Poor poor Christianity?

[zeek]

Christianity was invented because the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

[UntoHim]

If the God of the Old Testament was invented, then everything that proceeds forward, including Christianity is a man-made invention. If Jesus Christ was not who he said he was, if he didn't come from where he said he came from, and if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is just another one of many mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world, simply riding on the coat-tails of still another ancient, invented, man-made religion.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christianity was invented because of the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

I don't know if "invented" will hold up under scrutiny, but II Peter, written somewhere between 120 & 150 AD, by who knows who, solved the problem by saying a thousand years is as a day in heavenly time.

So now it's been only two days since Jesus went up to spend time with daddy. And if he wants to spend at least two weeks with daddy, he won't come back for another 12,000 years. Thanks whoever wrote II Peter.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

If the God of the Old Testament was invented, then everything that proceeds forward, including Christianity is a man-made invention. If Jesus Christ was not who he said he was, if he didn't come from where he said he came from, and if he did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is just another one of many mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world, simply riding on the coat-tails of still another ancient, invented, man-made religion.
-

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, and a permanent structure of government needed to be instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, a permanent structure of government was instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

Where was that broken promise?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know if "invented" will hold up under scrutiny, but II Peter, written somewhere between 120 & 150 AD, by who knows who, solved the problem by saying a thousand years is as a day in heavenly time.

So now it's been only two days since Jesus went up to spend time with daddy. And if he wants to spend at least two weeks with daddy, he won't come back for another 12,000 years. Thanks whoever wrote II Peter.

The proposition that II Peter was written near the middle of the second century would support my hypothesis. Jesus had said "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." [Mark 13:30 Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32]

Yet the original disciples were all dead, and the Lord still tarried. The notion that to God a day equals a thousand years and that the end was delayed to allow all people adequate time to repent attempted to rationalize this dilemma.

Now we need to ask what the bases are for supposing that II Peter was of late origin and is pseudepigraphical. For this I submit the Wiki entry on II Peter as exhibit A. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Where was that broken promise?

See my response to Awareness below.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

I should have known you had something up your sleeve in the OP. I find your hypothesis fascinating, and when one takes an honest, objective and historical view of the earliest post-NT history, it makes a lot of sense. So where would you set the boundary or transitional point when "the Church" transformed or morphed into "Christianity"? I would think most people would say it took place during the reign of Constantine. And frankly, I've never had a good argument against this contention. There is little doubt that the church became more institutionalized during those years.

Your observation about LC taking a "New Testament model" is spot on. Of course Nee/Lee were not the first to make an attempt at "restoration" or "recovery", they are simply the ones we are most familiar with.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

While there was an apostolic age in the 1st century, I find that a "distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament" is fraught with issues. There never was a "glorious" church, or a pure N.T. church, free from error, problems, heresy, etc. These issues started in the very beginning and have continued unabated until today.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, a permanent structure of government was instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

Several comments.

1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love". I understand this expression to refer to the church becoming institutionalized with rules and doctrines that are not aligned with the Lord's speaking in the gospels. So I would disagree with the 1st Post, it wasn't a matter of the Lord not returning during the lifetime of the Apostles but rather the setting up of an organization that veered from the Lord's word in the Gospels.

2. The reason this "man made construct" would "overtake" the church is simply because it is an easier, broad road that leads to destruction. Easier to build with shoddy materials than with gold, and precious stones. I would argue that the church is God's masterpiece which He plans on unveiling at the Lord's second coming (fulfilling the whole marriage symbolism). So it is not so much "Christianity overtaking" but rather it is simply "fool's gold". A poor imitation of the real thing.

3. The assertion that Jesus promised to return in the lifetime of the apostles is not supported by scripture. First, no verse is of its own interpretation, so no doctrine of this promise should hang on a single verse. Second, the Lord said very clearly that "no one knew the day nor the hour" and this interpretation seems to fly in the face of that. Third, the gospel of John indicates that Jesus told Peter by what death he would die, indicating that Peter would not be alive at the time of the Lord's second coming. Therefore, even if there were some who did form Christianity because, as you say, the Lord had not come yet, that "prediction" was based on a poor human interpretation / opinion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Several comments.

1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love". I understand this expression to refer to the church becoming institutionalized with rules and doctrines that are not aligned with the Lord's speaking in the gospels.

2. The reason this "man made construct" would "overtake" the church is simply because it is an easier, broad road that leads to destruction. Easier to build with shoddy materials than with gold, and precious stones.

3. The assertion that Jesus promised to return in the lifetime of the apostles is not supported by scripture. First, no verse is of its own interpretation, so no doctrine of this promise should hang on a single verse. Second, the Lord said very clearly that "no one knew the day nor the hour" and this interpretation seems to fly in the face of that. Third, the gospel of John indicates that Jesus told Peter by what death he would die, indicating that Peter would not be alive at the time of the Lord's second coming.

Brother, would please consider reworking your comments. I'm not sure but, as is, if I respond, I fear I'll take the thread on a tangent.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Brother, would please consider reworking your comments. I'm not sure but, as is, if I respond, I fear I'll take the thread on a tangent.

I have added a little more to post #10 to tie it tighter to the 1st post.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have added a little more to post #10 to tie it tighter to the 1st post.

Well that helped, some. But okay bro ZNP,

I think I understand . . . :
1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love".
. . . if you mean leaving the first love caused a man made replacement system.

Also, the "day and the hour" has no effect on "this generation." Neither does Jesus predicting Peters death.

This generation could include them.

And finally, not one verse points to "this generation." Bro zeek listed three witnesses ; Mark, Matt., Luke (Not John ... something perchance we'll kick around up the road on this thread). But three witnesses are substantial for our surviving records.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christianity was invented because the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

I disagree because the early church knew that the whole world needed to be evangelized before Christ returned (Matt 24:14). They were not merely waiting around for Christ to come back.

The early church grew and spread out, to that end. The intention was that the early church would spread across the world.

Before that could happen, the church became institutionalized due to political reasons (the Catholic Church and Constantine). The goal of evangelizing the world was still happening but through the religious-political institution of the Catholic Church. Men such as St Patrick, St Augustine, are known for that. This was God's sovereignty to enable the Gospel to be preached via Catholicism and spread through Europe.

The recovery does not say that all of these things should never happened and then try to re-write history. Rather it recognizes God's Sovereignty and moves through the ages and sees that it's at that time where the church should be preparing for Christ's return and leaving the old institutions which have fulfilled their purpose in history.

The problem is not that these institutions existed or that Christianity became institutionalized, the problem is that people wish to remain in institutionalized Christianity which has served its purpose instead of of moving on.

Even so, the recovery never says that the church will ever or must become the same situation as early Christianity, it is well known that denominations will still be around when Christ returns, it's in the bible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm making a distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament much like Witness Lee did. According to my hypothesis, Christianity overtakes the church which is why, in the minds of Local Churchers and others who take the New Testament as their model, the church must be recovered.

So, I'm not asserting that the God of the Old Testament or the claims of Jesus are inventions. Indeed, I'm not saying that Christianity was invented in the sense in which to invent can mean to deceive. Rather, I'm saying it was a human response to a problem of cognitive dissonance.

Jesus did not return in glory during the lifetime of the first generation of believers as promised nor in subsequent generations. An explanation needed to be found, religious belief and practice needed to be modified and formalized, and a permanent structure of government needed to be instituted. The institution that evolved in place of the original Jesus movement is what I'm referring to as "Christianity" here.

You are thinking about this too objectively. The focus of the recovery is not New Testament model but New Testament condition. There's a difference.

The recovery is needed for this time before the Lord comes back, just as Luther was needed in his time.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I should have known you had something up your sleeve in the OP. I find your hypothesis fascinating, and when one takes an honest, objective and historical view of the earliest post-NT history, it makes a lot of sense. So where would you set the boundary or transitional point when "the Church" transformed or morphed into "Christianity"? I would think most people would say it took place during the reign of Constantine. And frankly, I've never had a good argument against this contention. There is little doubt that the church became more institutionalized during those years.

Your observation about LC taking a "New Testament model" is spot on. Of course Nee/Lee were not the first to make an attempt at "restoration" or "recovery", they are simply the ones we are most familiar with.
-

Constantine certainly represented a milestone in the development of Christianity. He set a precedent for the position of the emperor exerting influence and ultimate regulatory authority within religious discussions involving the early Christian Councils. But I think the wheels of Christianity were in motion several centuries before Constantine. Two Pre-Constantine trends that I would point to are the development of hierarchical authority and the work of church fathers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are thinking about this too objectively. The focus of the recovery is not New Testament model but New Testament condition. There's a difference.

The recovery is needed for this time before the Lord comes back, just as Luther was needed in his time.

So that's the real meaning of the parable of the fig tree?

Witness Lee and Hal Lindsey thought it was the state of Israel. They were wrong. What else were/are they wrong about?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

While there was an apostolic age in the 1st century, I find that a "distinction between "Christianity" and the church as it is depicted in the New Testament" is fraught with issues. There never was a "glorious" church, or a pure N.T. church, free from error, problems, heresy, etc. These issues started in the very beginning and have continued unabated until today.

I agree the distinction is fraught with issues. But I don't see why we can't discuss the issues. I don't expect absolute agreement here. But, perhaps through discussion we can at least clarify the issues in our own minds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I agree the distinction is fraught with issues. But I don't see why we can't discuss the issues. I don't expect absolute agreement here. But, perhaps through discussion we can at least clarify the issues in our own minds.

Ok. Without the standards and teachings of the NT, the church would have drifted further and further off course, not ever knowing where we started from. Growing up in the RCC I would have considered it completely normal to worship the "mother of God" as the rest of my extended family.

I see the true Church continually needing to unload itself of "extras" or traditions that we seem to always accumulate over time. Practices always tend to be codified into ordinances which, though they were once helpful, have become legalistic bondages to successive generations. Hence the need to "return" to the pure word, dumping these leavens.

The LCM began this way in the US. Actively returning to the word of God is a practice that brings blessing from God. Unfortunately and ironically Lee introduced far more baggage over time than most of us started with. Hence the cycle must be repeated.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Constantine certainly represented a milestone in the development of Christianity. He set a precedent for the position of the emperor exerting influence and ultimate regulatory authority within religious discussions involving the early Christian Councils. But I think the wheels of Christianity were in motion several centuries before Constantine. Two Pre-Constantine trends that I would point to are the development of hierarchical authority and the work of church fathers.

Let's not forget that there would be no "Christianity" without "Christian." And that brings us to Paul and Antioch :

Act 11:26* And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.*

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not forget that there would be no "Christianity" without "Christian." And that brings us to Paul and Antioch :

Act 11:26* And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.*

Christianity did not begin until the second century. Until that time it was called "the way". It went from being "the Way", to "Catholic" meaning Universal or all-embracing of pagan things and heresies.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hence the cycle must be repeated.

So we need to recover from The Recovery?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ok. Without the standards and teachings of the NT, the church would have drifted further and further off course, not ever knowing where we started from.

Biblically speaking the church started at Pentecost ; Pentecost "invented" the church.

So the early church -- the earliest of the earliest church -- was Holy Spirit animated. Methinks we sometimes get distracted by staring into a book, and that perchance is what brings us astray. According to the record, the earliest church was true because of the Spirit ... or that "pesky" Wind.

Problem is that churchin' by the Spirit is like herding cats, cuz : "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

My point being : if we ever hope to recover the early church we're gonna have ta repeat Pentecost.

But Paul writes to the Romans : "Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above*

How do we recover the early church if we can't catch the Wind? I hate to say it but, the early church, if exists today, is literally blowing in The Wind ... or it is not ... but something else ... the something else we see today.

Originally Posted by Ohio

I see the true Church continually needing to unload itself of "extras" or traditions that we seem to always accumulate over time. Practices always tend to be codified into ordinances which, though they were once helpful, have become legalistic bondages to successive generations. Hence the need to "return" to the pure word, dumping these leavens.

That's insightful. But I still think we need to "return" to pentecost.

Maybe we go astray because we can't ascend into heaven to bring "that" down, and can't control "that Wind."

Hey, didn't Jesus say, "I will build my church?"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christianity did not begin until the second century. Until that time it was called "the way". It went from being "the Way", to "Catholic" meaning Universal or all-embracing of pagan things and heresies.

That's one way to see it. Are you saying that untrue Christianity began with the proto-orthodox?

Still, when was Antioch started?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Several comments.

1. I think the first step in this "man made" Christianity in response to a lack of faith (my understanding of your term "cognitive dissonance" and it includes both misunderstanding of the word of God as well as lack of faith in following the Lord) is referred to Rev 2 when the Lord tells the church in Ephesus that "they have left their first love". I understand this expression to refer to the church becoming institutionalized with rules and doctrines that are not aligned with the Lord's speaking in the gospels. So I would disagree with the 1st Post, it wasn't a matter of the Lord not returning during the lifetime of the Apostles but rather the setting up of an organization that veered from the Lord's word in the Gospels.

2. The reason this "man made construct" would "overtake" the church is simply because it is an easier, broad road that leads to destruction. Easier to build with shoddy materials than with gold, and precious stones. I would argue that the church is God's masterpiece which He plans on unveiling at the Lord's second coming (fulfilling the whole marriage symbolism). So it is not so much "Christianity overtaking" but rather it is simply "fool's gold". A poor imitation of the real thing.

3. The assertion that Jesus promised to return in the lifetime of the apostles is not supported by scripture. First, no verse is of its own interpretation, so no doctrine of this promise should hang on a single verse. Second, the Lord said very clearly that "no one knew the day nor the hour" and this interpretation seems to fly in the face of that. Third, the gospel of John indicates that Jesus told Peter by what death he would die, indicating that Peter would not be alive at the time of the Lord's second coming. Therefore, even if there were some who did form Christianity because, as you say, the Lord had not come yet, that "prediction" was based on a poor human interpretation / opinion.

On points 1 and 2 I would say that the fact that Jesus tarried for multiple generations necessitated a more permanent organization and tradition than was envisioned by Paul. To point three my response is that if Jesus did not teach that he would return in that generation then it seems that Paul misunderstood him because he expected that some would be " alive and remain " when Jesus returned as he stated in First Thessalonians 4:17. He told the Corinthians that they were those upon whom the end of the age had arrived( I Cor 10:11) and that they would not all "sleep" meaning die. (I Cor 15:51)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

On points 1 and 2 I would say that the fact that Jesus tarried for multiple generations necessitated a more permanent organization and tradition than was envisioned by Paul. To point three my response is that if Jesus did not teach that he would return in that generation then it seems that Paul misunderstood him because he expected that some would be " alive and remain " when Jesus returned as he stated in First Thessalonians 4:17. He told the Thessalonians that they were those upon whom the ends of the world had come and that they would not all sleep meaning die.

I agree that these 2 thousand years have resulted in a very large organization known collectively as "Christianity" which is not to be confused with the church. Based on Rev 2-3 I think this is under the Lord's sovereignty because there are a number of things we need to overcome before we are mature enough to rule and reign with Jesus.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I read the term "we" as referring to the believers collectively who are still alive, not specific to the people who first received this letter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I read the term "we" as referring to the believers collectively who are still alive, not specific to the people who first received this letter.

Paul expected for it to happen in his lifetime. Yet 2000 yrs and he still hasn't resurrected. Truth is, there's nothing left of him to resurrect. He's been dust for a couple thousand yrs.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's one way to see it. Are you saying that untrue Christianity began with the proto-orthodox?

Still, when was Antioch started?

The true religion established by Christ was called "the way". The Christianity that was started in the 2nd century adopted many pagan practices such as Easter. Hence the word "Catholic" means "the way plus paganism".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I disagree because the early church knew that the whole world needed to be evangelized before Christ returned (Matt 24:14). They were not merely waiting around for Christ to come back.

The early church grew and spread out, to that end. The intention was that the early church would spread across the world.

Before that could happen, the church became institutionalized due to political reasons (the Catholic Church and Constantine). The goal of evangelizing the world was still happening but through the religious-political institution of the Catholic Church. Men such as St Patrick, St Augustine, are known for that. This was God's sovereignty to enable the Gospel to be preached via Catholicism and spread through Europe.

The recovery does not say that all of these things should never happened and then try to re-write history. Rather it recognizes God's Sovereignty and moves through the ages and sees that it's at that time where the church should be preparing for Christ's return and leaving the old institutions which have fulfilled their purpose in history.

The problem is not that these institutions existed or that Christianity became institutionalized, the problem is that people wish to remain in institutionalized Christianity which has served its purpose instead of of moving on.

Even so, the recovery never says that the church will ever or must become the same situation as early Christianity, it is well known that denominations will still be around when Christ returns, it's in the bible.

You're entitled to your opinion. Witness Lee felt otherwise. Matthew 13:31-32 reads as follows

31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

Here's what the Recovery Version says about it:

The church, which is the embodiment of the kingdom, should be like an herb that produces food. However, its nature and function were changed, so that it became a “tree,” a lodging place for birds. (This is against the law of God’s creation, that is, that every plant must be according to its kind — Gen. 1: 11-12.) This change happened in the first part of the fourth century, when Constantine the Great mixed the church with the world. He brought thousands of false believers into Christianity, making it Christendom, no longer the church. Hence, this third parable corresponds with the third of the seven churches in Rev. 2 and 3, the church in Pergamos (Rev. 2: 12-17 — see note 121 there). The mustard is an annual herb, whereas the tree is a perennial plant. The church, according to its heavenly and spiritual nature, should be like the mustard, sojourning on the earth. But with its nature changed, the church became deeply rooted and settled as a tree in the earth, flourishing with its enterprises as the branches in which many evil persons and things are lodged. This resulted in the formation of the outward organization of the outward appearance of the kingdom of the heavens.
Since the birds in the first parable signify the evil one, Satan (vv. 4, 19), the birds of heaven here must refer to Satan’s evil spirits with the evil persons and things motivated by them. They lodge in the branches of the great tree, that is, in the enterprises of Christendom.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're entitled to your opinion. Witness Lee felt otherwise. Matthew 13:31-32 reads as follows


Here's what the Recovery Version says about it:

What you posted does not reflect the whole of Lee's teachings on the subject. I recall a specific life study or was it a training or conference where it was mentioned about how God has used Christianity to spread the gospel, even though it is a mixture of paganism and Empire.

On God's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in spreading the gospel, quoting Lee:

"The Lord used the Roman Empire to form and spread the gospel."

On Satan's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in persecuting believers:

"Satan used the Roman Empire to persecute the church and to kill many believers"

On the equivalence between the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church:

"This indicates that the two - the Roman Empire and the Roman Church - are one".

Lee speaks of both genuine and false believers in the Roman Catholic Church.

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God’s people belonging to the Lord".

We could say the same about the USA today because it is the revived Roman Empire:

"The Lord used the USA to spread the gospel."

"Satan used the USA to persecute the church" - an example is prevention of using the name of God or Jesus, or even the local churches being called a cult by the religious arm of the American Empire.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The true religion established by Christ was called "the way". The Christianity that was started in the 2nd century adopted many pagan practices such as Easter. Hence the word "Catholic" means "the way plus paganism".

Hey, whoever wrote the gospel we call John, borrowed from the pagans, and even opens his gospel with it. So the gospel of John could be the 'another Jesus' Paul warned about 40 years prior ... cuz it brought paganism into "The Way."

But since John came at the end of the first century, there was plenty of time for what by that time was called Christianity to stray.

For example, we have three witnesses saying "this generation shall not pass away, and two witnesses, btw, Matthew & Luke that has Jesus saying "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," yet no mention of either in John.

Obviously, by the end of the 1st c., Christianity had to take another shape, other than expecting Jesus to come back and setup his kingdom.

Jerusalem had been sacked for almost 30 years, and the Romans still occupied the holy land, and ruled over them.

And Christianity was becoming a gentile movement, and therefore Hellenized. It couldn't be helped. Thus all the NT is in Koine Greek ... and John borrowed from the pagan Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC) . When he could have used the OT, Proverbs 8, as his basis.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, whoever wrote the gospel we call John, borrowed from the pagans, and even opens his gospel with it. So the gospel of John could be the 'another Jesus' Paul warned about 40 years prior ... cuz it brought paganism into "The Way."

But since John came at the end of the first century, there was plenty of time for what by that time was called Christianity to stray.

For example, we have three witnesses saying "this generation shall not pass away, and two witnesses, btw, Matthew & Luke that has Jesus saying "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," yet no mention of either in John.

Obviously, by the end of the 1st c., Christianity had to take another shape, other than expecting Jesus to come back and setup his kingdom.

Jerusalem had been sacked for almost 30 years, and the Romans still occupied the holy land, and ruled over them.

And Christianity was becoming a gentile movement, and therefore Hellenized. It couldn't be helped. Thus all the NT is in Koine Greek ... and John borrowed from the pagan Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC) . When he could have used the OT, Proverbs 8, as his basis.

I don't think Christianity "had to take" another shape. Imagine a scenario where Constantine did not adopt Christianity as the religion of the Empire. In that case, Christianity would be like Buddhism is today, a way of life, with no real institutional structure.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ok. Without the standards and teachings of the NT, the church would have drifted further and further off course, not ever knowing where we started from. Growing up in the RCC I would have considered it completely normal to worship the "mother of God" as the rest of my extended family.

