's eventual impoverishment. But it seems to me we need to first identify the books central theme.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't see how calling the author's use of repetition for emphasis "antics" is warranted.

Oh, you're right. I forgot to speak highfalutin hoity-toity. I should have said, literary devices.

Originally Posted by z

I do think that it's indicative of his intent. I wouldn't expect to find Christianity going poor in the book of Acts.

Me neither. But enter stage left : Paul ... and Barnabas.

Originally Posted by z

Christians generally look to Acts for a standard of how Christianity is supposed to be. Before something it can become poor don't we need a standard for comparison? Of course the author may recognize elements that the true Faith fought against which may be sources for Christianity's eventual impoverishment. But it seems to me we need to first identify the books central theme.

Isn't the central theme ACTS?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh, you're right. I forgot to speak highfalutin hoity-toity. I should have said, literary devices.


Me neither. But enter stage left : Paul ... and Barnabas.


Isn't the central theme ACTS?

That's a bit too vague don't you think? My reading supports the theory attributed to Burkett in the Wikipedia entry, i. e., that Luke-Acts is an attempt to explain why the Messiah that was promised to the Jews came to have an overwhelmingly Gentile Church. And the answer is that the Jews predominantly rejected Christ and the gospel. So the book of Acts legitimates the turn to the Gentiles in the name of the Holy Spirit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's a bit too vague don't you think? My reading supports the theory attributed to Burkett in the Wikipedia entry, i. e., that Luke-Acts is an attempt to explain why the Messiah that was promised to the Jews came to have an overwhelmingly Gentile Church. And the answer is that the Jews predominantly rejected Christ and the gospel. So the book of Acts legitimates the turn to the Gentiles in the name of the Holy Spirit.

And the Epistle of Barnabas, written circa around the gospel of John, and prolly before Acts, makes a clean break between the Judaizers and the gentile church. Prof. Bart Ehrman, for example, says, that the Epistle of Barnabas was the most anti-Jewish writing during that time.

It's prolly not written by the companion of Paul, but still reflects what the gentile church was thinking by the end of the first century.

And who's Barnabas? Was he knocked off his horse?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And the Epistle of Barnabas, written circa around the gospel of John, and prolly before Acts, makes a clean break between the Judaizers and the gentile church. Prof. Bart Ehrman, for example, says, that the Epistle of Barnabas was the most anti-Jewish writing during that time.

It's prolly not written by the companion of Paul, but still reflects what the gentile church was thinking by the end of the first century.

And who's Barnabas? Was he knocked off his horse?

Acts says Barnabas was a nickname which means “Son of Encouragement”. He was a Levite and a Cypriot who was tight with the apostles. He had sold his land and given the money to them. So, when Saul arrived in Jerusalem after his conversion and the believers were all afraid of him, Barnabas recommended him to them, and Saul was accepted by them. All this was a prelude to the missionary journeys of Barnabas and Saul/Paul together. Nothing about a horse. But then there is no mention of a horse in Paul's conversion story either. You can't seem to shake that meme.

[zeek]

In order to keep the focus of this thread on what Witness Lee called "Poor Christianity", here are some brief excerpts from "The Intrinsic Problem in the Lord's Recovery Today and Its Scriptural Remedy" by Witness Lee which addresses the issue directly.

"In his withdrawal from the eldership of the church in Anaheim on March 19, 1989, Brother John Ingalls charged us with a number of accusations concerning our present situation. Hence, I have the burden to present to the saints in the Lord’s recovery some truths that will blow away the cloud that has dimmed the clear vision of the Lord’s recovery among us and will bring back to us a clear sky with a clear view in the recovery. These practical truths are versus some of John’s dissenting accusations."

John Ingalls had written “Our attitude toward other Christians is one of belittling them and thinking we’re superior to them. I don’t know how many times we’ve heard this expression, ‘Poor Christianity!’ We say that we’re speaking only of the system, not of the people, but our attitude has definitely spilled over to the people.”