I see the true Church continually needing to unload itself of "extras" or traditions that we seem to always accumulate over time. Practices always tend to be codified into ordinances which, though they were once helpful, have become legalistic bondages to successive generations. Hence the need to "return" to the pure word, dumping these leavens.

The LCM began this way in the US. Actively returning to the word of God is a practice that brings blessing from God. Unfortunately and ironically Lee introduced far more baggage over time than most of us started with. Hence the cycle must be repeated.

The two most important manifestations of Christianity from the 4th Century on are sometimes referred to as Church Christianity. Church Christianity includes the Roman Catholic Church the Eastern Orthodox church and many of the earlier Protestant churches such as the Lutheran Presbyterian and Anglican churches. Biblical Christianity develops out of Church Christianity but it locates God's highest authority in the Bible.

So by and large what Witness Lee refers to as Christianity I'm now calling Church Christianity. At the heart of it is hierarchical power that flows down from Heaven to Earth from God the Father through his Son the mediator who in turn channels power through his designated representatives on Earth-- the clergy. Church Christianity aims to create a universal Christian Society and when necessary is willing to enter into alliance with political power to achieve this aim.

The Lord's recovery movement, of course, came out of Biblical Christianity which was facilitated by the printing press. With the Bible as a supreme authority for life people no longer needed a priest Bishop Pope or theologian they could form their own community of saints living in conformity to God's word. You know all this, and I think what I'm saying here is essentially an agreement with what you have said above.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's not forget that there would be no "Christianity" without "Christian." And that brings us to Paul and Antioch :

Act 11:26* And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.*

That's certainly significant in the shift of the church from being a Jewish sect to Christianity. The followers of Jesus in Judea and Galilee are never referred to as Christians in the Bible. Indeed the term Christian seems to be reserved for Gentile followers of Jesus.

Antioch was the third largest city in the Roman Empire. It replaced Jerusalem as the center of the early Jesus movement. According to Acts a Christian Mission among the antiochian Jews began when refugees from persecution arrived after the martyrdom of Stephen [Acts 11:19].

In the centuries that followed Antioch became a great center of Christian learning. Ignatius who was martyred early in the second century CE was its third Bishop according to tradition. In speaking of the authority of the church Ignatius was the first to use the term "Catholic Church" in writing.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The true religion established by Christ was called "the way". The Christianity that was started in the 2nd century adopted many pagan practices such as Easter. Hence the word "Catholic" means "the way plus paganism".

Kind of like saying the ground of locality means church plus Leeism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are thinking about this too objectively. The focus of the recovery is not New Testament model but New Testament condition. There's a difference.

The recovery is needed for this time before the Lord comes back, just as Luther was needed in his time.

• Objective inquiry seems to be appropriate to the study of history.
• Would you care to explain the distinction you're making between New Testament model and New Testament condition?
• According, Luther was part of the Recovery not someone who came before it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think Christianity "had to take" another shape.

Indeed, "had to" might be too strong. But by the end of the 1st c. (when John was written) can you imagine the disappointment they must have experienced because Jesus hadn't returned, hadn't driven out the Romans, and hadn't setup God's kingdom, like promised?

Originally Posted by E

Imagine a scenario where Constantine did not adopt Christianity as the religion of the Empire. In that case, Christianity would be like Buddhism is today, a way of life, with no real institutional structure.

Good point. I have to admit I'm having a problem imagining it. With no RCC there'd be no Protestant, no Luther et al. And no Restoration or Recovery. No Lee What would Christianity be today without Constantine? Perchance today real Christianity would still be oral Christianity ... who knows?

But seriously, a lot had already changed since Jesus, by 325 CE. For one thing Paul happened. In Matthew (written after Paul's letters) Jesus tells the 12 "Go not into the way of the Gentiles..." But in Acts (also written after Paul's letters) Jesus is said to have called Paul to go to the gentiles. That was the birth of "Christian." So 'Christian' was a change. (Didn't it start out as a derogatory name, cuz Christ followers were considered atheists, that didn't honor the gods?)

In our earliest accounts, by Paul, Paul was already seeing changes happening ; thus warnings about different gospels and different Jesus's (sp) ; and his troubles with Asia ; not to mention John, who was holding to the 'earliest' Jesus Jewish way. Changes were afoot early on.

And changes went on, long before 325CE. For instance, Marcion of Sinope, early 2nd c.. He was a significant figure. He was excommunicated by the proto-orthodox, but he kicked off the development of the NT canon.

That brings me back to the proto-orthodox. I've seen -- or been close enough to -- how devotees tend to get their masters all wrong. That to me is the proto-orthodox.

I've haven't read all the early church fathers. But I've read enough to question if we should even listen to them at all.

I seek to understand what was before them. In fact, my keen interest is in understanding what was before even Paul. The gospels don't get me there, completely. They were written too many decades after Jesus to convince me of the real Jesus, and what he actually taught and held to.

Cuz I think, "Christianity," so called, changed from its purest form, the Jesus form, during the oral period ; pre any writings.

Of course I can't document any of that. Cuz it was oral, and not written.

Thanks for your thoughts Evan.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul expected for it to happen in his lifetime. Yet 2000 yrs and he still hasn't resurrected. Truth is, there's nothing left of him to resurrect. He's been dust for a couple thousand yrs.

The only thing that is very clear from this quote is that Paul "expected" that at the Lord's return some Christians would be dead and buried and some would be alive.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The only thing that is very clear from this quote is that Paul "expected" that at the Lord's return some Christians would be dead and buried and some would be alive.

1Co 15:51* Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,*
1Co 15:52* In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.*

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What you posted does not reflect the whole of Lee's teachings on the subject. I recall a specific life study or was it a training or conference where it was mentioned about how God has used Christianity to spread the gospel, even though it is a mixture of paganism and Empire.

On God's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in spreading the gospel, quoting Lee:

"The Lord used the Roman Empire to form and spread the gospel."

On Satan's use of the Roman Empire (and the Roman Catholic Church) in persecuting believers:

"Satan used the Roman Empire to persecute the church and to kill many believers"

On the equivalence between the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church:

"This indicates that the two - the Roman Empire and the Roman Church - are one".

Lee speaks of both genuine and false believers in the Roman Catholic Church.

"In every denomination, including the Roman Catholic Church, there are real, saved Christians. They are God’s people belonging to the Lord".

We could say the same about the USA today because it is the revived Roman Empire:

"The Lord used the USA to spread the gospel."

"Satan used the USA to persecute the church" - an example is prevention of using the name of God or Jesus, or even the local churches being called a cult by the religious arm of the American Empire.

The argument that any particular statement or passage from Witness Lee's teachings do not reflect the whole of his teachings could be used against anything that he ever said refutable only by quotintg his entire body of work. So if one accepts that argument it's useless to quote Lee.

Suffice it to say, Witness Lee's view of Christianity was predominantly negative particularly as it pertains to Church Christianity as I have defined it below. To Lee the Recovery takes place mostly within Biblical Christianity as I have defined it.

As far as using God's sovereignty to justify Christianity or anything else, it made be said that God is Sovereign over Satan and all the evil activity in the world. So if you want to include Christianity in that who can argue?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, whoever wrote the gospel we call John, borrowed from the pagans, and even opens his gospel with it. So the gospel of John could be the 'another Jesus' Paul warned about 40 years prior ... cuz it brought paganism into "The Way."

But since John came at the end of the first century, there was plenty of time for what by that time was called Christianity to stray.

For example, we have three witnesses saying "this generation shall not pass away, and two witnesses, btw, Matthew & Luke that has Jesus saying "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," yet no mention of either in John.

Obviously, by the end of the 1st c., Christianity had to take another shape, other than expecting Jesus to come back and setup his kingdom.

Jerusalem had been sacked for almost 30 years, and the Romans still occupied the holy land, and ruled over them.

And Christianity was becoming a gentile movement, and therefore Hellenized. It couldn't be helped. Thus all the NT is in Koine Greek ... and John borrowed from the pagan Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 535 – c. 475 BC) . When he could have used the OT, Proverbs 8, as his basis.

Yes, I think there is evidence of the transition of the Jesus movement from a Jewish apocalyptical sect to what we're calling Christianity beginning in the New Testament itself. The apocalyptic message, so prominent in the synoptic gospels, is absent from the Gospel of John which most scholars think was the last gospel written.

Unlike in the other gospels, Jesus does not deliver an apocalyptic discourse in John. The kingdom of God is entered by those who have faith in Jesus as in John 3:3. When Martha thinks Jesus is referring to the resurrection at the end of time in chapter 11 verse 23, Jesus corrects her. He is referring to himself as the Resurrection in the present. "Those who believe in me even though they die will live and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die [John 11:25-26.] Thus begins the shift of emphasis way from the general resurrection to the fate of the individual in the afterlife immediately upon death which is denied for the believer. This emphasis on the immediate afterlife is a prevalent characteristic of Church Christianity to this day. Biblical Christianity vacillates between apocalypticism and heaven when you die.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I agree that these 2 thousand years have resulted in a very large organization known collectively as "Christianity" which is not to be confused with the church. Based on Rev 2-3 I think this is under the Lord's sovereignty because there are a number of things we need to overcome before we are mature enough to rule and reign with Jesus.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; 17 then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I read the term "we" as referring to the believers collectively who are still alive, not specific to the people who first received this letter.

Your conception of Christianity may be closer to Witness Lee's than Evengelical's is. Lee said that when Constantine brought thousands of false believers into Christianity he made it into Christendom and thus it was no longer the church.(Life study of Matthew, chapter 38, section 2)

You mention that God is sovereign in doing this. Evangelical made the same point. Is there anything that God is not sovereign over in the universe?

Then you're back to your favorite principal ''ruling and reigning' as justification for the delay. How has humanity matured over the past 2000 years when the human lifespan hasn't gotten appreciably longer. But who knows maybe you can make a speculative case using Steven Pinker's statistics and analysis.

Any way, you address the collective "we" as far as being alive and remaining. But you ignore the fact that Paul told the Corinthians that they were those upon whom the end of the world had come and that they would not all sleep. The collective "we" doesn't work in that context. You also ignore Paul's statements that the appointed time has grown short and that the present form of this world is passing away in 1st Corinthians 7.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul expected for it to happen in his lifetime. Yet 2000 yrs and he still hasn't resurrected. Truth is, there's nothing left of him to resurrect. He's been dust for a couple thousand yrs.

You are of course aware that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another. Therefore that which was Paul exists somewhere in some form or another. Would Resurrection be difficult for the omnipotent, omniscient God who created the universe? Just asking.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The true religion established by Christ was called "the way". The Christianity that was started in the 2nd century adopted many pagan practices such as Easter. Hence the word "Catholic" means "the way plus paganism".

In Matthew 13 the parable of the wheat in the tares the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his fields, but the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat while he slept. It seems like the tares may have been sown during the New Testament period.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

In Matthew 13 the parable of the wheat in the tares the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his fields, but the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat while he slept. It seems like the tares may have been sown during the New Testament period.

Starting with Judas, yes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your conception of Christianity may be closer to Witness Lee's than Evengelical's is. Lee said that when Constantine brought thousands of false believers into Christianity he made it into Christendom and thus it was no longer the church.(Life study of Matthew, chapter 38, section 2)

You mention that God is sovereign in doing this. Evangelical made the same point. Is there anything that God is not sovereign over in the universe?

No, that is what "Lord of all" means.

Originally Posted by zeek

Then you're back to your favorite principal ''ruling and reigning' as justification for the delay. How has humanity matured over the past 2000 years when the human lifespan hasn't gotten appreciably longer. But who knows maybe you can make a speculative case using Steven Pinker's statistics and analysis.

Forensic science has been an area of tremendous improvement. In my lifetime I remember people getting mugged in Central Park on pay day. You would get a vague description of the criminal. Cars were stolen frequently. There seemed to be no way to catch or stop the criminals. But then the Mob was caught and successfully prosecuted. Surveillance technology and Lojack have all but eliminated chop shops. Now we have a new wave of cameras that every single home owner can afford, not to mention businesses. Now when they have a suspect we always have a photo. Just last night I saw the new wave of photos which are sharp, HD quality. Our ability to catch perpetrators of crimes, convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent has improved exponentially, it is truly astounding how far we have come. This works both ways. How often do we see a video now of questionable police activity? Without those smart phones those incidents would have all been "justified", but now the actions are scrutinized under the light of a very intense microscope. So accountability from the Police is also going to increase exponentially now that we have cameras on all cops and their cars.

Originally Posted by zeek

Any way, you address the collective "we" as far as being alive and remaining. But you ignore the fact that Paul told the Corinthians that they were those upon whom the end of the world had come and that they would not all sleep. The collective "we" doesn't work in that context. You also ignore Paul's statements that the appointed time has grown short and that the present form of this world is passing away in 1st Corinthians 7.

That is right, I use the term "we" to refer to all of us Christians in this age that began with the resurrection. "We" are referred to as "the One New Man" and "the Bride of Christ".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, that is what "Lord of all" means.



Forensic science has been an area of tremendous improvement. In my lifetime I remember people getting mugged in Central Park on pay day. You would get a vague description of the criminal. Cars were stolen frequently. There seemed to be no way to catch or stop the criminals. But then the Mob was caught and successfully prosecuted. Surveillance technology and Lojack have all but eliminated chop shops. Now we have a new wave of cameras that every single home owner can afford, not to mention businesses. Now when they have a suspect we always have a photo. Just last night I saw the new wave of photos which are sharp, HD quality. Our ability to catch perpetrators of crimes, convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent has improved exponentially, it is truly astounding how far we have come. This works both ways. How often do we see a video now of questionable police activity? Without those smart phones those incidents would have all been "justified", but now the actions are scrutinized under the light of a very intense microscope. So accountability from the Police is also going to increase exponentially now that we have cameras on all cops and their cars.



That is right, I use the term "we" to refer to all of us Christians in this age that began with the resurrection. "We" are referred to as "the One New Man" and "the Bride of Christ".

Okay if God is sovereign over everything that happens in the universe as you have just agreed then I don't know why you bothered to say that you think that God is sovereign over the transformation of the Jesus movement into Christianity as if you weren't sure and were venturing an opinion. Of course he is! He's sovereign over everything.

As far as your use of the term "we" to refer " all of us Christians in this age that began with the resurrection", it doesn't work in all cases. In particular, as I already said, it doesn't work in 1st Corinthians 7 where Paul tells the brothers and sisters that "the appointed time has grown short and now let even those who have wives be as though they have none and those who mourn as those they were not morning and those who rejoice as though they were rejoicing and those who buy as though they have no possessions and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it for the present form of this world is passing away." Because "the appointed time" had not grown short and the present form of the world was not passing away.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay if God is sovereign over everything that happens in the universe as you have just agreed then I don't know why you bothered to say that you think that God is sovereign over the transformation of the Jesus movement into Christianity as if you weren't sure and were venturing an opinion. Of course he is! He's sovereign over everything.

As far as your use of the term "we" to refer " all of us Christians in this age that began with the resurrection", it doesn't work in all cases. In particular it doesn't work in 1st Corinthians 7 where Paul tells the brothers and sisters that "the appointed time has grown short and now let even those who have wives be as though they have none and those who mourn as those they were not morning and those who rejoice as though they were rejoicing and those who buy as though they have no possessions and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it for the present form of this world is passing away." Because the appointed time had not grown short and the present form of the world was not passing away..

You remind me of those people who were mocking Noah.

[ZNPaaneah]

Does this televangelist really need a fourth $54 million private jet?

How do you define "poor"?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Does this televangelist really need a fourth $54 million private jet?

How do you define "poor"?

I should have put "poor poor" in quotes when I started to thread. I was really just referencing the other "poor poor Christianity" thread on the main forum where it's a quotation of Witness Lee. Witness Lee seemed to mean that Christianity was poor compared to the Lord's Recovery which through his ministry had recovered the "unsearchable riches of Christ."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You remind me of those people who were mocking Noah.

Evangelical accused me of being too objective. I'm just trying to get at the facts, man.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

You are of course aware that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another. Therefore that which was Paul exists somewhere in some form or another. Would Resurrection be difficult for the omnipotent, omniscient God who created the universe? Just asking.

The energy that was Paul turned into fertilizer.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You remind me of those people who were mocking Noah.

Here's another verse for you to explain if you wish to deny the OP proposition:

"Matthew 10:23 When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes."

By the way, not only did the Son of Man not come as predicted in Daniel, the disciples were not persecuted so that they had to flee from one city to another.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The energy that was Paul turned into fertilizer.

He who planted [I Cor 3:6] became a plant?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In Matthew 13 the parable of the wheat in the tares the Kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his fields, but the enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat while he slept. It seems like the tares may have been sown during the New Testament period.

Well maybe. But it happened in the kingdom of heaven.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well maybe. But it happened in the kingdom of heaven.

Which was sown on the earth.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You remind me of those people who were mocking Noah.

You knew them?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Which was sown on the earth.

Jesus said he spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand. Are you able to understand them? The parable opens with "The kingdom of heaven is likened to." Nothing about the earth.

But I think I get your point. That Christianity went south back in the NT age.

If Jesus was the good seed, was Paul a tare?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

He who planted [I Cor 3:6] became a plant?

Paul became vegetables ... and lived on in vegans. So it's really gonna be confusing to resurrect everybody. Actually, upon thinking about it, Paul did resurrect, into plants. He became immortal.

In that regard, the energy regard, we're all immortal. I'm wheat. Everyone else are tares.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Jesus said he spoke in parables so that people wouldn't understand. Are you able to understand them? The parable opens with "The kingdom of heaven is likened to." Nothing about the earth.

But I think I get your point. That Christianity went south back in the NT age.

If Jesus was the good seed, was Paul a tare?

Actually Jesus explains the parable in Matthew chapter 13: 36-43. He says the field in the parable is the world. To establish whether or not Paul was a tare I suggest you look at whether or not his teachings stray from those of Jesus and if they resulted in poor poor Christianity.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul became vegetables ... and lived on in vegans. So it's really gonna be confusing to resurrect everybody. Actually, upon thinking about it, Paul did resurrect, into plants. He became immortal.

In that regard, the energy regard, we're all immortal. I'm wheat. Everyone else are tares.

Well there you go. Resurrection even works for a materialist. Would Resurrection be confusing to the omniscient God?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

But I think the wheels of Christianity were in motion several centuries before Constantine. Two Pre-Constantine trends that I would point to are the development of hierarchical authority and the work of church fathers.

I would agree with citing "the development of hierarchical authority" as an catalyst towards the formation of institutional Christianity. "The work of church fathers" was not institutional per se, but they were certainly influential in the formation of most of the seminal doctrines of the Christian faith. So I guess I would agree with your first proposition, but I would strongly disagree that the work of the church fathers had any negative affect. Even the doctrinal errors of some of the church fathers brought forth the opportunity for clarification and correction, and thus even the errors of some turned into great profit for all concerned.

As a personal observation, I have witnessed a great move in modern Church in general, and in Protestantism specifically, of a turning away from "institutional" Christianity. It's rather hard to define this as a "movement" because it has taken it's form or made it's influence in so many different arenas of the Christian church. All the way from the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and the Jesus Movement, to the resurgence of a decidedly creedal/reformed form of teaching/practice/worship. Much to the chagrin of our dear Local Church brothers and sisters, God has apparently chosen to do a "recovery" among those in "poor, poor Christianity" after all.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Much to the chagrin of our dear Local Church brothers and sisters, God has apparently chosen to do a "recovery" among those in "poor, poor Christianity" after all.
-

The local church will also have a revival, when they find the new MOTA.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The local church will also have a revival, when they find the new MOTA.

But no man knoweth the day or the hour right?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's another verse for you to explain if you wish to deny the OP proposition:

By the way, not only did the Son of Man not come as predicted in Daniel, the disciples were not persecuted so that they had to flee from one city to another.

What? This doesn't say that you will be persecuted in every city. It says that when that does happen move on because you will need to visit every city on earth before the Lord returns.

This is a great quote to disprove the idea that the NT teaches the Lord was going to come in the lifetime of the apostles.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You knew them?

I read about them, and Peter also reminded me of them and warned that these type of mockers would show up again at the end of the age.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I read about them, and Peter also reminded me of them and warned that these type of mockers would show up again at the end of the age.

And as in the days of Noah means the Nephilim will reappear.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Actually Jesus explains the parable in Matthew chapter 13: 36-43. He says the field in the parable is the world. To establish whether or not Paul was a tare I suggest you look at whether or not his teachings stray from those of Jesus and if they resulted in poor poor Christianity.

Thanks for straightening me out. I stand corrected ... except it was a parable, intending to confuse those that have eyes but can't see, and ears but can't hear.

And yes Paul strayed from the Jesus form of "Christianity." Early Christianity was Jewish, like Jesus and the disciples. Paul brought the gentiles in, and even said to the Romans that, "they [Jews] are enemies of the gospel." And even claimed a mystery, that, a hardening came upon them [Jews], until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

My goodness, the full number hasn't come in yet? How much do they need to change Christianity to be full? they clearly squashed out the Jewishness of Christianity.

I guess the question is, did they make Christianity poor, poor? From the looks of it, they did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And yes Paul strayed from the Jesus form of "Christianity." Early Christianity was Jewish, like Jesus and the disciples. Paul brought the gentiles in, and even said to the Romans that, "they [Jews] are enemies of the gospel." And even claimed a mystery, that, a hardening came upon them [Jews], until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

Hardly. Jesus was nearly killed in his hometown for mentioning the Gentiles. The gospel only came to the Jews first, no verse indicates the gospel should stop with the Jews.

Paul said a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart and in the spirit.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And as in the days of Noah means the Nephilim will reappear.

That would be "it is the days of Noah" not "as in the days of Noah". Jesus said specifically what elements would be similar between the days of Noah and the end of the age. None of those elements involved the Nephilim.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I would agree with citing "the development of hierarchical authority" as an catalyst towards the formation of institutional Christianity. "The work of church fathers" was not institutional per se, but they were certainly influential in the formation of most of the seminal doctrines of the Christian faith. So I guess I would agree with your first proposition, but I would strongly disagree that the work of the church fathers had any negative affect. Even the doctrinal errors of some of the church fathers brought forth the opportunity for clarification and correction, and thus even the errors of some turned into great profit for all concerned.

As a personal observation, I have witnessed a great move in modern Church in general, and in Protestantism specifically, of a turning away from "institutional" Christianity. It's rather hard to define this as a "movement" because it has taken it's form or made it's influence in so many different arenas of the Christian church. All the way from the Catholic Charismatic Renewal and the Jesus Movement, to the resurgence of a decidedly creedal/reformed form of teaching/practice/worship. Much to the chagrin of our dear Local Church brothers and sisters, God has apparently chosen to do a "recovery" among those in "poor, poor Christianity" after all.
-

I would expect that strict Biblical Christians would find their "seminal doctrines" in the Bible without depending on subsequent developments. We'll have to take a closer look at the work of the so-called church fathers to see how true they are to New Testament teachings. Why are they called Church fathers in the first place? The church was already fathered wasn't it? What did they father? Could it be "Christianity"? Why do we ignore Jesus's plain teaching of Matthew 23:9 "do not call anyone on Earth your father; for one is your father, he who is in heaven."?

It's true that Church Christianity got squeezed through much of the 20th century. The mainline churches were criticized by the more conservative Christians as being too worldly on one side and by secular society for being too religious on the other. As a result their numbers declined. I agree with you that there have been vibrant recent developments in Biblical Christianity which Witness Lee's group missed out on because of their centralized top-down authoritarian system.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What? This doesn't say that you will be persecuted in every city. It says that when that does happen move on because you will need to visit every city on earth before the Lord returns.

This is a great quote to disprove the idea that the NT teaches the Lord was going to come in the lifetime of the apostles.

You're misquoting Jesus. Matthew 10:23 says "when they persecute you in this city flee to another for assuredly I say to you, you will have not gone through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes." Not every city on earth but the cities of Israel. You're also ignoring the context. Jesus spoke these words to the 12 disciples when he sent them out to preach the kingdom. This is Jesus's specific teaching to the 12 disciples in that special situation not a general teaching for all believers for all time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That would be "it is the days of Noah" not "as in the days of Noah". Jesus said specifically what elements would be similar between the days of Noah and the end of the age. None of those elements involved the Nephilim.

Matt. 24:37 - As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Are you saying there were no Nephilim in the days of Noah?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hardly. Jesus was nearly killed in his hometown for mentioning the Gentiles. The gospel only came to the Jews first, no verse indicates the gospel should stop with the Jews.

Mat_10:5* These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Paul said a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart and in the spirit.

Yes. Paul changed it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Matt. 24:37 - As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Are you saying there were no Nephilim in the days of Noah?

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, [o]neither the Son, but the Father only. 37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're misquoting Jesus. Matthew 10:23 says "when they persecute you in this city flee to another for assuredly I say to you, you will have not gone through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes." Not every city on earth but the cities of Israel. You're also ignoring the context. Jesus spoke these words to the 12 disciples when he sent them out to preach the kingdom. This is Jesus's specific teaching to the 12 disciples in that special situation not a general teaching for all believers for all time.

The most compelling position, in this writer’s judgment, is that argued by numerous respectable scholars (e.g., J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, R.C.H. Lenski, Theodor Zahn, W.W. How, J. Barton Payne, etc.), namely that the “coming” event of Matthew 10:23 is the Roman invasion of Palestine, which occurred in A.D. 66-70.The following factors lend their weight to this view.

First, divine punishments are commonly referred to in the Bible as a “coming.”

(1) When Jehovah providentially sent the Babylonians to ravage the southern kingdom of Judah, Isaiah depicted the event as an invasion of the Lord himself (Isa. 13:2-5).

(2) Christ warned the erring churches of Ephesus and Pergamum that if they did not mend their rebellious ways, he would “come” and bring punishment upon them (Rev. 2:5, 16).

(3) God warned the Jews that he would send “his armies” to destroy those who murdered his Son, and cause their city to be burned (Mt. 22:7); this was to be accomplished by the Roman invasion.And it was represented as a “coming” of the Son of man in power and great glory (Mt. 24:30, 34; cf. Lk. 21:27, 32).For further consideration of this matter, see: “A Study of Matthew Twenty-Four”, elsewhere on this site.

Second, this event fits the “urgency” factor precisely.When the disciples were rejected by the Jews as they proclaimed the gospel, they were to flee from city to city in view of the coming destruction upon this dreadfully hateful nation.Even at that, they would not reach every city in Israel before the Roman “judgment” descended.

Third, there is the parallel evidence supporting this view.When one compares material from Matthew 10, with that found in Luke 21, it becomes apparent that, while the occasions are different, the same general theme is strikingly similar; there are unmistakably common elements in the Savior’s two warnings.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, [o]neither the Son, but the Father only. 37 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. 38 For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, 39 and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

Good quote. But the following quote indicates the flood, and thus Noah, was because of the offspring of the Sons of God, the Nephilim among them :

Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The most compelling position, in this writer’s judgment, is that argued by numerous respectable scholars (e.g., J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, R.C.H. Lenski, Theodor Zahn, W.W. How, J. Barton Payne, etc.), namely that the “coming” event of Matthew 10:23 is the Roman invasion of Palestine, which occurred in A.D. 66-70.The following factors lend their weight to this view.

First, divine punishments are commonly referred to in the Bible as a “coming.”

(1) When Jehovah providentially sent the Babylonians to ravage the southern kingdom of Judah, Isaiah depicted the event as an invasion of the Lord himself (Isa. 13:2-5).

(2) Christ warned the erring churches of Ephesus and Pergamum that if they did not mend their rebellious ways, he would “come” and bring punishment upon them (Rev. 2:5, 16).

(3) God warned the Jews that he would send “his armies” to destroy those who murdered his Son, and cause their city to be burned (Mt. 22:7); this was to be accomplished by the Roman invasion.And it was represented as a “coming” of the Son of man in power and great glory (Mt. 24:30, 34; cf. Lk. 21:27, 32).For further consideration of this matter, see: “A Study of Matthew Twenty-Four”, elsewhere on this site.

Second, this event fits the “urgency” factor precisely.When the disciples were rejected by the Jews as they proclaimed the gospel, they were to flee from city to city in view of the coming destruction upon this dreadfully hateful nation.Even at that, they would not reach every city in Israel before the Roman “judgment” descended.

Third, there is the parallel evidence supporting this view.When one compares material from Matthew 10, with that found in Luke 21, it becomes apparent that, while the occasions are different, the same general theme is strikingly similar; there are unmistakably common elements in the Savior’s two warnings.

How strange that these "respected scholars" missed the obvious fact that Jesus' statement that "the Son of Man comes" in Matthew 10:23 matches Daniel 7:13 that states “And behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How strange that these "respected scholars" missed the obvious fact that Jesus' statement that "the Son of Man comes" in Matthew 10:23 matches Daniel 7:13 that states “And behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!"

Except it doesn't. He never says "coming with the clouds of heaven". All those harping about this verse like to believe the NT and the Lord Jesus are little simpletons who have a vocabulary of 3 words. He said "coming" so it must be the "coming with the clouds of heaven" and not the coming with the Armies of Rome.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good quote. But the following quote indicates the flood, and thus Noah, was because of the offspring of the Sons of God, the Nephilim among them :

Gen 6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them,
Gen 6:2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.
Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."

The Lord likened his death to the falling of a seed into the ground and dies then it resurrects and brings forth fruit. Using figurative speech like that is pointing out certain similarities. Interpreting that to mean that Jesus was some form of aberrant wheat grain indicates a poor education and not understanding the use of figurative language.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

How strange that these "respected scholars" missed the obvious fact that Jesus' statement that "the Son of Man comes" in Matthew 10:23 matches Daniel 7:13 that states “And behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!"

9 It is thy destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help.

When Israel was against the Lord He let them know it would be their destruction and He warned his disciples they wouldn't be able to fully evangelize the nation before they got spread to the four winds in the diaspora.

10 Where now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?

This is what they said when they said that Cesar was their king.

11 I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath. 12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is laid up in store. 13 The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for it is time he should not tarry in the place of the breaking forth of children. 14 I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction? repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

The Lord's crucifixion was a ransom from Sheol, from death. They had a chance to receive the Lord's ransom, but repentance was hid from their eyes. That is what the Lord is saying when He says you will not be able to go through all the cities till this judgement comes.

15 Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the breath of Jehovah coming up from the wilderness; and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall make spoil of the treasure of all goodly vessels. 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

When they demanded the crucifixion of Jesus they rebelled against God. That sealed their judgement. When the Romans came their "spring became dry" and their "treasure was spoiled". The Lord is simply reiterating this prophecy in Hosea. As He said earlier, every jot and tittle will be fulfilled. Matt 10:23 is not referring to Daniel but to Hosea 13:9-16. The breath of Jehovah is the Son of Man.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The most compelling position, in this writer’s judgment, is that argued by numerous respectable scholars (e.g., J.W. McGarvey, Albert Barnes, F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, R.C.H. Lenski, Theodor Zahn, W.W. How, J. Barton Payne, etc.), namely that the “coming” event of Matthew 10:23 is the Roman invasion of Palestine, which occurred in A.D. 66-70.The following factors lend their weight to this view.

First, divine punishments are commonly referred to in the Bible as a “coming.”

(1) When Jehovah providentially sent the Babylonians to ravage the southern kingdom of Judah, Isaiah depicted the event as an invasion of the Lord himself (Isa. 13:2-5).

(2) Christ warned the erring churches of Ephesus and Pergamum that if they did not mend their rebellious ways, he would “come” and bring punishment upon them (Rev. 2:5, 16).

(3) God warned the Jews that he would send “his armies” to destroy those who murdered his Son, and cause their city to be burned (Mt. 22:7); this was to be accomplished by the Roman invasion.And it was represented as a “coming” of the Son of man in power and great glory (Mt. 24:30, 34; cf. Lk. 21:27, 32).For further consideration of this matter, see: “A Study of Matthew Twenty-Four”, elsewhere on this site.

Second, this event fits the “urgency” factor precisely.When the disciples were rejected by the Jews as they proclaimed the gospel, they were to flee from city to city in view of the coming destruction upon this dreadfully hateful nation.Even at that, they would not reach every city in Israel before the Roman “judgment” descended.

Third, there is the parallel evidence supporting this view.When one compares material from Matthew 10, with that found in Luke 21, it becomes apparent that, while the occasions are different, the same general theme is strikingly similar; there are unmistakably common elements in the Savior’s two warnings.

My, my, the lengths we'll go to, the hoops and loops we'll jump thru, to deny that Jesus could make a mistake, or didn't know everything.

He wasn't omniscient. He admitted that he didn't know the day and the hour. What else did he not know? After 2000 years, he clearly also didn't know the generation.

And II Peter didn't help with his a thousand years is as a day thingie. Calculating the lineage in the gospel called Matthew, Biblically speaking, a generation is around 43 years. 43 years times 365 days equals 15,695 days. According to whoever wrote II Peter that means 15,695 years. Thanks "Peter," but you didn't solve the "this generation problem." You made it worse.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

9 It is thy destruction, O Israel, that thou art against me, against thy help.

When Israel was against the Lord He let them know it would be their destruction and He warned his disciples they wouldn't be able to fully evangelize the nation before they got spread to the four winds in the diaspora.

10 Where now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?

This is what they said when they said that Cesar was their king.

11 I have given thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath. 12 The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is laid up in store. 13 The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for it is time he should not tarry in the place of the breaking forth of children. 14 I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction? repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.

The Lord's crucifixion was a ransom from Sheol, from death. They had a chance to receive the Lord's ransom, but repentance was hid from their eyes. That is what the Lord is saying when He says you will not be able to go through all the cities till this judgement comes.

15 Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the breath of Jehovah coming up from the wilderness; and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall make spoil of the treasure of all goodly vessels. 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

When they demanded the crucifixion of Jesus they rebelled against God. That sealed their judgement. When the Romans came their "spring became dry" and their "treasure was spoiled". The Lord is simply reiterating this prophecy in Hosea. As He said earlier, every jot and tittle will be fulfilled. Matt 10:23 is not referring to Daniel but to Hosea 13:9-16. The breath of Jehovah is the Son of Man.

You seem to be trying to obfuscate the plain words of Jesus in Matthew 10:23 with many words. But you haven't given any reason why he could not have meant what he said-- that the son of man would return before his 12 disciples exhausted the cities of Israel.

The teaching that you espouse-- that the entire nation of Israel was held responsible for the sins of a few Jews in Jerusalem who colluded in the arrest and judgment against Jesus that led to his execution-- has been used to justify anti-Semitism and genocide against the Jews for centuries. That is indeed an element of the dark side of Christianity

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You seem to be trying to obfuscate the plain words of Jesus in Matthew 10:23 with many words. But you haven't given any reason why he could not have meant what he said-- that the son of man would return before his 12 disciples exhausted the cities of Israel.

The teaching that you espouse-- that the entire nation of Israel was held responsible for the sins of a few Jews in Jerusalem who colluded in the arrest and judgment against Jesus that led to his execution-- has been used to justify anti-Semitism and genocide against the Jews for centuries. That is indeed an element of the dark side of Christianity

You are trying to interpret the words of Jesus with a blunt instrument. He didn't say the Son of Man would return, He said "the coming of the Son of Man".

There are numerous prophesies concerning the coming of the Son of Man, the coming of the Lord, the Coming of Jehovah, the coming of the breath of Jehovah.

It is very obvious that they are not all referring to the same coming. If they were why would He say "coming with the clouds" if not to distinguish this coming from the coming that is not with the clouds?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

My, my, the lengths we'll go to, the hoops and loops we'll jump thru, to deny that Jesus could make a mistake, or didn't know everything.

Good try. My post was a quote from quite a few Bible scholars. It is standard Bible commentary on these verses.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are trying to interpret the words of Jesus with a blunt instrument

I don't know but that might be better than putting it on a torture rack, to make it say what you want it to say.

And when Jesus mentioned "coming" maybe he meant he'd show up the next day ... maybe "coming again" to the sea of Galilee ... on a clear day, with no clouds.

See what that torture rack can accomplish?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know but that might be better than putting it on a torture rack, to make it say what you want it to say.

And when Jesus mentioned "coming" maybe he meant he'd show up the next day ... maybe "coming again" to the sea of Galilee ... on a clear day, with no clouds.

See what that torture rack can accomplish?

You don't need any contortion to compare Matt 10 with Hosea 13. It is a round peg going into a round hole. Nor does it take any special myopic vision to see the coming Romans as God's judgement on the Jews for rejecting the Son of God. Jesus, Paul and the prophets were all quite clear on this point.

But what does defy many, many verses, what does require extreme myopic vision and contortionism is to suggest Jesus would return to Israel before their redemption.

Let's talk about the "torture rack" you are putting the Bible on. Why would anyone say "it is the red volkswagen" if you are talking about the only car in parking lot? The fact that you are giving terms like "red" and "volkswagen" suggest there are other cars. Likewise "coming with the clouds" would be completely redundant if there were only one coming. But there isn't, there are many comings of the Lord, coming judgements, coming blessings. It takes someone with a Phd in torture, someone who can cram 20 people into a volkswagen bug, to cram every coming into the Lord's coming in the clouds.

But I understand why they would do it. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks". If your agenda is to discredit the Lord of All you have to. Otherwise the alternative is to admit he could see the coming Roman invasion. He knew the time frame and he knew how long it would take his disciples to preach the gospel of redemption in Israel.

Here are some significant points of comparison [between Matt 10 and Luke 21].

(1) Both texts warn of an impending time of terrible persecution for the Lord’s disciples (Mt. 10:16; Lk. 21:12).

(2) Both passages affirm that persecution will come from the Jewish leaders, who will beat the Lord’s followers, even in their synagogues (Mt. 10:17; Lk. 21:12).

(3) Both texts declare that the disciples would be brought before governors and kings for the Savior’s sake (Mt. 10:18; Lk. 21:12).

(4) Both sections affirm that the disciples’ courage under persecution would turn out to be a compelling “testimony” in the interests of others (Mt. 10:18; Lk. 21:13).

(5) Both contexts declare that when the disciples are called upon to defend their case, they are not to be anxious about responding. Indeed, they are not to even think about preparation, for the appropriate words will be given to them by the Holy Spirit at the needed hour (Mt. 10:19-20; Lk. 21:14-15).

(6) Both texts warn that the coming crisis will be so great that even family members will yield to the temptation of delivering their loved ones over to the persecuting authorities (Mt. 10:21; Lk. 21:16).

(7) Both segments announce that the disciples will be hated by all men on account of Jesus’ sake (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:17).

(8) Both passages encourage endurance or patience, for deliverance will come eventually; there will be a “saving” or “redemption” for the Lord’s faithful (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:19).

(9) Both sections encourage the disciples that when the danger becomes life-threatening, they are to take flight (Mt. 10:23; Lk. 21:21f).

With these obvious parallels in mind, we now are ready to focus upon Matthew’s mysterious phrase, “till the Son of man comes” (10:23).The conscientious student asks: “What is the most likely meaning of this obscure phrase?”Luke’s conclusion is perfectly clear (and quite analogous to Matthew 24); Jerusalem will be surrounded by armies (the Romans) that will desolate the once-sacred city.Many Hebrews will fall by the sword; others will be taken captive.The revered city will be trodden down permanently (Lk. 21:20ff).There is no question.The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is clearly the focus of this text.

In conclusion, let us remind ourselves of this well-known principle of biblical interpretation.When there are Scripture texts that treat the same general theme, and yet one passage is more obscure than the other, the more enigmatic text always is to be interpreted in the light of the clearer.

If we apply this principle to the situation at hand, it is reasonable to conclude that the phrase “till the Son of man comes” represents a “judgment” coming of the Savior upon the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.It was a just punishment for their culminating act rebellion in rejecting their Messiah, the Son of God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The teaching that you espouse-- that the entire nation of Israel was held responsible for the sins of a few Jews in Jerusalem who colluded in the arrest and judgment against Jesus that led to his execution-- has been used to justify anti-Semitism and genocide against the Jews for centuries. That is indeed an element of the dark side of Christianity

This is little different than the policy of liberal "identity politics" -- all white men today should bear white shame and white guilt for the sins of a few slaveholders during the Lincoln Presidency and before. How can a liberal white man live with himself?
.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is little different than the policy of liberal "identity politics" -- all white men today should bear white shame and white guilt for the sins of a few slaveholders during the Lincoln Presidency and before. How can a liberal white man live with himself?
.

75% of Southern Whites did not own any slaves. Of the 25% that did, less than 5% owned a significant number (plantation owners -- the type we see in the movies). It is less likely that the slave owners with one or two slaves were as abusive since that requires manpower they didn't have.

The South represented less than 40% of US population, therefore when looking at the US as a whole only 2% of whites represented Southern Plantation owners with a lot of slaves.

But, there was still guilt to go around and our "redemption" took place during the Civil War. It seems outrageous to me that a person in your family could die fighting to free slaves and people are still claiming guilt and shame. The civil War was very expensive in both lives and money and it was undeniably fought to free slaves. Yes, both sides tried to deny it initially because Northerners were more interested in "preserving the union" and Southerners were not interested in helping the 5% but rather were fighting to protect their freedom. The hypocrisy of the South was on display because they soon took away all of the rights of the citizens to prosecute the war, proving that it was not about individual rights but rather they would pay any cost to keep their slaves.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The teaching that you espouse-- that the entire nation of Israel was held responsible for the sins of a few Jews in Jerusalem who colluded in the arrest and judgment against Jesus that led to his execution-- has been used to justify anti-Semitism and genocide against the Jews for centuries. That is indeed an element of the dark side of Christianity

That is historically accurate. However, since I also espouse that the Holocaust was their atonement with God, hence their return to Israel after WWII my use of this cannot be used to justify anti semitism after 1948. Therefore my teaching is not and cannot be construed anti semitic.

Nor do I justify the anti semitism prior to WWII because the Jews are God's people, what happens between them and God is their business, not mine.

Finally, since my Mother is probably of Jewish descent I think it is absurd to be anti Jewish (My great grandfather on my Mom's side escaped from a Turkish slave ship, changed his name and fled to MO. Our best guess is that he was Jewish and probably had to kill someone to escape, hence the change of name and the hiding out in the midwest).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

it is reasonable to conclude that the phrase “till the Son of man comes” represents a “judgment” coming of the Savior upon the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem.It was a just punishment for their culminating act rebellion in rejecting their Messiah, the Son of God.[/COLOR]

Well isn't that just like the God of the Old Testament? Who punishes a mass of the innocent for the guilt of a few?