Witness Lee's response:
"Concerning John’s accusation in this item, we must distinguish Christianity from the Christians and the genuine church that is according to the divine revelation of the New Testament. In Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus showed us clearly in His parables:

• the difference between the wheat (the real Christians) and the tares (the nominal Christians);
• the difference between meal (fine flour—Christ as food to God and men) and leaven (evil things such as heresies, false teachings, and evil practices);
• the difference between the mustard seed (Christ as the seed of life) and a big tree (the abnormal development of the church—Christianity); and
• the difference between the tares, leaven, and the abnormally developed tree, and the treasure hidden in the field (the kingdom of the heavens) and the pearl of great value (the genuine church).

The nominal Christians, the heresies, the evil practices, and the abnormal development have transmuted the church, which is composed of the genuine Christians and Christ as the seed of life and the spiritual food to be the precious pearl and the hidden treasure, into Christianity, which is not acceptable to God. Today, for the Lord’s recovery, we must realize the difference between the genuine church, composed of the real Christians, and the abnormal Christianity.

When we say “Poor Christianity!” we refer to the abnormal Christianity, with no intention of belittling or despising any real Christian. We do recognize real Christians as our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ and respect those among them who are seeking the Lord and His kingdom.

However, we cannot justify the very Christianity of which they are members and for which they work. Hence, in the Lord’s recovery, quite often in teaching the saints we must present the truth concerning the genuine church of the Lord as His organic Body by pointing out the poor situation of today’s Christianity. We prefer to speak about others in a positive way, but in today’s abnormal situation we simply cannot avoid pointing out the abnormality that exists among Christians."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In order to keep the focus of this thread on what Witness Lee called "Poor Christianity", here are some brief excerpts from "The Intrinsic Problem in the Lord's Recovery Today and Its Scriptural Remedy" by Witness Lee which addresses the issue directly.

"In his withdrawal from the eldership of the church in Anaheim on March 19, 1989, Brother John Ingalls charged us with a number of accusations concerning our present situation. Hence, I have the burden to present to the saints in the Lord’s recovery some truths that will blow away the cloud that has dimmed the clear vision of the Lord’s recovery among us and will bring back to us a clear sky with a clear view in the recovery. These practical truths are versus some of John’s dissenting accusations."

John Ingalls had written “Our attitude toward other Christians is one of belittling them and thinking we’re superior to them. I don’t know how many times we’ve heard this expression, ‘Poor Christianity!’ We say that we’re speaking only of the system, not of the people, but our attitude has definitely spilled over to the people.”

Witness Lee's response:
"Concerning John’s accusation in this item, we must distinguish Christianity from the Christians and the genuine church that is according to the divine revelation of the New Testament. In Matthew 13 the Lord Jesus showed us clearly in His parables:

• the difference between the wheat (the real Christians) and the tares (the nominal Christians);
• the difference between meal (fine flour—Christ as food to God and men) and leaven (evil things such as heresies, false teachings, and evil practices);
• the difference between the mustard seed (Christ as the seed of life) and a big tree (the abnormal development of the church—Christianity); and
• the difference between the tares, leaven, and the abnormally developed tree, and the treasure hidden in the field (the kingdom of the heavens) and the pearl of great value (the genuine church).

The nominal Christians, the heresies, the evil practices, and the abnormal development have transmuted the church, which is composed of the genuine Christians and Christ as the seed of life and the spiritual food to be the precious pearl and the hidden treasure, into Christianity, which is not acceptable to God. Today, for the Lord’s recovery, we must realize the difference between the genuine church, composed of the real Christians, and the abnormal Christianity.

When we say “Poor Christianity!” we refer to the abnormal Christianity, with no intention of belittling or despising any real Christian. We do recognize real Christians as our beloved brothers and sisters in Christ and respect those among them who are seeking the Lord and His kingdom.

However, we cannot justify the very Christianity of which they are members and for which they work. Hence, in the Lord’s recovery, quite often in teaching the saints we must present the truth concerning the genuine church of the Lord as His organic Body by pointing out the poor situation of today’s Christianity. We prefer to speak about others in a positive way, but in today’s abnormal situation we simply cannot avoid pointing out the abnormality that exists among Christians."

Way to go Lee. Great dodge. What about Ingalls real problem? That you promised several times to deal with Philip but didn't. Lee didn't do anything about his sinful sons violating married sisters. Including telling a married sister, for 9 years, to not tell about her continuing affair with Timothy.

That's why his closest co-workers walked.

Yeah Lee ... John's problem was your attitude toward other Christians. Great distraction from the Elephant in the room, your failures, and complicity in those sins.