And I'm suppose to love that God? John, or whoever, got it wrong when he said "God is love." He's more a God of fear.

But thanks for another example of putting the Bible on a torture rack, by linking verses in Matthew to Hosea ; a book comparing Israel’s abandonment of Yahweh to a woman being unfaithful to her husband, saying Israel abandoned the law, and about the fall of Israel in the 8th c. BC.

By dragging that book into the siege of Jerusalem in the 1st c. AD. you've provided a quintessential example of putting the Bible on a torture rack, to make it say what you want it to say.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But thanks for another example of putting the Bible on a torture rack, by linking verses in Matthew to Hosea ; a book comparing Israel’s abandonment of Yahweh to a woman being unfaithful to her husband, saying Israel abandoned the law, and about the fall of Israel in the 8th c. BC.

By dragging that book into the siege of Jerusalem in the 1st c. AD. you've provided a quintessential example of putting the Bible on a torture rack, to make it say what you want it to say.

What hypocrisy. Zeek used the book of Daniel to make it say what he wanted it to say simply because it said "the coming of the Son of Man" -- but the prophecy in Daniel bears almost no relation to the portion in Matt 10 whereas the portion in Hosea also referring to the "coming of the breath of Jehovah" is a far better fit. If anyone was trying to jam Cinderella's slipper on a big fat foot, it was you and Zeek.

There is an excellent comparison between Matt 10 and Luke 21,

(1) Both texts warn of an impending time of terrible persecution for the Lord’s disciples (Mt. 10:16; Lk. 21:12).

(2) Both passages affirm that persecution will come from the Jewish leaders, who will beat the Lord’s followers, even in their synagogues (Mt. 10:17; Lk. 21:12).

(3) Both texts declare that the disciples would be brought before governors and kings for the Savior’s sake (Mt. 10:18; Lk. 21:12).

(4) Both sections affirm that the disciples’ courage under persecution would turn out to be a compelling “testimony” in the interests of others (Mt. 10:18; Lk. 21:13).

(5) Both contexts declare that when the disciples are called upon to defend their case, they are not to be anxious about responding. Indeed, they are not to even think about preparation, for the appropriate words will be given to them by the Holy Spirit at the needed hour (Mt. 10:19-20; Lk. 21:14-15).

(6) Both texts warn that the coming crisis will be so great that even family members will yield to the temptation of delivering their loved ones over to the persecuting authorities (Mt. 10:21; Lk. 21:16).

(7) Both segments announce that the disciples will be hated by all men on account of Jesus’ sake (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:17).

(8) Both passages encourage endurance or patience, for deliverance will come eventually; there will be a “saving” or “redemption” for the Lord’s faithful (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:19).

(9) Both sections encourage the disciples that when the danger becomes life-threatening, they are to take flight (Mt. 10:23; Lk. 21:21f).

Anyone who compares these two passages would see far better agreement than the fig leaf you are trying to wrap around your poor interpretation. If you do compare these two you have no choice but to agree that this refers to armies surrounding Jerusalem after the Lord's crucifixion.

There is nothing honest in your interpretation, it is simply someone desperate to cling to some little thread that proves his theory, rather than someone who is unbiased and looking reasonably at the facts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well isn't that just like the God of the Old Testament? Who punishes a mass of the innocent for the guilt of a few?

What an ugly interpretation of Hosea. According to the prophecy in Hosea the Jews will reject their king (not simply the few who condemned Him to death). What they don't know is that their coming destruction will only be averted by someone who can see the rocks and steer the ship away from them. When they reject Jesus as captain of their ship they doom themselves to crashing on the rocks and sinking their little country and losing everything.

That is what captains do, they steer ships. If you pick a self serving captain who is clueless about the dangers but is only good at lying then you have no one but yourself to blame when your ship ends up on the rocks.

Now if God had not warned them ahead of time that might be a cause of being upset, but He did warn them. If Jesus had not reminded them when they rejected Him of the perils one might still find fault, but Jesus did remind them.

If God did not honor their free will in either choosing or rejecting Jesus you might still find fault, but God did honor their free will.

Instead nothing but hypocrisy and the ugliness of someone not willing to be accountable for their own actions.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

75% of Southern Whites did not own any slaves. Of the 25% that did, less than 5% owned a significant number (plantation owners -- the type we see in the movies). It is less likely that the slave owners with one or two slaves were as abusive since that requires manpower they didn't have.

The South represented less than 40% of US population, therefore when looking at the US as a whole only 2% of whites represented Southern Plantation owners with a lot of slaves.

But, there was still guilt to go around and our "redemption" took place during the Civil War. It seems outrageous to me that a person in your family could die fighting to free slaves and people are still claiming guilt and shame. The civil War was very expensive in both lives and money and it was undeniably fought to free slaves. Yes, both sides tried to deny it initially because Northerners were more interested in "preserving the union" and Southerners were not interested in helping the 5% but rather were fighting to protect their freedom. The hypocrisy of the South was on display because they soon took away all of the rights of the citizens to prosecute the war, proving that it was not about individual rights but rather they would pay any cost to keep their slaves.

I would only add that it was the Democratic (both the North and the South) Party which resisted emancipation.

I would never take the blame for anything the Democrats have done!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would only add that it was the Democratic (both the North and the South) Party which resisted emancipation.

I would never take the blame for anything the Democrats have done!

Only the most radical Republicans were for emancipation prior to the war. As more and more people were killed many of the Northerners supported emancipation as a way to punish the South. Emancipation was also seen as a strategic way to weaken the South's ability to fight. So I would not give the moral high ground to the Republicans.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What an ugly interpretation of Hosea. According to the prophecy in Hosea the Jews will reject their king (not simply the few who condemned Him to death). What they don't know is that their coming destruction will only be averted by someone who can see the rocks and steer the ship away from them. When they reject Jesus as captain of their ship they doom themselves to crashing on the rocks and sinking their little country and losing everything.

That is what captains do, they steer ships. If you pick a self serving captain who is clueless about the dangers but is only good at lying then you have no one but yourself to blame when your ship ends up on the rocks.

Now if God had not warned them ahead of time that might be a cause of being upset, but He did warn them. If Jesus had not reminded them when they rejected Him of the perils one might still find fault, but Jesus did remind them.

If God did not honor their free will in either choosing or rejecting Jesus you might still find fault, but God did honor their free will.

Instead nothing but hypocrisy and the ugliness of someone not willing to be accountable for their own actions.

Thanks for heads up about boat captains. I didn't know that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would only add that it was the Democratic (both the North and the South) Party which resisted emancipation.

I would never take the blame for anything the Democrats have done!

Obama, Hillary, and the democrats killed Jesus. And today they're coming in the clouds.

[awareness]

Paul tells the Romans :

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

Did that happen? Was that when Constantine made Rome the state religion?

Relatively, that's soon.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Obama, Hillary, and the democrats killed Jesus. And today they're coming in the clouds.

Makes a lot of sense.

Featured Post maybe?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Only the most radical Republicans were for emancipation prior to the war. As more and more people were killed many of the Northerners supported emancipation as a way to punish the South. Emancipation was also seen as a strategic way to weaken the South's ability to fight. So I would not give the moral high ground to the Republicans.

Twist the facts to make the innocent look bad?

You have been trained well.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Twist the facts to make the innocent look bad?

You have been trained well.

I haven't twisted anything. Look at Lincoln's platform. We know that he personally would have liked to eliminate slavery but he didn't run on that. Claiming that Lincoln was elected president to end slavery or that Northerners enlisted to end slavery is a complete fabrication. The people who were running to end slavery were fringe candidates.

I like to know the facts in history, it helps me sort out the present.

The North wanted to pretend the Civil War was about "preserving the Union" and not about ending slavery. The South wanted to pretend the war was about "State's rights" and not about protecting slavery. But when push came to shove the South had a federal draft (contrary to their claim of State's rights and liberty), they forced a tax down everyone's throat, they made people use their paper money which they then inflated, another tax. Likewise, in the North when they couldn't win a victory for the first two years they began to see that freeing slaves could help them in the war effort. But they didn't emancipate them, they simply said that runaway slaves would not be returned. Only later after atrocities against black soldiers and the realization that having runaway slaves in limbo was not conducive to their goals did they realize they needed to emancipate the slaves.

Remember, the Gettysburg address was not a campaign speech, it took place 2 years into the war.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are trying to interpret the words of Jesus with a blunt instrument. He didn't say the Son of Man would return, He said "the coming of the Son of Man".

There are numerous prophesies concerning the coming of the Son of Man, the coming of the Lord, the Coming of Jehovah, the coming of the breath of Jehovah.

It is very obvious that they are not all referring to the same coming. If they were why would He say "coming with the clouds" if not to distinguish this coming from the coming that is not with the clouds?

Thanks for "he didn't say the son of man would return He said the coming of the son of man. That one made me laugh out loud. Tell me the truth ZNP, do you not see that those are two different ways of saying the same thing?

Matthew 10:23 doesn't say anything about the coming of Jehovah or the breath of Jehovah. It's true that Jesus does not mention the clouds of heaven in Matthew 10:23. But he doesn't mention them in Matthew 13 41 either. There he says " the son of man will send out his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and those who practice lawlessness." Do you suppose he's talking about the Roman army there?

In Matthew 16:27 he 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". No mention of clouds there either. In the following verse Jesus says "Assuredly I say to you there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. Still no clouds.

So it's well established that Jesus can refer to the coming of the son of man to establish his kingdom without reference to clouds.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is little different than the policy of liberal "identity politics" -- all white men today should bear white shame and white guilt for the sins of a few slaveholders during the Lincoln Presidency and before. How can a liberal white man live with himself?

If you're saying that it's wrong to hold all Jews responsible for the collusion of a few Jews with the Romans in the execution of Jesus circa 30 AD, then we agree.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Thanks for "he didn't say the son of man would return He said the coming of the son of man. That one made me laugh out loud. Tell me the truth ZNP, do you not see that those are two different ways of saying the same thing?

Matthew 10:23 doesn't say anything about the coming of Jehovah or the breath of Jehovah. It's true that Jesus does not mention the clouds of heaven in Matthew 10:23. But he doesn't mention them in Matthew 13 41 either. There he says " the son of man will send out his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and those who practice lawlessness." Do you suppose he's talking about the Roman army there?

In Matthew 16:27 he 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". No mention of clouds there either. In the following verse Jesus says "Assuredly I say to you there are some standing here who will not who shall not taste death till they see the son of man coming in his kingdom. Still no clouds.

So it's well established that Jesus can refer to the coming of the son of man to establish his kingdom without reference to clouds.

You have not responded to any of my points. Saying that "it doesn't say coming in the clouds" is pointing out that you need more than "coming of the Son of Man" to tie this to the second coming. Obviously that is one possible theory, but tying Matt 10 to Luke 21 is far more compelling. Why are you avoiding that interpretation? Because surely you would agree that "armies surrounding Jerusalem" in Luke 21 could very well refer to the period when Jerusalem fell and the disciples were scattered.

In my view the fall of Jerusalem was a foretaste of the end of this age. It begins and ends with this. So without a doubt I think there are some interesting correlations with this the fall of Jerusalem after the crucifixion and then the end of the Age and Armageddon.

In Matt 24 Jesus said: 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.. Now this to my understanding clearly refutes your interpretation. He tells them that they won't finish preaching in Israel before the coming of the Son of Man, and here he says that the gospel will be preached to the whole world and all the nations before the end comes. Same book, same author, both attributed to Jesus.

Your interpretation is based on a single verse and doesn't even look slightly further which is why I say it is myopic. I could go on, but no point, you haven't responded to anything I have said yet.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is historically accurate. However, since I also espouse that the Holocaust was their atonement with God, hence their return to Israel after WWII my use of this cannot be used to justify anti semitism after 1948. Therefore my teaching is not and cannot be construed anti semitic.

Nor do I justify the anti semitism prior to WWII because the Jews are God's people, what happens between them and God is their business, not mine.

Finally, since my Mother is probably of Jewish descent I think it is absurd to be anti Jewish (My great grandfather on my Mom's side escaped from a Turkish slave ship, changed his name and fled to MO. Our best guess is that he was Jewish and probably had to kill someone to escape, hence the change of name and the hiding out in the midwest).

This is a deep and difficult topic that gets into the philosophy of history, the overarching narrative of the New Testament in the Bible and even the theological problem of evil. What you're doing is interpreting history in terms of Christian biblical eschatology.

I haven't accused you of anti-semitism, so there is no need to defend yourself against such charge here. That said your argument that you're not an anti-semite because you may have Jewish descendants reminds me of the "friend" argument e.g. "some of my best friends are Jews". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaGdwfykYGY

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Because surely you would agree that "armies surrounding Jerusalem" in Luke 21 could very well refer to the period when Jerusalem fell and the disciples were scattered.

What's missing in your theory is the fact that books written after AD 70 don't mention the sacking of Jerusalem. Your verses only hint at it, but with no specificity.

If the sacking of the temple was the fulfillment of prophecy, then why isn't it spelled out?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

This is a deep and difficult topic that gets into the philosophy of history, the overarching narrative of the New Testament in the Bible and even the theological problem of evil. What you're doing is interpreting history in terms of Christian biblical eschatology.

I haven't accused you of anti-semitism, so there is no need to defend yourself against such charge here. That said your argument that you're not an anti-semite because you may have Jewish descendants reminds me of the "friend" argument e.g. "some of my best friends are Jews". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaGdwfykYGY

My best friend growing up was Jewish, and I spent a lot of time at the synagogue and on holidays like passover. I considered converting to Judaism before being saved. I named my son after David Ben Gurion. I could go on.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's missing in your theory is the fact that books written after AD 70 don't mention the sacking of Jerusalem. Your verses only hint at it, but with no specificity.

If the sacking of the temple was the fulfillment of prophecy, then why isn't it spelled out?

You mean by more than "no stone left upon another".

Are you referring to historical accounts like Josephus? Now I have seen numerous pictures of the Temple mount and there is "no stone left upon the other" if you are talking about the Temple. All they have left is the wailing wall which was part of the complex but not the actual temple.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You mean by more than "no stone left upon another".

Good catch, of a vaticinium ex eventu.

Originally Posted by Z

Now I have seen numerous pictures of the Temple mount and there is "no stone left upon the other" if you are talking about the Temple. All they have left is the wailing wall which was part of the complex but not the actual temple.

You forgot about Mark :

Mar 13:2* And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's missing in your theory is the fact that books written after AD 70 don't mention the sacking of Jerusalem.

What are you talking about? I can get multiple references to Titus destruction of Jerusalem and the Roman Senate commemorating that destruction with an Arch which was built in AD 81.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What hypocrisy. Zeek used the book of Daniel to make it say what he wanted it to say simply because it said "the coming of the Son of Man" -- but the prophecy in Daniel bears almost no relation to the portion in Matt 10 whereas the portion in Hosea also referring to the "coming of the breath of Jehovah" is a far better fit. If anyone was trying to jam Cinderella's slipper on a big fat foot, it was you and Zeek.

There is an excellent comparison between Matt 10 and Luke 21,

(1) Both texts warn of an impending time of terrible persecution for the Lord’s disciples (Mt. 10:16; Lk. 21:12).

(2) Both passages affirm that persecution will come from the Jewish leaders, who will beat the Lord’s followers, even in their synagogues (Mt. 10:17; Lk. 21:12).

(3) Both texts declare that the disciples would be brought before governors and kings for the Savior’s sake (Mt. 10:18; Lk. 21:12).

(4) Both sections affirm that the disciples’ courage under persecution would turn out to be a compelling “testimony” in the interests of others (Mt. 10:18; Lk. 21:13).

(5) Both contexts declare that when the disciples are called upon to defend their case, they are not to be anxious about responding. Indeed, they are not to even think about preparation, for the appropriate words will be given to them by the Holy Spirit at the needed hour (Mt. 10:19-20; Lk. 21:14-15).

(6) Both texts warn that the coming crisis will be so great that even family members will yield to the temptation of delivering their loved ones over to the persecuting authorities (Mt. 10:21; Lk. 21:16).

(7) Both segments announce that the disciples will be hated by all men on account of Jesus’ sake (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:17).

(8) Both passages encourage endurance or patience, for deliverance will come eventually; there will be a “saving” or “redemption” for the Lord’s faithful (Mt. 10:22; Lk. 21:19).

(9) Both sections encourage the disciples that when the danger becomes life-threatening, they are to take flight (Mt. 10:23; Lk. 21:21f).

Anyone who compares these two passages would see far better agreement than the fig leaf you are trying to wrap around your poor interpretation. If you do compare these two you have no choice but to agree that this refers to armies surrounding Jerusalem after the Lord's crucifixion.

There is nothing honest in your interpretation, it is simply someone desperate to cling to some little thread that proves his theory, rather than someone who is unbiased and looking reasonably at the facts.

You claim that I used the Book of Daniel to make it say what I wanted it to say simply because it said the coming of the son of man but the prophecy in Daniel bears almost no relation to the portion in Matthew 10.

First let's take a look at what I actually said. I quoted Matthew 10:23 which says " when they persecute you in this city flee to another for assuredly I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes." I said not only did the son of man not come as predicted in Daniel the disciples were not persecuted so that they had to flee from one city to the other.

I was taking implicit note of the fact that Jesus was speaking to his 12 disciples upon sending them to minister throughout Galilee. I was interpreting the passage literally.

You asserted that the verse referred to going through every city on earth. I corrected you and said it referred only to the cities of Israel.

At that point you brought in the respected scholars. In the passage you quoted they interpreted the coming of the son of man as referring to God sending the Roman armies to invade Palestine. Yet they provided no explanation for why Jesus used the expression son of man in this verse. It's an expression that Jesus uses 32 times in the Book of Matthew.

I noted that Jesus' use of the term the son of man comes in Matthew 10:23 matches Daniel 7:13 that says and behold one like the son of man coming with the Clouds Of Heaven. You said that it didn't correspond with that

I pointed to other verses in Matthew where are Jesus uses the term son of man referring to the coming Kingdom and does not mention clouds.

I don't see anywhere where I'm torturing the verse to make it say what I want it to say. And I don't know how you can possibly contend that the verse which mentions the son of man in Daniel "bears almost no relation" to Jesus' use of the son of man in Matthew.

Now you wish to compare Matthew 10 with Luke 21. I do see similarities between the two passages. But Luke 21 culminates in the coming of the son of man in a cloud with power and great Glory.

Jesus was speaking publicly in the temple. This passage also seems to support the conclusion that Jesus expected the coming of the son of man to those people.

The surrounding armies were supposed to be a sign that desolation was near. Jesus said that that sign comes before the coming of the son of man in a cloud with power and great glory.

Jesus told them that when these things happened they should look up and lift up their heads. What were they going to see when they looked up? The Roman army? I don't think so.

I think Jesus expected them to see the son of man coming on the clouds when they looked up. He even said when those things happen their redemption was drawing near. Doesn't that refer to the redemption of their bodies-- their transfiguration at the coming of the son of man? The Roman army wasn't going to redeem them was it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My best friend growing up was Jewish, and I spent a lot of time at the synagogue and on holidays like passover. I considered converting to Judaism before being saved. I named my son after David Ben Gurion. I could go on.

That's nice but it's irrelevant. And the "friend argument' e.g. "I can't be a jew-hater because some of my best friends are Jews or my family members are Jews", is fallacious. It's based on the presupposition that if you're close to someone you can't wish to do them harm which is false. People murder friends and family members every day.

[zeek]

If people reject Christianity the way Witness Lee did it would make more sense if they didn't call themselves Christians which is obviously the root of the word. They could recover the word Nazratim or, as it is usually translated Nazarene, the name the followers of Jesus were called in Jerusalem according to Acts 24:5.

[ZNPaaneah]

In response to post #110.

Matt 10:23 refers to the coming of the Son of Man before the apostles are able to go through the cities of Israel preaching the gospel. The sense I get from this chapter is that the Lord is telling the apostles to be urgent because they will run out of time.

All the commentaries on this passage see this expression "the coming of the Son of Man" as a point that needs quite a bit of consideration. Obviously you are immediately reminded of the Lord Jesus coming in the Clouds at the end of the age.

However, in Matt 24 the Lord is very clear that many things will happen and "the end is not yet" and He also tells us that we will preach the gospel throughout the entire world and to all the nations and then the end will come.

It is an erroneous practice to interpret the Bible based on a single verse.

So, you have to reconcile both Matt 10 which is very clear that the apostles will run out of time prior to the "coming of the Son of Man" and will not be able to go through all the cities of Israel before that point. And on the other hand there will be wars, rumors of wars, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom, and this is only the beginning of tribulation, the end is not yet. Instead, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the entire world and to all the nations. Only then will "the end come". There is no suggestion in Matt 24 that it will be the apostles preaching to all the nations, rather it is "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached".

So regardless of how appealing it is to suggest that Matt 10 is referring to "the end of the age" we know it isn't. Instead if we look at Luke 21 there is a very strong correlation between these two portions that suggest it is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This destruction of the temple is also spelled out in Matt 24. This also corresponds with the historical record. During the ministry of the apostles the Jews were scattered abroad, both Peter and James refer to this.

So then Matt 10, Matt 24, Luke 21, and the historical record all fit very nicely together leaving us one last question. What does this term "the coming of the Son of Man" refer to?

In my opinion Hosea 13 is instructive here.

v.5 "besides me there is no savior" however Israel has forgotten Him.

v. 9 "it is thy destruction O Israel that you are against Me, your help".

They rejected Jesus as savior, and that is to their destruction. He reminds us that He gave us King Saul in His anger and then took him away in His wrath. Israel's rejecting God and demanding to have a king set over them was a prefigure of their rejection of Jesus Christ as their savior and king.

v. 14 "I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction?"

This is the redemptive work of Jesus, only He can save them, and yet they rejected this and chose "Cesar to be their king". And Hosea says "the sorrows of a travailing woman will come upon him, he is an unwise son".

Finally an "east wind will come". If you live in Israel and east wind would be coming from across the Middle East, a hot, dry wind, a drought. We saw this, Israel as a nation dried up. "the breath of Jehovah coming up from the wilderness" that this will be the judgement of God because they rebelled. The conclusion of this chapter in Hosea is clearly referring to an army destroying the land "fall by the sword", "ripped up" and "dashed in pieces".

I think this prophecy is very well aligned to this period in time from the Lord's crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Therefore "The breath of Jehovah coming up" would be equivalent to "the coming of the Son of Man".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In response to post #110.

Matt 10:23 refers to the coming of the Son of Man before the apostles are able to go through the cities of Israel preaching the gospel. The sense I get from this chapter is that the Lord is telling the apostles to be urgent because they will run out of time.

All the commentaries on this passage see this expression "the coming of the Son of Man" as a point that needs quite a bit of consideration. Obviously you are immediately reminded of the Lord Jesus coming in the Clouds at the end of the age.

However, in Matt 24 the Lord is very clear that many things will happen and "the end is not yet" and He also tells us that we will preach the gospel throughout the entire world and to all the nations and then the end will come.

It is an erroneous practice to interpret the Bible based on a single verse.

So, you have to reconcile both Matt 10 which is very clear that the apostles will run out of time prior to the "coming of the Son of Man" and will not be able to go through all the cities of Israel before that point. And on the other hand there will be wars, rumors of wars, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom, and this is only the beginning of tribulation, the end is not yet. Instead, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the entire world and to all the nations. Only then will "the end come". There is no suggestion in Matt 24 that it will be the apostles preaching to all the nations, rather it is "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached".

So regardless of how appealing it is to suggest that Matt 10 is referring to "the end of the age" we know it isn't. Instead if we look at Luke 21 there is a very strong correlation between these two portions that suggest it is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This destruction of the temple is also spelled out in Matt 24. This also corresponds with the historical record. During the ministry of the apostles the Jews were scattered abroad, both Peter and James refer to this.

So then Matt 10, Matt 24, Luke 21, and the historical record all fit very nicely together leaving us one last question. What does this term "the coming of the Son of Man" refer to?

In my opinion Hosea 13 is instructive here.

v.5 "besides me there is no savior" however Israel has forgotten Him.

v. 9 "it is thy destruction O Israel that you are against Me, your help".

They rejected Jesus as savior, and that is to their destruction. He reminds us that He gave us King Saul in His anger and then took him away in His wrath. Israel's rejecting God and demanding to have a king set over them was a prefigure of their rejection of Jesus Christ as their savior and king.

v. 14 "I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction?"

This is the redemptive work of Jesus, only He can save them, and yet they rejected this and chose "Cesar to be their king". And Hosea says "the sorrows of a travailing woman will come upon him, he is an unwise son".

Finally an "east wind will come". If you live in Israel and east wind would be coming from across the Middle East, a hot, dry wind, a drought. We saw this, Israel as a nation dried up. "the breath of Jehovah coming up from the wilderness" that this will be the judgement of God because they rebelled. The conclusion of this chapter in Hosea is clearly referring to an army destroying the land "fall by the sword", "ripped up" and "dashed in pieces".

I think this prophecy is very well aligned to this period in time from the Lord's crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Therefore "The breath of Jehovah coming up" would be equivalent to "the coming of the Son of Man".

Jesus told the people in Jerusalem that when the armies surrounded Jerusalem the son of man would appear in the clouds so they should look up. Jerusalem was destroyed as you say but when they looked up the son of man did not appear in the clouds. As a result there was a shift in the eschatology away from the return of Jesus to establish his kingdom to the church on earth as an enduring institution and the destination of heaven for the individual believer at the end of life. This shift is already evident in the Gospel of John which de-emphasizes the Apocalypse in favor of a realized eschatology.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What are you talking about? I can get multiple references to Titus destruction of Jerusalem and the Roman Senate commemorating that destruction with an Arch which was built in AD 81.

Bro Z, think about it. It's not that there aren't historical records on the sacking of Jerusalem & the temple. It was a very big deal ; a big war ; that the Romans won ; and the Jews lost ; and they don't have their temple to this day. .

So you'd think it would be remarked about in New Testament accounts. For instance, John was written 25 years after the sacking, surely the authors knew about it. So why isn't it written about at least in some detail?

Another instance : Matthew, the only gospel that mentions it, have the Jews saying, "his blood be on us and our children." Shouldn't Matthew have mentioned the sacking of the temple -- it meant that his blood was upon them -- that deserved at least some detailed account -- at least something clearly stated about it fulfilling Jesus' prophecy?

But okay, we can't expect the New Testament to be a historical type document. But still. The sacking of the temple and Jerusalem was a very big deal. And completely on topic to the story of Jesus.

Plus, it could have been stated clearly that it was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. That it was the 'blood curse.' It wasn't. So we, including you, are left extrapolating.

Don't you think? If not, I guess I/we will now suffer a ton of your extrapolations ... in a long numbered list.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Z, think about it. It's not that there aren't historical records on the sacking of Jerusalem & the temple. It was a very big deal ; a big war ; that the Romans won ; and the Jews lost ; and they don't have their temple to this day. .

So you'd think it would be remarked about in New Testament accounts. For instance, John was written 25 years after the sacking, surely the authors knew about it. So why isn't it written about at least in some detail?

Another instance : Matthew, the only gospel that mentions it, have the Jews saying, "his blood be on us and our children." Shouldn't Matthew have mentioned the sacking of the temple -- it meant that his blood was upon them -- that deserved at least some detailed account -- at least something clearly stated about it fulfilling Jesus' prophecy?

But okay, we can't expect the New Testament to be a historical type document. But still. The sacking of the temple and Jerusalem was a very big deal. And completely on topic to the story of Jesus.

Plus, it could have been stated clearly that it was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. That it was the 'blood curse.' It wasn't. So we, including you, are left extrapolating.

Don't you think? If not, I guess I/we will now suffer a ton of your extrapolations ... in a long numbered list.

Hey Awareness, what's you're point and what does it have to do with Christianity?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Jesus told the people in Jerusalem that when the armies surrounded Jerusalem the son of man would appear in the clouds so they should look up. Jerusalem was destroyed as you say but when they looked up the son of man did not appear in the clouds. As a result there was a shift in the eschatology away from the return of Jesus to establish his kingdom to the church on earth as an enduring institution and the destination of heaven for the individual believer at the end of life. This shift is already evident in the Gospel of John which de-emphasizes the Apocalypse in favor of a realized eschatology.

30and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is in Matt 24, at the end of the chapter, after the following things:

1. Temple is destroyed, not one stone left upon another.
2. Many false Christ’s coming in Jesus name
3. Wars and rumors of war, nation rise against nation, Kingdom against kingdom
4. Famines and earthquakes in diverse places
5. Delivered up and persecuted and “hated of all nations”. You cannot claim that Israel’s persecution of Peter, Paul and the apostles fulfills “hated of all nations”.
6. Many false prophets shall arise
7. Finally, “when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place” — so not only is the temple completely destroyed it must also be completely rebuilt.
8. That sun shall be darkened
9. The stars shall fall from heaven

So how could anyone teach that the book of Matthew taught Jesus prophesied that His second coming would take place during the lifetime of the apostles?

Instead Jesus said many false prophets and many false Christ's would come teaching stuff to confuse the elect.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Z, think about it. It's not that there aren't historical records on the sacking of Jerusalem & the temple. It was a very big deal ; a big war ; that the Romans won ; and the Jews lost ; and they don't have their temple to this day. .

So you'd think it would be remarked about in New Testament accounts. For instance, John was written 25 years after the sacking, surely the authors knew about it. So why isn't it written about at least in some detail?

Another instance : Matthew, the only gospel that mentions it, have the Jews saying, "his blood be on us and our children." Shouldn't Matthew have mentioned the sacking of the temple -- it meant that his blood was upon them -- that deserved at least some detailed account -- at least something clearly stated about it fulfilling Jesus' prophecy?

But okay, we can't expect the New Testament to be a historical type document. But still. The sacking of the temple and Jerusalem was a very big deal. And completely on topic to the story of Jesus.

Plus, it could have been stated clearly that it was the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy. That it was the 'blood curse.' It wasn't. So we, including you, are left extrapolating.

Don't you think? If not, I guess I/we will now suffer a ton of your extrapolations ... in a long numbered list.

The New Testament does refer to it: Acts, Peter and James all refer to the scattering of the Jews. Revelation begins discussing John in exile. Hebrews talks about the physical temple as a type of the spiritual one. Paul talks about the Jews as a "branch that has been cut off" but could still be "grafted in". Matthew goes into very specific detail about what is going to happen. Revelation gives us very good detail about what happens at the end of the age. Both of these accounts tie nicely with OT Prophets.

Paul's ministry was not to the Jews but the gentiles, why should he talk about it other than his calling for an offering to bring to the saints in Jerusalem?

James and Peter are not interested in preserving the Jewish religion, their interest is in ministering to the suffering saints who are of the circumcision.

What do you want them to say "ha, ha, we were right!" Do you even know what spirit you are?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Christianity was invented because the Apocalypse did not come quickly as predicted.

This is the main contention of this thread. I agree that Christianity was invented, but not because the Apocalypse did not come as quickly as "predicted". There is no doubt that many expected the Lord to bring in the Kingdom at his first coming, we are told this in the NT, so it is no surprise if they expected it to come with the early church. But the interpretation that Jesus predicted that in Matt 10:23 is just not supportable.

Instead I would say that Jesus prophesied that Christianity would be invented when He warned of "many false Christ's" and "many false prophets". All believers are "anointed" which is the meaning of Christ. It is common in Christianity to refer to "the anointed man of God" referring to some Christian leader. I do not understand why people assume a false Christ or false prophet has to be a mass murderer like Charles Manson, or a cult leader like David Koresh, of a suicidal maniac like Jim Jones. The NT never gives this as a prerequisite. We hear repeatedly of Christians "returning to the pure word of God" -- that implies they were led astray by something other than the fellowship of the Apostles, i.e. a false prophet or false Christ.

So I would change the first post to:

"Jesus prophesied that Christianity would be invented in Matt 24, referring to these Christian leaders as 'false prophets' and 'false prophets' and saying that they would lead many astray."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

30and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is in Matt 24, at the end of the chapter, after the following things:

1. Temple is destroyed, not one stone left upon another.
2. Many false Christ’s coming in Jesus name
3. Wars and rumors of war, nation rise against nation, Kingdom against kingdom
4. Famines and earthquakes in diverse places
5. Delivered up and persecuted and “hated of all nations”. You cannot claim that Israel’s persecution of Peter, Paul and the apostles fulfills “hated of all nations”.
6. Many false prophets shall arise
7. Finally, “when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place” — so not only is the temple completely destroyed it must also be completely rebuilt.
8. That sun shall be darkened
9. The stars shall fall from heaven

So how could anyone teach that the book of Matthew taught Jesus prophesied that His second coming would take place during the lifetime of the apostles?

Instead Jesus said many false prophets and many false Christ's would come teaching stuff to confuse the elect.

According to modern historians, Matthew was probably written a decade or two after Mark in the 80s or 90s of the first century. By then the original expectation that the son of man would appear to anyone of the first generation was in serious doubt. Many of the predicted events had already occurred by the time the gospel of Matthew was written. The final caveat that no one knew exactly when the son of man would appear including Jesus himself punctuates the uncertainty of the author's point of view. Jesus's earlier statement that the son of man would return before they finished proselytizing Israel may reflect an earlier layer of tradition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Hey Awareness, what's you're point and what does it have to do with Christianity?

My point should be obvious. That, the sacking of Jerusalem & the temple was not discussed specifically and in detail in the NT accounts.

And what does it have to do with Christianity?

Oh I don't know. I guess, according to the NT, it had very little at all to do with Christianity... back then ... to NT authors.

But it has everything to do with Bible believing Christians today. Did you know that Israel was founded as a state? And that they've taken Jerusalem back, and the temple mount, just recently?

Maybe you are like Paul. He wrote before the sacking. Even in his pseudepigraphal 2 Thess, it speaks of the son of perdition sitting in the existing temple, exalting himself as God, in the temple that stood in Paul's day. Paul didn't relate Jesus' prophecy to the sacking of the temple. The temple hadn't yet been sacked.

But these verses in 2 Thess, concerning the existing standing temple, are now very important to Bible believers, particularly of the prophecy sort ; who think that they now today relate to the soon coming 3rd temple, cuz it signals Jesus is on his way in the clouds real soon.

Other than that, it has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, I wish today's Christians thought like the NT authors - minus the extrapolations. But not like the pseudepigrapha 2 Thessalonians.

Thanks for asking. And bro zeek, you should be proud of me. Thanks to you I'm learning better than to just bust out with my infamous, "Bahahahahaha."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The New Testament does refer to it: Acts, Peter and James all refer to the scattering of the Jews. Revelation begins discussing John in exile. Hebrews talks about the physical temple as a type of the spiritual one. Paul talks about the Jews as a "branch that has been cut off" but could still be "grafted in". Matthew goes into very specific detail about what is going to happen. Revelation gives us very good detail about what happens at the end of the age. Both of these accounts tie nicely with OT Prophets.

Noted church historian Phillip Schaff informs us "that the traditional date of Revelation (~90 AD) rests on the testimony of Irenaeus, but the internal evidence strongly favors an earlier date after the death of Nero (6-9-68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (8-10-70). This also helps to explain the difference between fiery energy of the Apocalypse and the calm repose of the fourth Gospel, composed at an old age."

I tend to agree.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to modern historians, Matthew was probably written a decade or two after Mark in the 80s or 90s of the first century. By then the original expectation that the son of man would appear to anyone of the first generation was in serious doubt. Many of the predicted events had already occurred by the time the gospel of Matthew was written. The final caveat that no one knew exactly when the son of man would appear including Jesus himself punctuates the uncertainty of the author's point of view. Jesus's earlier statement that the son of man would return before they finished proselytizing Israel may reflect an earlier layer of tradition.

If I understand this point correctly you are saying the author of Matthew was "adjusting" his quotes based on 20/20 hindsight. That is complete conjecture, but I am willing to put aside those quotes, remove them from consideration. There are still plenty of quotes concerning prophecies that they did not have any benefit of hindsight on.

Personally I think all of this is absurd. We have historians putting out accounts of WWII 60-70 years after the fact, but based on the documents that were created at the time. The fact that the gospel wasn't widely disseminated prior to a certain point is not evidence of anything. How long did it take John Meyers to write his book?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If I understand this point correctly you are saying the author of Matthew was "adjusting" his quotes based on 20/20 hindsight. That is complete conjecture, but I am willing to put aside those quotes, remove them from consideration. There are still plenty of quotes concerning prophecies that they did not have any benefit of hindsight on.

Personally I think all of this is absurd. We have historians putting out accounts of WWII 60-70 years after the fact, but based on the documents that were created at the time. The fact that the gospel wasn't widely disseminated prior to a certain point is not evidence of anything. How long did it take John Meyers to write his book?

Did you mean John Myer?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In response to post #110.

Matt 10:23 refers to the coming of the Son of Man before the apostles are able to go through the cities of Israel preaching the gospel. The sense I get from this chapter is that the Lord is telling the apostles to be urgent because they will run out of time.

All the commentaries on this passage see this expression "the coming of the Son of Man" as a point that needs quite a bit of consideration. Obviously you are immediately reminded of the Lord Jesus coming in the Clouds at the end of the age.

However, in Matt 24 the Lord is very clear that many things will happen and "the end is not yet" and He also tells us that we will preach the gospel throughout the entire world and to all the nations and then the end will come.

It is an erroneous practice to interpret the Bible based on a single verse.

So, you have to reconcile both Matt 10 which is very clear that the apostles will run out of time prior to the "coming of the Son of Man" and will not be able to go through all the cities of Israel before that point. And on the other hand there will be wars, rumors of wars, nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom, and this is only the beginning of tribulation, the end is not yet. Instead, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the entire world and to all the nations. Only then will "the end come". There is no suggestion in Matt 24 that it will be the apostles preaching to all the nations, rather it is "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached".

So regardless of how appealing it is to suggest that Matt 10 is referring to "the end of the age" we know it isn't. Instead if we look at Luke 21 there is a very strong correlation between these two portions that suggest it is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. This destruction of the temple is also spelled out in Matt 24. This also corresponds with the historical record. During the ministry of the apostles the Jews were scattered abroad, both Peter and James refer to this.

So then Matt 10, Matt 24, Luke 21, and the historical record all fit very nicely together leaving us one last question. What does this term "the coming of the Son of Man" refer to?

In my opinion Hosea 13 is instructive here.

v.5 "besides me there is no savior" however Israel has forgotten Him.

v. 9 "it is thy destruction O Israel that you are against Me, your help".

They rejected Jesus as savior, and that is to their destruction. He reminds us that He gave us King Saul in His anger and then took him away in His wrath. Israel's rejecting God and demanding to have a king set over them was a prefigure of their rejection of Jesus Christ as their savior and king.

v. 14 "I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction?"

This is the redemptive work of Jesus, only He can save them, and yet they rejected this and chose "Cesar to be their king". And Hosea says "the sorrows of a travailing woman will come upon him, he is an unwise son".

Finally an "east wind will come". If you live in Israel and east wind would be coming from across the Middle East, a hot, dry wind, a drought. We saw this, Israel as a nation dried up. "the breath of Jehovah coming up from the wilderness" that this will be the judgement of God because they rebelled. The conclusion of this chapter in Hosea is clearly referring to an army destroying the land "fall by the sword", "ripped up" and "dashed in pieces".

I think this prophecy is very well aligned to this period in time from the Lord's crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Therefore "The breath of Jehovah coming up" would be equivalent to "the coming of the Son of Man".

So you like to gather these verses together that don't actually relate to draw this picture. It doesn't make it so. It just makes it an interesting opinion. It's extrapolation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did you mean John Myer?

yeah, sorry

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

My point should be obvious. That, the sacking of Jerusalem & the temple was not discussed specifically and in detail in the NT accounts.

And what does it have to do with Christianity?

Oh I don't know. I guess, according to the NT, it had very little at all to do with Christianity... back then ... to NT authors.

But it has everything to do with Bible believing Christians today. Did you know that Israel was founded as a state? And that they've taken Jerusalem back, and the temple mount, just recently?

Maybe you are like Paul. He wrote before the sacking. Even in his pseudepigraphal 2 Thess, it speaks of the son of perdition sitting in the existing temple, exalting himself as God, in the temple that stood in Paul's day. Paul didn't relate Jesus' prophecy to the sacking of the temple. The temple hadn't yet been sacked.

But these verses in 2 Thess, concerning the existing standing temple, are now very important to Bible believers, particularly of the prophecy sort ; who think that they now today relate to the soon coming 3rd temple, cuz it signals Jesus is on his way in the clouds real soon.

Other than that, it has nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, I wish today's Christians thought like the NT authors - minus the extrapolations. But not like the pseudepigrapha 2 Thessalonians.

Thanks for asking. And bro zeek, you should be proud of me. Thanks to you I'm learning better than to just bust out with my infamous, "Bahahahahaha."

Love the snarky attitude but I thought you were going to offer a hypothesis about why the destruction of Jerusalem & the temple was not discussed in the NT accounts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If I understand this point correctly you are saying the author of Matthew was "adjusting" his quotes based on 20/20 hindsight. That is complete conjecture, but I am willing to put aside those quotes, remove them from consideration. There are still plenty of quotes concerning prophecies that they did not have any benefit of hindsight on.

Personally I think all of this is absurd. We have historians putting out accounts of WWII 60-70 years after the fact, but based on the documents that were created at the time. The fact that the gospel wasn't widely disseminated prior to a certain point is not evidence of anything. How long did it take John Meyers to write his book?

Was John Meyer an eye witness of the events that he wrote about? None of the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus.

None of the Gospels are not written in the first person singular voice as a witness testifying directly to what he has seen and heard. All four of them keep their identities anonymous, something you wouldn't expect if they were apostles whom Jesus had personally chosen and sent.

According to the Gospels the disciples were mostly uneducated peasants from Galilee. Acts 4:13 says Peter and John were uneducated and untrained men. The gospels as literary documents reflect higher education and for the most part correct Greek grammar. Jesus and his Apostles appear to have spoken Aramaic.

The author of Luke explicitly tells us that he used oral and written sources for his narrative and claims that some of these sources were drawn from eyewitnesses. The others seem to have done the same. The Gospel of Matthew also appears to rely on the Gospel of Mark as source material, something you wouldn't expect the author to do if he were an eye witness himself. The Gospel of John is so markedly different from the other three synoptic gospels that when the accounts conflict John is often thought to adhere less to historical fact.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Was John Meyer an eye witness of the events that he wrote about? None of the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus.

None of the Gospels are not written in the first person singular voice. All four of them keep their identities anonymous, something you wouldn't expect if they were apostles whom Jesus had chosen and sent.

According to the Gospels the disciples were mostly uneducated peasants From Galilee. Acts 4:13 says Peter and John were uneducated and untrained men. The gospels as literary documents reflect higher education and for the most part correct Greek grammar. Jesus and his Apostles appear to have spoken Aramaic.

The author of Luke explicitly tells us that he used oral and written sources for his narrative and claims that some of these sources were drawn from eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Matthew also appears to rely on the Gospel of Mark as source material, something you wouldn't expect the author to do if he were an eye witness.

But what is the point?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But what is the point?

The point of what?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Instead, this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the entire world and to all the nations. Only then will "the end come".

This is a failed prophecy. Not only because it hasn't been fulfilled in 2000 years, but because at that time all the nations of the world weren't known. Not only has Christianity changed since then, the known world has changed too. It got much bigger.

Since back then there's been way more nations discovered. So thinking that all the nations back then applies to all the nations today is nonsense, only believed in by blind fanatic prophecy believers, thinking that Jesus knew about all the nations known today.

But we know that Jesus wasn't omniscient. Not only did he not know the day and the hour, he also didn't know that the world was round, not the center of the universe, and included hundreds of nations, not known back then. He was wrong on all accounts.

But because of it, Christianity has dragged that prophecy along thru all the advances of knowledge, of the world and universe.

I guess some things about Christianity never change. It could be said that Christianity tries to stay back in those ancient days, fails, but hangs on anyway ... but still become a totally different Christianity from what it was in Jesus' day ... thinking that it's the same.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is a failed prophecy. Not only because it hasn't been fulfilled in 2000 years, but because at that time all the nations of the world weren't known. Not only has Christianity changed since then, the known world has changed too. It got much bigger.

Since back then there's been way more nations discovered. So thinking that all the nations back then applies to all the nations today is nonsense, only believed in by blind fanatic prophecy believers, thinking that Jesus knew about all the nations known today.

But we know that Jesus wasn't omniscient. Not only did he not know the day and the hour, he also didn't know that the world was round, not the center of the universe, and included hundreds of nations, not known back then. He was wrong on all accounts.

But because of it, Christianity has dragged that prophecy along thru all the advances of knowledge, of the world and universe.

I guess some things about Christianity never change. It could be said that Christianity tries to stay back in those ancient days, fails, but hangs on anyway ... but still become a totally different Christianity from what it was in Jesus' day ... thinking that it's the same.

It's yet to be fulfilled, that does not mean it has failed. Once NK and others e.g. Iran are more open to the gospel then the end is nearer.

[zeek]

One of the early seeds that grew into what became Christianity was Hellenism. According to Acts 6:1 there were hellenists in Jerusalem from the earliest days of the church. That verse says that the hellenists complained against the hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Acts 9: 29 says that after Saul's conversion he disputed against the hellenists in Jerusalem. Apollos who was from Alexandria, the center of Hellenistic philosophy, was probably a hellenist.

The best known Hellenist of the first century was Philo in Alexandria who was the contemporary of Jesus and Paul. He combined Judaism platonism and stoicism. Philo’s allegorization of the Hebrew Bible set a precedent that was followed by Paul who used a similar method of biblical hermeneutics. Philo also promulgated the concept of the logos which of course is used in the prologue of the Gospel of John. The highly symbolic interpretation of the life of Jesus exhibited in The Gospel of John is typical of a Hellenistic philosophical approach.

The Church Father Clement who's also from Alexandria was a hellenist who taught that philosophy was given to the Greeks as their own kind of covenant and foundation for the philosophy of Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's yet to be fulfilled, that does not mean it has failed. Once NK and others e.g. Iran are more open to the gospel then the end is nearer.

I'm doing all I can to hold back a Bahahahaha.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

One of the early seeds that grew into what became Christianity was Hellenism. According to Acts 6:1 there were hellenists in Jerusalem from the earliest days of the church. That verse says that the hellenists complained against the hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. Acts 9: 29 says that Saul called on the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the hellenists but they attempted to kill him. Apollos who was from Alexandria, the center of Hellenistic philosophy, was probably a hellenist.

The chief exponent of Hellenism was Philo in Alexandria who combined Judaism platonism and stoicism. Philo’s allegorization of the Hebrew Bible set a precedent that was followed by Paul who used a similar method of biblical hermeneutics. Philo also promulgated the concept of the logos which of course is used in the prologue of the Gospel of John. The highly symbolic interpretation of the life of Jesus exhibited in The Gospel of John is typical of a Hellenistic philosophical approach.

The Church Father Clement who's also from Alexandria was a hellenist who taught that philosophy was given to the Greeks as their own kind of covenant and foundation for the philosophy of Christ.

That Christianity was Hellenized is obvious by the fact that all the NT books, even Paul's, was written in Greek, and not Hebrew.

I once brought up that they used the Greek Septuagint in Sunday School class, and the preacher that was leading the class said, "If it was good enough for Jesus, and the apostles, it's good enough for us."

But we don't use the Septuagint today. In fact, we completely reject that Christianity was Hellenized. While reading books that were Hellenized ... like the gospel of John, that was clearly Hellenized.

[awareness]

Paul tells the Romans :

Rom_16:25* Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

This mystery that was hidden since the world began was revealed when the Holy Land had been Hellenized.

Why did God wait to reveal it then? Why was Jesus born into a period when the culture he grew up in was ruled by the Romans, and the Jewish people had become Hellenized?

Then, after Jesus ascends, he appears to Saul, a Jew that's a Roman, who brings in the gentiles, that were the Hellenizers.

So was Christianity, starting with the Nazarene's, poor because it started out Hellenized?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul tells the Romans :

Rom_16:25* Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

This mystery that was hidden since the world began was revealed when the Holy Land had been Hellenized.

Why did God wait to reveal it then? Why was Jesus born into a period when the culture he grew up in was ruled by the Romans, and the Jewish people had become Hellenized?

Then, after Jesus ascends, he appears to Saul, a Jew that's a Roman, who brings in the gentiles, that were the Hellenizers.

So was Christianity, starting with the Nazarene's, poor because it started out Hellenized?

Since we are distinguishing between the NT church and fallen, degraded Christianity in this thread you have failed to provide evidence that Paul started Christianity. You make that leap when it is very much an unproven assertion.

Paul's ministry builds the church. Shortly after the church arrives on the scene we also see Christianity. Correlation is not causation. I recently saw an ice cream truck, not more than one week later it was 90 degrees. Did the ice cream truck cause the summer? Correlation is not causation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Correlation is not causation.

Thanks. I'll remember that.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

you have failed to provide evidence that Paul started Christianity.

I re-read my post. I made no such claim. Unless you can prove that Paul degraded Christianity, you're off topic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I re-read my post. I made no such claim. Unless you can prove that Paul degraded Christianity, you're off topic.

1. The first post says that Christianity was invented because the apocalypse didn’t come as quickly as predicted.

2. In Post #4 Zeek defines Christianity for this thread as a human response to the cognitive dissonance that resulted when Jesus did not return in the first generation of believers.

3. In Post #6 Zeek, responding to your comment, says that IIPeter supports his theory of a human response rationalizing the fact that the Lord had not returned yet.

Then you quote Paul in Romans 16:5 about the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret, said this mystery wasn't revealed until the land was Hellenized, and then ask if Christianity was poor because it was Hellenized.

Therefore, based on the context I read your post to say that Paul was the one who brought in the human response with his "revelation of the mystery" which you refer to as "Hellenized".

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The first post says that Christianity was invented because the apocalypse didn’t come as quickly as predicted.

2. In Post #4 Zeek defines Christianity for this thread as a human response to the cognitive dissonance that resulted when Jesus did not return in the first generation of believers.

3. In Post #6 Zeek, responding to your comment, says that IIPeter supports his theory of a human response rationalizing the fact that the Lord had not returned yet.

Then you quote Paul in Romans 16:5 about the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret, said this mystery wasn't revealed until the land was Hellenized, and then ask if Christianity was poor because it was Hellenized.

Therefore, based on the context I read your post to say that Paul was the one who brought in the human response with his "revelation of the mystery" which you refer to as "Hellenized".

I think you got points 1 thru 3 right. Now I understand how you misread my post ; that I said Paul started Christianity.

But I didn't say that. Neither did I say that the "mystery" was Hellenized. I think I made it clear enough that, the Christian era arose when the Holy Land was Hellenized ; during Hellenized times.

And then I ask if Christianity was poor because of it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That Christianity was Hellenized is obvious by the fact that all the NT books, even Paul's, was written in Greek, and not Hebrew.

I once brought up that they used the Greek Septuagint in Sunday School class, and the preacher that was leading the class said, "If it was good enough for Jesus, and the apostles, it's good enough for us."

But we don't use the Septuagint today. In fact, we completely reject that Christianity was Hellenized. While reading books that were Hellenized ... like the gospel of John, that was clearly Hellenized.

The Greeks introduced Hellenism in the 4th Century BCE. Some Jews were captivated by the Greek ideal. But it became a source of conflict in 167 BCE when Antiochus epiphanes ruler of the seleucid empire violated the temple and introduced a Hellenistic cult there. The dynasty founded by The Maccabees was cruel and corrupt. So there was a lot of conflict on both sides of the issue.

The early Jesus movement in Palestine where many of the sects were hostile to Gentiles was unusual in that it attracted Greek-speaking Jews from the diaspora and "God fearers" the non-jews who were honorary members of the synagogues. Diaspora Jews tended to be less exclusive and more open to Hellenistic ideas.

Alexandrian Jews spoke Greek and achieved an interesting fusion of Greek and Jewish culture. But few of them could read classical Hebrew so they couldn't understand the Torah thus the need for the Septuagint translation.

Philo of Alexandria seems to have influenced both Paul and the Gospel of John. He produced a large number of commentaries on the pentateuch that you can read today. He allegorized the Bible using numerological and etymological methods and the Logos.

The apocalypticists stressed the coming of the Kingdom to this world. The Alexandrians or hellenists saw this world as a shadow of the timeless dimension of reality that is more real than its physical or historical dimension. When Jesus failed to return to set up his kingdom on Earth as expected the church moved in the direction of otherworldly salvation that had been laid out by the hellenists. If we want to call that trend "Christianity" then it could be said that Christianity saved the Jesus movement rather than that it polluted it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I re-read my post. I made no such claim. Unless you can prove that Paul degraded Christianity, you're off topic.

Originally Posted by awareness

I think you got points 1 thru 3 right. Now I understand how you misread my post ; that I said Paul started Christianity.

But I didn't say that. Neither did I say that the "mystery" was Hellenized. I think I made it clear enough that, the Christian era arose when the Holy Land was Hellenized ; during Hellenized times.

And then I ask if Christianity was poor because of it.

Not clear enough for me to understand, even after the explanation. What does Paul's quote from Romans have to do with it? Have you distinguished between Christianity and the NT revelation of the church? If so, in what post?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Paul tells the Romans :

Rom_16:25* Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

This mystery that was hidden since the world began was revealed when the Holy Land had been Hellenized.

Why did God wait to reveal it then? Why was Jesus born into a period when the culture he grew up in was ruled by the Romans, and the Jewish people had become Hellenized?

Then, after Jesus ascends, he appears to Saul, a Jew that's a Roman, who brings in the gentiles, that were the Hellenizers.

So was Christianity, starting with the Nazarene's, poor because it started out Hellenized?

From a Hellenistic perspective the revelation of the mystery needed a synthesis of the Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy. Whatever Jesus taught was received and interpreted by persons of that perspective. Since they were the educated literate few, they're the ones that left us with the writings that have become the foundation of Christianity.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Since we are distinguishing between the NT church and fallen, degraded Christianity in this thread you have failed to provide evidence that Paul started Christianity. You make that leap when it is very much an unproven assertion.

Paul's ministry builds the church. Shortly after the church arrives on the scene we also see Christianity. Correlation is not causation. I recently saw an ice cream truck, not more than one week later it was 90 degrees. Did the ice cream truck cause the summer? Correlation is not causation.

The hope of Jesus's return in his lifetime to set up the kingdom of God on earth was very much alive in Paul and coexisted with his Hellenistic tendencies. As the hope for Jesus's soon return diminished over the generations Paul's Hellenistic teachings were the ones that were more often applied to build the church. With the resurgence of apocalypticism among the Protestant churches of course Paul apocalyptic teaching came more to the forefront.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The first post says that Christianity was invented because the apocalypse didn’t come as quickly as predicted.

2. In Post #4 Zeek defines Christianity for this thread as a human response to the cognitive dissonance that resulted when Jesus did not return in the first generation of believers.

3. In Post #6 Zeek, responding to your comment, says that IIPeter supports his theory of a human response rationalizing the fact that the Lord had not returned yet.

Then you quote Paul in Romans 16:5 about the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret, said this mystery wasn't revealed until the land was Hellenized, and then ask if Christianity was poor because it was Hellenized.

Therefore, based on the context I read your post to say that Paul was the one who brought in the human response with his "revelation of the mystery" which you refer to as "Hellenized".

Thanks for your summary of my points, ZNP. I attempt to assimilate Awareness's point in terms of my thinking in post 144.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

From a Hellenistic perspective the revelation of the mystery needed a synthesis of the Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy. Whatever Jesus taught was received and interpreted by persons of that perspective. Since they were the educated literate few, they're the ones that left us with the writings that have become the foundation of Christianity.

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.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The hope of Jesus's return in his lifetime to set up the kingdom of God on earth was very much alive in Paul and coexisted with his Hellenistic tendencies. As the hope for Jesus's soon return diminished over the generations Paul's Hellenistic teachings were the ones that were more often applied to build the church. With the resurgence of apocalypticism among the Protestant churches of course Paul apocalyptic teaching came more to the forefront.

Again, this is a fair historical analysis which is making the leap from correlation to causation.

Instead, I would argue that the cause for this was that the believers "left their first love". Much of the legalistic and organizational aspects of Christianity are contrary to the Jesus we saw and loved in the gospels.

The fact that the teachings took this course to my understanding is that they chose the easiest route. The principal being that the road to destruction is wide, and the road to life is narrow and there are few that find it. Popular, prevailing views do not indicate an accurate understanding of the word, simply the understanding that those who take the broad way choose to embrace.

I think the Lord describes this in his parable of the good samaritan where everyone in the story is "going down to Jericho" except for the Samaritan who is "journeying". Christianity in that parable is depicted by Jericho.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

I think the question, Poor, Poor, Christianity?, leaves that open ended.

Originally Posted by Z

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.

What's that you are saying? "the church does not suffer such a limitation? How's that? or rather, how's that working out for the church?

Originally Posted by z

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.

And thus 'burnings.' Supported by Acts 19:18. A verse that implicates that early on Christianity started out poor, to the price of "fifty thousand pieces of silver."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

From a Hellenistic perspective the revelation of the mystery needed a synthesis of the Hebrew religion and Greek philosophy. Whatever Jesus taught was received and interpreted by persons of that perspective. Since they were the educated literate few, they're the ones that left us with the writings that have become the foundation of Christianity.

That God revealed the revelation of the mystery during the Hellenistic Era is significant.

It did not, however, permit idols. The ten commandments still held. But still, Hellenistic culture couldn't help but influence early Christianity.

They were, after all, using the Koine Greek Septuagint as reference, not the Hebraic text ; even "Matthew," the most Jewish gospel ; mistakenly taking "virgin birth" from it.

So in the end, Hellenistic influence, did not make Christianity poor, but rich.

Exemplified by the fact that all the NT was written in Koine Greek. Christianity, after the canonization of the Greek books, totally and completely depend on that Hellenization.

Paul's revelation of the mystery spring up during the Hellenistic Era, by a Hellenistic Roman Jew (perhaps God couldn't reveal it to a non-Hellenistic Jew). And we should be grateful, and say, "Amen Lord."

Then, after Paul's Greek writings, circa 40 years later, the Hellenized Greek gospel that came to be named John, was written. And the revelation of the mystery continued to be revealed, actually opening with "Logos," that was at the time, totally Hellenistic. And all Christians since say amen.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's that you are saying? "the church does not suffer such a limitation? How's that? or rather, how's that working out for the church?

I think it is a fundamental factor in the growth and maturation of the church.

I think that you are focused on the noise and pomp and missing the masterpiece of God which has yet to be unveiled. It is like looking at some preacher asking for a $54 million dollar jet to "preach the gospel" and thinking that this behavior somehow speaks negatively about what God and Christ are doing. It is simply the black background which will make the revelation of the church all that more glorious.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it is a fundamental factor in the growth and maturation of the church.

I think that you are focused on the noise and pomp and missing the masterpiece of God which has yet to be unveiled. It is like looking at some preacher asking for a $54 million dollar jet to "preach the gospel" and thinking that this behavior somehow speaks negatively about what God and Christ are doing. It is simply the black background which will make the revelation of the church all that more glorious.

The church is old with gray hair and if not mature yet isn't ever gonna be.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The church is old with gray hair and if not mature yet isn't ever gonna be.

I guess it has been hidden from you.

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: 26 yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. 27 All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I guess it has been hidden from you.

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: 26 yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. 27 All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.

"no one knoweth the Son, save the Father, neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him"

Seems it's not up to me. Glad for you tho ... that you know the Father, that only the son knows ... so you know the Father like the son knows. Glad for you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think it is a fundamental factor in the growth and maturation of the church.

I think that you are focused on the noise and pomp and missing the masterpiece of God which has yet to be unveiled

So are you saying that, the church is evolving to the Omega Point?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So are you saying that, the church is evolving to the Omega Point?

I'm sure I didn't say that since I don't even know what you are referring to by "Omega Point".

[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?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I'm sure I didn't say that since I don't even know what you are referring to by "Omega Point".

Silly me. I thought you said "Omega Point." I must read your posts like you read mine.

But really!? Haven't you heard of Google & Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

I must have mistakenly thought I was talking to bro Ohio. He would be more likely to know. The term Omega Point was coined by a Catholic Priest. So he would more likely know the principle I'm talking about.

The principle I thought you were talking about. That the church would become something, eventually; I think you called it a masterpiece. Maybe you didn't mean that it would evolve into something, that it would one day go 'poof' and become something.

So maybe the Omega Point missed your point, when I used it. Please explain to me again how :

I think it is a fundamental factor in the growth and maturation of the church.

I think that you are focused on the noise and pomp and missing the masterpiece of God which has yet to be unveiled.

Cuz it still sounds like you are speaking of the Omega Point.

This is important to this thread. Cuz a premise exists, that the early church was the ideal, that was lost, at some point, and further lost down thru the years. (We're trying to find that point).

And there's this thing called the Recovery. That sells itself as recovering that ideal. That claims to be the final preparation of the bride for the arrival of the bridegroom.

So is this what you meant, by the church eventually becoming a masterpiece?

Cuz I have to say, the church doesn't look like that that's what it's becoming. Sorry, if I see the reality.

We're trying to figure out just where the church made a wrong turn. I've basically asked if starting out during the Hellenized Age was that wrong turn.

[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.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

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.

In the post #163 he presents this position spelled out in Galatians as being Paul's. That is what I felt was misleading since it ignores the history of this question. It was decided in Acts, in a council that included James and Peter but not Paul that "no other burden" would be put upon the Gentiles. Hence, not requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and not separating the Jewish believers from Gentile believers is not a result of Paul's teaching, but was decided in that council. This is what I found misleading in his post.

Originally Posted by zeek

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.

In Galatians Paul also refers to the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the spirit". He says "whatever a man sows this shall he also reap". The reaping is our "reward" or our "judgement". Therefore I would compare Matt 16:17 with Galatians 6, not Galatians 2. In Matthew we are rewarded for our work, in Galatians we reap what we sow. I would also use Matt 6 to compare with Matt 16 "this is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent". So then, to interpret being rewarded according to his works as being different from "believing in Him whom God has sent" is contrary to the book of Matthew. Once again, I don't think post #163 does a fair job of presenting Matthew or Galatians and is therefore misleading on that point as well.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

In the post #163 he presents this position spelled out in Galatians as being Paul's. That is what I felt was misleading since it ignores the history of this question. It was decided in Acts, in a council that included James and Peter but not Paul that "no other burden" would be put upon the Gentiles. Hence, not requiring the Gentiles to be circumcised and not separating the Jewish believers from Gentile believers is not a result of Paul's teaching, but was decided in that council. This is what I found misleading in his post.




In Galatians Paul also refers to the "works of the flesh" and the "fruit of the spirit". He says "whatever a man sows this shall he also reap". The reaping is our "reward" or our "judgement". Therefore I would compare Matt 16:17 with Galatians 6, not Galatians 2. In Matthew we are rewarded for our work, in Galatians we reap what we sow. I would also use Matt 6 to compare with Matt 16 "this is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He has sent". So then, to interpret being rewarded according to his works as being different from "believing in Him whom God has sent" is contrary to the book of Matthew. Once again, I don't think post #163 does a fair job of presenting Matthew or Galatians and is therefore misleading on that point as well.

There are number of inconsistencies between Paul's account in Galatians and the account given in Acts which can only be explained speculatively since there are no other contemporaneous historical accounts of the controversy. {Acts was written decades after Paul's letter according to the estimates of most scholars and without the benefit of direct participation in the events that Paul had.} Similarly it's the task of the apologist to reconcile the differences between Paul's gospel and the one presented in the Book of Matthew. All of that goes beyond the scope of Ehrman's topic on that particular blog entry.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

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.

This impulse to link Mark to an eyewitness, is telling. I think we (the Royal Christian we) tend to see the Christian movement, so to speak, as starting out as its most perfection to as Jesus made it.

Isn't that the standard we're seeking to measure from, to determine if and when Christianity became poor?

But that state of Christianity, the earliest stage, or state, of Christianity, is hard to get at ; so it's been used by "Christian" con men time and time again -- The Recovery, for instance -- down thru the ages.

So it's just easier to believe and conclude that the gospels are speaking of eyewitness accounts, to what Jesus did and said, and we're getting the true Jesus, that founded the purest form of Christian teachings.

This leads to an effort to be that pure form of Christianity. The RCC, for example, claims to go back to Peter. The Baptists cooked up Landmarkism, that traces the Baptist Christians back thru a true ribbon down to their founder, Jesus. And we all know of The Recovery.

This idea that the Christian movement strayed from it's purest form, based upon its founder, is an easy sell. And we (the Royal we again) buy it because it sounds good. Of course we want what Jesus founded.

The problem is that that earliest model of Christianity, straight from the founder, was to be a Jewish Christian.

The Hellenist Jewish Christians fixed that. Or broke it. We haven't determined which yet.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

This impulse to link Mark to an eyewitness, is telling. I think we (the Royal Christian we) tend to see the Christian movement, so to speak, as starting out as its most perfection to as Jesus made it.

Isn't that the standard we're seeking to measure from, to determine if and when Christianity became poor?

But that state of Christianity, the earliest stage, or state, of Christianity, is hard to get at ; so it's been used by "Christian" con men time and time again -- The Recovery, for instance -- down thru the ages.

So it's just easier to believe and conclude that the gospels are speaking of eyewitness accounts, to what Jesus did and said, and we're getting the true Jesus, that founded the purest form of Christian teachings.

This leads to an effort to be that pure form of Christianity. The RCC, for example, claims to go back to Peter. The Baptists cooked up Landmarkism, that traces the Baptist Christians back thru a true ribbon down to their founder, Jesus. And we all know of The Recovery.

This idea that the Christian movement strayed from it's purest form, based upon its founder, is an easy sell. And we (the Royal we again) buy it because it sounds good. Of course we want what Jesus founded.

The problem is that that earliest model of Christianity, straight from the founder, was to be a Jewish Christian.

The Hellenist Jewish Christians fixed that. Or broke it. We haven't determined which yet.

One is free to accept the traditions that have been passed on by the historical church. But then of course one isn't going only by the scriptures. And one has to decide how much of the historical church tradition is "Christianity". The result is that different schools of thought, denominations and individuals cherry pick the parts of church history that they like. Hence the many denominations including the local church movement. I don't see any way to get around it. Obviously one is going to claim divine inspiration for their viewpoint. But as far as the Church of all believers is concerned that perpetuates the problem.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

One is free to accept the traditions that have been passed on by the historical church. But then of course one isn't going only by the scriptures. And one has to decide how much of the historical church tradition is "Christianity". The result is that different schools of thought, denominations and individuals cherry pick the parts of church history that they like. Hence the many denominations including the local church movement. I don't see any way to get around it. Obviously one is going to claim divine inspiration for their viewpoint. But as far as the Church of all believers is concerned that perpetuates the problem.

In other words simply be aware that when you interpret the Gospels as the works of the apostles Matthew and John or their immediate followers Mark or Luke you are not following the Protestant hermeneutical rule of faith which says that scripture is to be interpreted by scripture. Rather you are following the practice of traditional Christianity. Not that there was anything wrong with that except to one who strictly follows only the Bible like Witness Lee and other fundamentalists claim to do. I have yet to meet anyone who really does.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In other words simply be aware that when you interpret the Gospels as the works of the apostles Matthew and John or their immediate followers Mark or Luke you are not following the Protestant hermeneutical rule of faith which says that scripture is to be interpreted by scripture. Rather you are following the practice of traditional Christianity. Not that there was anything wrong with that except to one who strictly follows only the Bible like Witness Lee and other fundamentalists claim to do. I have yet to meet anyone who really does.

What's wrong with going strictly by the scripture is that those that gave birth to those of The Book, in the book itself, had no Bible. Abraham had no scriptures, and there was no New Testament when Christianity was born.

So the scriptures are secondary, at best ... and not the creative agent ... according to, and even in, them.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's wrong with going strictly by the scripture is that those that gave birth to those of The Book, in the book itself, had no Bible. Abraham had no scriptures, and there was no New Testament when Christianity was born.

So the scriptures are secondary, at best ... and not the creative agent ... according to, and even in, them.

I don't see an way back to a pre-biblical mindset. And the scriptures interpreted by the spirit have most certainly been a creative agent in history. Look at Martin Luther or George Fox or Charles Wesley, or Joseph Smith, just a few of the thousands of historical figures moved by the spirit and the Bible.

[zeek]

Here's an article arguing against the notion that Philo influenced the New Testament: http://www.equip.org/article/was-the...nced-by-philo/

Here's an article arguing for the notion https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.u...S-DOCUMENT.PDF

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's an article arguing against the notion that Philo influenced the New Testament: http://www.equip.org/article/was-the...nced-by-philo/

Here's an article arguing for the notion https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.u...S-DOCUMENT.PDF

Great find ; thanks ; Philo's logos didn't become flesh ; it wasn't a dying savior.

But what I find most interesting about Philo, not only that he was a contemporary with Jesus, but wasn't mention in any of the books of the New Testament, but that Philo never mentions Jesus.

The gospels depict Jesus as attracting whole towns of people, yet it's like Philo didn't know anything about it.

Philo led a group of Hellenistic Jews in Alexandria. He had dealings in Jerusalem, and had connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother Alexander financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple.

One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas around 41-44 AD Marcus ruled as King of the Jews.

Philo wrote extensively on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. Yet in none of his thirty manuscripts, and at least 850,000 words, does he mention Jesus, and nothing about Christianity, or any of the goings-on told in the gospels.

In the New Testament it's like Philo didn't exist. And to Philo none of Christianity existed.

Now isn't that an interesting puzzle ... let that marinate for awhile.

[awareness]

Okay, everyone has marinated long enough.

Let's all Christians today admit that it was a good thing the Judaizers lost out, and the Hellenizers won out. Else we'd likely not be Christians today. If the Judaizers won, it's likely Constantine wouldn't have happened. The west wouldn't be the same today at all.

That being said, all Christians today should be happy the Hellenizers won. But then we should be happy and admit that Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy, culture, language, and education.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the pagans. Without them we wouldn't be Christians today.

And Hellenism is not when Christianity was made poor.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, everyone has marinated long enough.

Let's all Christians today admit that it was a good thing the Judaizers lost out, and the Hellenizers won out. Else we'd likely not be Christians today. If the Judaizers won, it's likely Constantine wouldn't have happened. The west wouldn't be the same today at all.

That being said, all Christians today should be happy the Hellenizers won. But then we should be happy and admit that Christianity was influenced by Greek philosophy, culture, language, and education.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Christianity owes a debt of gratitude to the pagans. Without them we wouldn't be Christians today.

And Hellenism is not when Christianity was made poor.

Yes, even Nash, who argues against what he sees as various contemporary writers attempts to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day, admits that Paul, the authors of John's gospel and of the book of Hebrews were schooled in Hellenism, using its terminology and reacting to it's concepts.

I don't expect LCD discussants to agree on exactly when the apostasy began. But as former members of the LCM, we were all taught that Christianity was apostate and that necessitated a recovery of the church as God's move on Earth. That conviction places the "Lord's Recovery" within the larger Christian restorationist movement. By the way, "apostasy" is an apt synonym for "Christianity" in the Witness Lee terminology.

To Igzy's question "does 'Baptist' mean to a Baptist what 'Recovery' means..." I would answer yes. Landmarkism is the Baptist equivalent to Lee's "Recovery". Many, Lee included, trace the apostasy back to Constantine. Some like perhaps Boxjobox may trace it back to when Tertullian formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. Many would probably agree that the apostasy began in the New Testament times and was what Paul was fighting against and described as "other gospels". Unfortunately, since he doesn't described what they believed in detail we can sometimes only guess what Paul was referring to from such clues as he provided.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes, even Nash, who argues against what he sees as various contemporary writers attempts to undermine the authority of the New Testament by affirming that some of its teachings were borrowed from pagan philosophical systems of the day, admits that Paul, the authors of John's gospel and of the book of Hebrews were schooled in Hellenism, using its terminology and reacting to it's concepts.

Your whole post deserves responses. Books can be written on these matters.

I'll try to keep it short and sweet.

From what I understand Jesus was God's plan. So that means that God planned for Jesus' birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, AND -- the birth of the Christian movement, loosely stated -- all happened DURING the Hellenistic Age.

That means that God planned it all that way : that it would end up being Greek.

It was planned from the beginning. Those ancient Greek philosophers were planned by God ; Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, et al. all planned by God. Alexander the Great was planned by God (he was right, he was divinely inspired, coerce Delphi said he was "invincible").

The point is, it was all planned. Were Paul, John, and whoever wrote the book of Hebrews, influenced by Hellenism? If so, and if Jesus was planned, then yes, it was all planned by God.

So Hellenism wasn't bad in the beginning. Why then, and when, was it stamped out? And was that God's plan? Was Constantine and Theodosius I, who made Christianity the state religion, and stamped out Hellenism, God's plan?

Seems to me that when it stopped being God's plan is when Christianity became poor. Was that when Hellenism was removed?

[zeek]

Well, as it's often said, God's ways are mysterious. His relation to Christianity is no exception. Let's trace what happened in terms of the concept of authority.

Jesus envisioned a fully egalitarian society where people acknowledge no authority except that of God. During Paul's time authority was conferred by particular gifts bestowed on people by the Holy Spirit including preaching, teaching, prophecy and healing.

But a few individuals including Paul himself claimed special authority for themselves that was justified in terms of their direct contact with the risen Lord. Egalitarian, Spirit-lead forms of Christian community were challenged by those who believed that order and unity could only be achieved by means of hierarchical leadership.

Formal leadership roles developed that were reserved for men who claims some direct association with Jesus. When the original followers of Jesus died off, the idea of apostolic succession developed according to which authority was passed down a male line that could be traced back to Jesus and the apostles who had known him directly.

The process became formalized into a rite of priestly ordination. Leaders were considered to be ordained by God and set apart from the rest of humanity.

So power was concentrated in the hands of a few. Apostolic succession helped to secure uniformity of belief. The authority structure claimed apostolic succession and determinded what orthodoxy was and who were the heretics.

Like Judaism, Hellenism had a tradition of priesthood. The priests stood between humans and the god or gods to whom they sacrificed. The Eucharist was the Christian version of sacrificial practice. It was seen as a repetition of Jesus's once-for-all sacrifice. It could be conducted only by ordained priests who stood in a special relationship to Christ which was conferred on them by the hierarchical system of authority in the apostolic line.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well, as it's often said, God's ways are mysterious. His relation to Christianity is no exception. Let's trace what happened in terms of the concept of authority.

Let's.

Originally Posted by Z

Jesus envisioned a fully egalitarian society where people acknowledge no authority except that of God. During Paul's time authority was conferred by particular gifts bestowed on people by the Holy Spirit including preaching, teaching, prophecy and healing.

Only if 1st, and 2nd Timothy, and Titus, wasn't authored by Paul, as many respected scholars think today.

Originally Posted by Z

But a few individuals including Paul himself claimed special authority for themselves that was justified in terms of their direct contact with the risen Lord. Egalitarian, Spirit-lead forms of Christian community were challenged by those who believed that order and unity could only be achieved by means of hierarchical leadership.

Yes, in 1st and 2nd Timothy, and Titus.

Originally Posted by Z

Formal leadership roles developed that were reserved for men who claims some direct association with Jesus.

It may have developed from something totally innocent, like the literate ones, that could read to the 90% illiterate, being looked up to, like they had inside information, which they did.

Originally Posted by Z

When the original followers of Jesus died off, the idea of apostolic succession developed according to which authority was passed down a male line that could be traced back to Jesus and the apostles who had known him directly.

So is claimed, by many., except maybe the Restroationists. The Landmarkist's being just one example. And of course the RCC, who claim to go back to Peter ... of all the flaky disciples to want to hook your wagon too. No wonder the RCC went wacky.

Originally Posted by Z

The process became formalized into a rite of priestly ordination. Leaders were considered to be ordained by God and set apart from the rest of humanity.

So power was concentrated in the hands of a few. Apostolic succession helped to secure uniformity of belief. The authority structure claimed apostolic succession and determinded what orthodoxy was and who were the heretics.

And who say they are a higher authority than the Bible, because, they chose the books of the Bible. Why need the Bible? God's authority can be found in the holy mother church ... who literally hand feed the ignorant (read illiterate of a different sort) adherents.

Originally Posted by Z

Like Judaism, Hellenism had a tradition of priesthood. The priests stood between humans and the god or gods to whom they sacrificed. The Eucharist was the Christian version of sacrificial practice. It was seen as a repetition of Jesus's once-for-all sacrifice. It could be conducted only by ordained priests who stood in a special relationship to Christ which was conferred on them by the hierarchical system of authority in the apostolic line.

I see evidence that this may be inherent in human nature. Isn't there evidence that the special "priestcraft" existed going back into pre-history?

There's prolly always been those that claimed some special inside info on the unseen forces, and spirit realm personifications.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's.


Only if 1st, and 2nd Timothy, and Titus, wasn't authored by Paul, as many respected scholars think today.


Yes, in 1st and 2nd Timothy, and Titus.


It [the hierarchical authority structure of the Big Church] may have developed from something totally innocent, like the literate ones, that could read to the 90% illiterate, being looked up to, like they had inside information, which they did.


So is claimed, by many., except maybe the Restorationists. The Landmarkists being just one example. And of course the RCC, who claim to go back to Peter ... of all the flaky disciples to want to hook your wagon too. No wonder the RCC went wacky.


And who say they [The Big Church] are a higher authority than the Bible, because, they chose the books of the Bible. Why [do we] need the Bible? God's authority can be found in the holy mother church ... who literally hand feed the ignorant (read "illiterate" of a different sort) adherents.


I see evidence that this [the development of preisthoods?] may be inherent in human nature. Isn't there evidence that the special "priestcraft" existed going back into pre-history? [Shamanism?]

There's prolly always been those that claimed some special inside info on the unseen forces, and spirit realm personifications.

You're right about Landmarkism:

The Hierarchy was the definite beginning of a development which finally resulted into what is now known as the Catholic, or universal church. It might be said that its indefinite beginnings were near the close of the second and beginning of the third century, when the new ideas concerning bishops and preacher-church government began to take shape.

J. M. Carroll. The Trail of Blood (Kindle Locations 264-267). Challenge Press. Kindle Edition.

By the 2nd century the lines of authority were coming together to form the basis of Church Christianity. Its advocates to spoke of the emerging system as ‘catholic’ meaning ‘universal’, or ‘orthodox’ meaning ‘true belief’.

By presenting itself as the one true, universal form of Christianity, the group that became dominant made alternative versions of the faith look like deviations from a pure root stock and their followers like schismatics and heretics. For example the Ebionites who the Church Fathers condemned as heretics were probably the descendants of Jesus followers referred to as the "Nazarenes" in Acts .

Following the devastation of Jerusalem the Nazarenes took refuge as a community in exile where they hid out with other Jews. Paul's "Judaizers" were from this group. The book of Matthew reflects their narrative theology. "There was no clear demarcation or formal transition from Nazarene to Ebionite; there was no sudden change of theology or Christology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

What changed was the hierarchical authority structure which gradually became more trans-local, consolidated authority and the formalization into a fixed normative compulsory creed. With Constantine that authority structure centralized and received the backing of Roman state imperial power.

[zeek]

Arnold Toynbee, the 20th century historian who coined the term Industrial Revolution, observed that the germ of creative power in Christianity was not of Hellenic but of Syriac origin. (A Study of History page 36) According to Toynbee, "In Christianity we are aware of Hellenic elements drawn from Hellenic mystery religions and Hellenic philosophy." However, Toynbee finds that Christianity is "a universal church originating in a germ that was alien to the society in which it played its part." (ibid p37)

"In the disintegration of the Hellenic world the unsuccessful rivals of Christianity all sought to promote the success of their missionary enterprises on Hellenic ground by recasting the visual representations of their divinity's informs likely to prove agreeable to Hellenic eyes. But none of them made any appreciable move toward taking the further step of Helenizing itself inwardly as well as outwardly.

It was Christianity alone that went the length of expressing its creed in the language of Hellenic philosophy." In the history of Christianity the intellectual Hellenization of a religion whose creative essence was of Syriac origin was foreshadowed in the employment of the attic Koine instead of the Aramaic as the linguistic vehicle of the New Testament for the very vocabulary of this sophisticated tongue carried with it a host of philosophic implications." ibid pgs 542-543

In support of this assertion, Toynbee cites historian PE More's "Christ the Word: the Greek tradition from The Death of Socrates to the Council of Chalcedon" volume IV, page 298.

"In the synoptic gospels Jesus is regarded as the Son of God and this belief is carried on and deepened in the body of the Fourth Gospel but also in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel the idea is thrown out that the savior of the world is the Creative Logos of God implicitly then though the statement is not made explicitly the Son of God and the Logos of God are one and the same the Son as the Logos is identified with the creative wisdom and purpose of Deity the Logos as the Son is hypostatized into a person beside the person of the Father. At one bound the philosophy of the Logos has become a religion."

[awareness]

Well now, this is a deep and thick post. Of course it is. It's Toynbee.

After leaving the LC I became obsessively neurotic over learning about all that I had just blindly accepted and believed uncritically in the LC.

And my studies, in short order, brought me to Toynbee's A Study of History. I had to have his book. But money was tight back then, and his book was expensive. So I saved up for it, and bought A Study of History - The First Abridged One Volume Edition - Illustrated. A large volume.

Since then, and off and on, I've spent much time in his book, but haven't ever finished it. It's large, with small print, and Toynbee isn't writing for lay people like myself. In other words, he's laborious reading.

Originally Posted by zeek

Arnold Toynbee, the 20th century historian who coined the term Industrial Revolution, observed that the germ of creative power in Christianity was not of Hellenic but of Syriac origin.

In his book Arnold speaks of a "Helleno-Syriac compost." The two he relates to that compost, that shouldn't be dismissed, is the Eastern Orthodox civilization, and Islam, since they came up in that compost. Now that's interesting.

We know Hellenism was Greek, but the Syriac, a dialect that Toynbee speaks of -- first century -- originated in Mesopotamia. That's interesting too.

God was obviously busy, arranging things all over the place, developing a compost, for his final solution, the "germ" Toynbee speaks of, the "Logos Religion."

I won't break down the rest of Toynbee, unless it comes up.

So Christianity was born during the Hellenistic Period. Toynbee sees a connection, but only on the surface, so they could speak to the Hellenic peoples. But internally, so Toynbee seems to be saying, early Christianity was Syriac, or Aramaic. Since Jesus, and his bunch, spoke Aramaic, that makes sense.

So was Hellenism bad from the get-go? Something early Christians were in, but not of? Something they just used as a tool, for communicating with, to reach others with their real good news : the Living Logos?

Evidently, that was something brand new, brand new to history, and the world ; a "seed" planted in a compost.

That's my take away from Toynbee presented so far. I could be wrong.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

In his book Arnold speaks of a "Helleno-Syriac compost." The two he relates to that compost, that shouldn't be dismissed, is the Eastern Orthodox civilization, and Islam, since they came up in that compost. Now that's interesting. We know Hellenism was Greek, but the Syriac, a dialect that Toynbee speaks of -- first century -- originated in Mesopotamia. That's interesting too.

The compost metaphor points to the notion that the Hellenism and the Syriac civilizations were disintegrating but provided fertile soil for the growth of Christianity which synthesized the two.

God was obviously busy, arranging things all over the place, developing a compost, for his final solution, the "germ" Toynbee speaks of, the "Logos Religion." So Christianity was born during the Hellenistic Period.

Christianity wasn't merely born in the Hellenistic period, as shown in the Toynbee references below. The narrative and teachings of Jesus were received and interpreted in terms of Hellenistic language and philosophy.

Toynbee goes on to say:

"This device of preaching religion in the language of philosophy was one of the heirlooms which Christianity had inherited from Judaism. It was Philo the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (circa 30 B.C.-A.D. 45) who sowed the seed from which Philo’s Christian fellow-citizens, Clement and Origen, were to reap so rich a harvest two centuries later; and it was perhaps from the same quarter that the author of the Fourth Gospel gained his vision of the Divine Logos with which he identifies his Incarnate God.

No doubt this Alexandrian Jewish forerunner of the Alexandrian Christian Fathers was led into the path of Hellenic philosophy through the gate of the Greek language; for it was assuredly no accident that Philo lived and philosophized in a city in which the Attic had become the vernacular language of a local Jewish community that had so utterly lost command of Hebrew, and even of Aramaic, that it had been driven to desecrate its Holy Scriptures by translating them into a Gentile language. Yet in the history of Judaism itself this Jewish father of a Christian philosophy is an isolated figure; and his ingenious effort to derive the Platonic philosophy from the Mosaic Law remained, for Judaism, a tour de force without consequences."

Toynbee, Arnold J.. A Study of History: Abridgement of Volumes I-VI (Royal Institute of International Affairs) (p. 477). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Toynbee sees a connection, but only on the surface, so they could speak to the Hellenic peoples. But internally, so Toynbee seems to be saying, early Christianity was Syriac, or Aramaic. Since Jesus, and his bunch, spoke Aramaic, that makes sense.

Judaism was Syriac. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. The church accepted the Hellenized Judaism that mainstream Judaism apparently rejected it at least after it flourished in Alexandria in the first century.

So was Hellenism bad from the get-go? Something early Christians were in, but not of? Something they just used as a tool, for communicating with, to reach others with their real good news : the Living Logos?

Witness Lee thought Christianity was bad. I imagine some on this website probably think so. My thesis is that, whatever its dark side, when Jesus' return was delayed, "Christianity"-- the Hellenization of Jesus-- and the Romanization of the church saved the Jesus movement from the dustbin of history.

Evidently, that was something brand new, brand new to history, and the world ; a "seed" planted in a compost.

A new vision of humanity that has influenced civilization ever since.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Toynbee goes on to say:

"This device of preaching religion in the language of philosophy was one of the heirlooms which Christianity had inherited from Judaism. It was Philo the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria (circa 30 B.C.-A.D. 45) who sowed the seed from which Philo’s Christian fellow-citizens, Clement and Origen, were to reap so rich a harvest two centuries later; and it was perhaps from the same quarter that the author of the Fourth Gospel gained his vision of the Divine Logos with which he identifies his Incarnate God.

Echos of Philo again. He was an outstanding and influenced Hellenized Jew, during the lifetime of Jesus. He died before any of the books of the New Testament were written. So given his pronounced influence, during the lifetime of Jesus, and that the gospel writers were gathering material together from early reports about Jesus, how could they avoid Philo?

No wonder they wrote anonymously. They must have been ashamed for not citing or attributing his influence on their writings ; actually never citing any of their sources or references.

Originally Posted by Z, quoting Toynbee

No doubt this Alexandrian Jewish forerunner of the Alexandrian Christian Fathers was led into the path of Hellenic philosophy through the gate of the Greek language; for it was assuredly no accident that Philo lived and philosophized in a city in which the Attic had become the vernacular language of a local Jewish community that had so utterly lost command of Hebrew, and even of Aramaic, that it had been driven to desecrate its Holy Scriptures by translating them into a Gentile language.

Toynbee has a way with words. He's right, Athens had taken over the holy land, to the point that the Hebrew scriptures were written in the language of the gentiles, the pagan Greeks. And Philo wasn't shy about it.

Originally Posted by Z, quoting Toynbee

Yet in the history of Judaism itself this Jewish father of a Christian philosophy is an isolated figure; and his ingenious effort to derive the Platonic philosophy from the Mosaic Law remained, for Judaism, a tour de force without consequences."

Without consequences? Does he mean that Philo had no consequences?

Originally Posted by Z

Judaism was Syriac. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. The church accepted the Hellenized Judaism that mainstream Judaism apparently rejected it at least after it flourished in Alexandria in the first century.

Please rephrase this.

Originally Posted by Z

Witness Lee thought Christianity was bad. I imagine some on this website probably think so. My thesis is that, whatever its dark side, when Jesus' return was delayed, "Christianity"-- the Hellenization of Jesus-- and the Romanization of the church saved the Jesus movement from the dustbin of history.

So are you saying Christianity went bad when it changed the narrative cuz Jesus didn't return as promised?

Originally Posted by Z

A new vision of humanity that has influenced civilization ever since.

And if we're honest, we have to admit that Hellenism, and the pagan Greeks, played a role in it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

[/indent]Echos of Philo again. He was an outstanding and influenced Hellenized Jew, during the lifetime of Jesus. He died before any of the books of the New Testament were written. So given his pronounced influence, during the lifetime of Jesus, and that the gospel writers were gathering material together from early reports about Jesus, how could they avoid Philo?
No wonder they wrote anonymously. They must have been ashamed for not citing or attributing his influence on their writings ; actually never citing any of their sources or references. Toynbee has a way with words. He's right, Athens had taken over the holy land, to the point that the Hebrew scriptures were written in the language of the gentiles, the pagan Greeks. And Philo wasn't shy about it. Without consequences? Does he mean that Philo had no consequences?

He was apparently lost to Judaism. The subsequent rabbis don't cite Philo until the 1600s.

Please rephrase this.

Judaism was Syriac. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish. The church accepted the Hellenized Judaism that flourished in Alexandria in the first century and interpreted Jesus through it. Mainstream Judaism rejected it.

So are you saying Christianity went bad when it changed the narrative cuz Jesus didn't return as promised?

I'm saying that Christianity [Hellenism + Roman system of government] saved the Jesus movement from its demise.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Judaism was Syriac. Jesus was thoroughly Jewish.

Yes, it is said he was Jewish from the line of David. But he was raised during the Hellenic Age in Palestine, and surely it had to rub off on him. We don't know. All we've got are records that came long after Jesus, after Hellenism had time to do more work on the Christian movement, to the point that all the autograph books were written in Greek, not Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

I disagree with Toynbee. Hellenism won. If it was only "exterior," as Toynbee writes, then that exterior is what the movement ended up with. The exterior Toynbee speaks of won. The "seed," -- the "germ" -- that Toynbee speaks of, as he states, grew up in a "compost." The compost he says was that of Syriac and Hellenic composition. It produced, he says, "The Logos Religion." Syriac may have been in the compost, but it's oblivious that Hellen is what ended up being delivered, even in the NT record.

But it's still true that, every book of the NT was written by Jews.

Therefore, much more could be said about this.

Originally Posted by z

I'm saying that Christianity [Hellenism + Roman system of government] saved the Jesus movement from its demise.

Yes it did. The question that troubles me, and I'm trying to get at, is, is what Christianity has become what Jesus envisioned? I'd also like to know how much Jesus was affected by the Hellenism he grew up in.

I may never find out the answers. They may be unanswerable : a vast mystery ... about the origins of the Christianity I've grown up in.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, it is said he was Jewish from the line of David. But he was raised during the Hellenic Age in Palestine, and surely it had to rub off on him. We don't know. All we've got are records that came long after Jesus, after Hellenism had time to do more work on the Christian movement, to the point that all the autograph books were written in Greek, not Hebrew and/or Aramaic.

I disagree with Toynbee. Hellenism won. If it was only "exterior," as Toynbee writes, then that exterior is what the movement ended up with. The exterior Toynbee speaks of won. The "seed," -- the "germ" -- that Toynbee speaks of, as he states, grew up in a "compost." The compost he says was that of Syriac and Hellenic composition. It produced, he says, "The Logos Religion." Syriac may have been in the compost, but it's oblivious that Hellen is what ended up being delivered, even in the NT record.

But it's still true that, every book of the NT was written by Jews.

Therefore, much more could be said about this.


Yes it did. The question that troubles me, and I'm trying to get at, is, is what Christianity has become what Jesus envisioned? I'd also like to know how much Jesus was affected by the Hellenism he grew up in.

I may never find out the answers. They may be unanswerable : a vast mystery ... about the origins of the Christianity I've grown up in.

From my reading I get the impression that Jesus was a semi-literate Galilean who didn't speak Greek. Hellenism would have seemed foreign to him.

Where does Toynbee say that Hellenism was only exterior and use the compost metaphor?

But yes, as the churches became more and more gentile, the traditional hebraic background of the church in thought and teaching began to be submerged in Hellenistic thought forms. Israel's preoccupation with history and eschatology was gradually overlaid with more static concepts of Greek categorical thought.

These Greek concepts aided the church in its adjustment to the delay of the second coming. But their characteristic division of the human person into soul and body led to extremes of asceticism, libertinism and gnosticism, therefore created ethical and ordinal problems for those vying for control. The orthodox solution combined authoritarianism in the Roman tradition with dogma based on Greek philosophical categories.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

From my reading I get the impression that Jesus was a semi-literate Galilean who didn't speak Greek. Hellenism would have seemed foreign to him.

Jesus was semi-literate, but He could read minds?!?

Jesus couldn't speak Greek, but He could understand every Greek speaker who prayed to Him?

You guys are so "wise," you have lost all common sense. (Romans 1.22)

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus was semi-literate, but He could read minds?!?

Jesus couldn't speak Greek, but He could understand every Greek speaker who prayed to Him?

You guys are so "wise," you have lost all common sense. (Romans 1.22)

By all accounts Jesus was a very insightful reader of human nature. I'm looking at the subject from the standpoint of historical probability. If you postulate a universe in which anything is possible, it is possible that Jesus was a divine being with supernatural powers. Nevertheless, given what we know about natural and human history it's probable that Jesus was a biologically typical member of the human species whose story became legendary and was mythologized through a process of oral tradition and religious experience culminating in the gospels. Indeed, many of the gospels which are not included in the canon make even more fantastical claims about Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

From my reading I get the impression that Jesus was a semi-literate Galilean who didn't speak Greek. Hellenism would have seemed foreign to him.

Maybe. But my reading reveals that he was surrounded with Hellenistic culture. At the time Galilee was under rule of Herod Antipas, who was Hellenizing his area of rule. Maybe Jesus rejected it, but he grew up in it. He sure wasn't as outspoken about it as he was against the scribes and Pharisees.

Originally Posted by z

Where does Toynbee say that Hellenism was only exterior and use the compost metaphor?

Well .... if some kind-hearted Christian like person would loan me a Kindle version of his history, it sure would save me all the time, work, and effort to research it again, in this big hardbound copy.

Originally Posted by z

But yes, as the churches became more and more gentile, the traditional hebraic background of the church in thought and teaching began to be submerged in Hellenistic thought forms. Israel's preoccupation with history and eschatology was gradually overlaid with more static concepts of Greek categorical thought.

Was that because the Hellenic seed was planted in Galilee?

Originally Posted by z

These Greek concepts aided the church in its adjustment to the delay of the second coming. But their characteristic division of the human person into soul and body led to extremes of asceticism, libertinism and gnosticism, therefore created ethical and ordinal problems for those vying for control. The orthodox solution combined authoritarianism in the Roman tradition with dogma based on Greek philosophical categories.

This is an amazing insight. History shows this to be true. The Roman structure eventually became the structure of the church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus was semi-literate, but He could read minds?!?

Jesus couldn't speak Greek, but He could understand every Greek speaker who prayed to Him?

That is just too cute to comment on. But it's Biblical.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

By all accounts Jesus was a very insightful reader of human nature. I'm looking at the subject from the standpoint of historical probability. If you postulate a universe in which anything is possible, it is possible that Jesus was a divine being with supernatural powers. Nevertheless, given what we know about natural and human history it's probable that Jesus was a biologically typical member of the human species whose story became legendary and was mythologized through a process of oral tradition and religious experience culminating in the gospels. Indeed, many of the gospels which are not included in the canon make even more fantastical claims about Jesus.

Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you shall die in your sins."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you shall die in your sins."

And your point is?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus said, "Unless you believe I AM, you shall die in your sins."

I don't know, but seems Ohio thinks you're a 2000 year old Jew. That's who Jesus was talking to.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know, but seems Ohio thinks you're a 2000 year old Jew. That's who Jesus was talking to.

Only Ohio can explain what he meant by quoting that verse in this context. I don't presume to know.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Only Ohio can explain what he meant by quoting that verse in this context. I don't presume to know.

I don't know either. Bro Ohio takes the Bible differently than I. He thinks every verse applies universally to everyone throughout all ages, and I think they apply to the time of that day ; the way Jesus seemed to intend it when spoken.

Maybe that's what made Christianity poor, poor ; when the Bible started to become what it wasn't intended for when written.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jesus was semi-literate, but He could read minds?!?

We don't know that for sure. It may just be that of the story teller. I'd have to see that trick with my own eyes to believe it. Even then, I'd have to call James Randi in to reveal how the trick was being done.

Originally Posted by Ohiio

Jesus couldn't speak Greek, but He could understand every Greek speaker who prayed to Him?

He may not have been able to understand Greek. He spoke Aramaic, a Syriac language from Mesopotamia, not from Athens. I understand that since the NT is written in Greek that it's easy to jump to a conclusion that Jesus spoke Greek. That's a mistake that novices make.

Personally, I think that the reason the NT was written in Greek was because they were writing to a Hellenic market.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You guys are so "wise," you have lost all common sense. (Romans 1.22)

What makes you think that we are wise?

[zeek]

It seems we're back to the christology question which on the surface seems to digress from the OP topic, but really doesn't. How can we determine where Christianity went wrong, if indeed it did, without first determining who Jesus was and what he was really like? Take Ohio's point about Jesus's knowledge level. Some gospel texts seem to indicate that Jesus shared normal human limitations in his knowledge of the affairs of life. Other gospels attribute extraordinary and even superhuman knowledge to him. Take one story told in the three synoptic gospels, for instance:

Mark 5:30-33
30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself that power had gone out of Him, turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched My clothes?” 31 But His disciples said to Him, “You see the multitude thronging You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’ ” 32 And He looked around to see her who had done this thing. 33 But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth.

Luke 8:45-47
45 And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?” When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’ ” 46 But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me.” 47 Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately.

Matthew 9:20-22
20 And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment. 21 For she said to herself, “If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.” 22 But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour.

In Mark Jesus asks who touched hm and looks around for her. In Luke he asks who touched hm but doesn't look around. In Matthew, Jesus neither needs to ask nor look around for the toucher. He KNOWS what has happened. Is this not evidence of a move from a lower to a higher Christology in terms of Jesus' knowledge level?

[zeek]

The Gospels clearly document that Jesus spoke Aramaic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus So, from naturalistic-historical point of view in which we find Jesus as a Galilean peasant/artisan existing on the margin between Syriac/Hebraic/Aramaic culture and the Greco/Roman culture, the importance of understanding as much as possible about ancient Aramaic cannot be overestimated. On the subject of Aramaic , Albert Schweitzer, writing in the early 20th century provides this summary:

In the course of the nineteenth century Aramaic—known down to the time of Michaelis as “Chaldee” * — was more thoroughly studied. The various branches of this language and the history of its progress became more or less clearly recognisable. Kautzsch’s grammar of Biblical Aramaic (1884) and Dalman’s work embody the result of these studies.

“The Aramaic language,” explains Meyer, “is a branch of the North Semitic, the linguistic stock to which also belong the Assyrio-Babylonian language in the East, and the Canaanitish languages, including Hebrew, in the West, while the South Semitic languages—the Arabic and Aethiopic—form a group by themselves. The users of these languages, languages, the Aramaeans, were seated in historic times between the Babylonians and Canaanites, the area of their distribution extending from the foot of Lebanon and Hermon in a north-easterly direction as far as Mesopotamia, where “Aram of the two rivers” forms their eastern-most province. Their immigration into these regions forms the third epoch of the Semitic migrations, which probably lasted from 1600 B.C. down to 600.

The Aramaic states had no great stability. The most important of them was the kingdom of Damascus, which at a certain period was so dangerous an enemy to northern Israel. In the end, however, the Aramaean dynasties were crushed, like the two Israelitish kingdoms, between the upper and nether millstones of Babylon and Egypt. In the time of the successors of Alexander, there arose in these regions the Syrian kingdom; which in turn gave place to the Roman power. But linguistically the Aramaeans conquered the whole of Western Asia.

In the course of the first millennium B.C. Aramaic became the language of commerce and diplomacy, as Babylonian had been during the second. It was only the rise of Greek as a universal language which put a term to these conquests of the Aramaic. In the year 701 B.C. Aramaic had not yet penetrated to Judaea. When the rabshakeh (officer) sent by Sennacherib addressed the envoys of Hezekiah in Hebrew, they begged him to speak Aramaic in order that the men upon the wall might not understand. [II KIngs 18:26]

For the post-exilic period the Aramaic edicts in the Book of Ezra and inscriptions on Persian coins show that throughout wide districts of the new empire Aramaic had made good its position as the language of common intercourse. Its domain extended from the Euxine southwards as far as Egypt, and even into Egypt itself. Samaria and the Hauran adopted it. Only the Greek towns and Phoenicia resisted.

The influence of Aramaic upon Jewish literature begins to be noticeable about the year 600. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, writing in a foreign land in an Aramaic environment, are the first witnesses to its supremacy. In the northern part of the country, owing to the immigration of foreign colonists after the destruction of the northern kingdom, it had already gained a hold upon the common people.

In the Book of Daniel, written in the year 167 B.C., the Hebrew and Aramaic languages alternate. Perhaps, indeed, we ought to assume an Aramaic ground-document as the basis of this work.

At what time Aramaic became the common popular speech in the post-exilic community we cannot exactly discover. Under Nehemiah “Judaean,” that is to say, Hebrew, was still spoken in Jerusalem; in the time of the Maccabees Aramaic seems to have wholly driven out the ancient national language. Evidence for this is to be found in the occurrence of Aramaic passages in the Talmud, from which it is evident that the Rabbis used this language in the religious instruction of the people. The provision that the text, after being read in Hebrew, should be interpreted to the people, may quite well reach back into the time of Jesus. The first evidence for the practice is in the Mishna, about A.D. 150.

In the time of Jesus three languages met in Galilee—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In what relation they stood to each other we do not know, since Josephus, the only writer who could have told us, fails us in this point, as he so often does elsewhere. He informs us that when acting as an envoy of Titus he spoke to the people of Jerusalem in the ancestral language, and the word he uses is [Gk. evraizon]. But the very thing we should like to know—whether, namely, this language was Aramaic or Hebrew, he does not tell us.

We are left in the same uncertainty by the passage in Acts (xxii. 2) which says that Paul spoke to the people [Gk. Evraidi dialekto], thereby gaining their attention, for there is no indication whether the language was Aramaic or Hebrew. For the writers of that period “Hebrew” simply means Jewish. Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Collected Works of Albert Schweitzer Book 3) (pp. 271-273). Actonian Press. Kindle Edition.

It is also likely that Jesus knew some Koine Greek since it was spoken widely in Galilee, and it is also possible that Jesus knew some Hebrew that he learned in the synagogue.

According to Dead Sea Scrolls archaeologist Yigael Yadin, Aramaic was the language of Hebrews until Simon Bar Kokhba's revolt (132 AD to 135 AD). Yadin noticed the shift from Aramaic to Hebrew in the documents he studied, which had been written during the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt. In his book, Bar Kokhba: The rediscovery of the legendary hero of the last Jewish Revolt Against Imperial Rome, Yigael Yadin notes, "It is interesting that the earlier documents are written in Aramaic while the later ones are in Hebrew. Possibly the change was made by a special decree of Bar Kokhba who wanted to restore Hebrew as the official language of the state"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus

[awareness]

Okay. Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek ... and King James.

Or it would have been nice if he spoke King James. Because how much has been lost in translation to us today is untold.

That, and many more reasons, is why we just have to believe God wrote all the books of the Bible ... and then protected them down thru the ages, all the way down to us.

But back to Hellenism for a second. As far as I'm concerned Toynbee crashed and burned. Turns out he had a a strong bias against Hellenism, based on skimpy evidence.

Toynbee said Hellenism committed suicide around the 5th c. BC. When Hellenism turn to "man and city-state worship." That Toynbee considered idolatry, or turning away from God(s).

If that's true, Jesus would have definitely rejected Hellenism, and would have been working against Hellenism, to bring them back to God. He was doing the same to the Judaic religion of his day, that had combined with Hellenic rulers.

Jesus did this, I suppose killing two birds with one stone, by introducing "The Father." Jesus wasn't a "man" or "city-state" worshiper.

So how Christianity became about man worship I don't know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So how Christianity became about man worship I don't know.

Simple. Christmas day.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the time of Jesus three languages met in Galilee—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.


It is also likely that Jesus knew some Koine Greek since it was spoken widely in Galilee, and it is also possible that Jesus knew some Hebrew that he learned in the synagogue.

Thanks for the article. Quite informative.

I was reminded of when Jesus read Isaiah in His hometown Synagogue. Not only did the common folk understand exactly what He read, but they also understood the implications of that fulfilled prophecy -- and thus attempted to murder one of their own, throwing Him off the cliff. This proves that those in Nazareth and Galilee may have been "unlettered and unlearned," but they surely could understand Hebrew.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Simple. Christmas day.

I'll bite. Please explain what you mean by Christmas day.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for the article. Quite informative.

I was reminded of when Jesus read Isaiah in His hometown Synagogue.

Good point. But was he reading from the Septuagint?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems we're back to the christology question which on the surface seems to digress from the OP topic, but really doesn't. How can we determine where Christianity went wrong, if indeed it did, without first determining who Jesus was and what he was really like? Take Ohio's point about Jesus's knowledge level. Some gospel texts seem to indicate that Jesus shared normal human limitations in his knowledge of the affairs of life. Other gospels attribute extraordinary and even superhuman knowledge to him. Take one story told in the three synoptic gospels, for instance:

Mark 5:30-33
30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself that power had gone out of Him, turned around in the crowd and said, “Who touched My clothes?” 31 But His disciples said to Him, “You see the multitude thronging You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’ ” 32 And He looked around to see her who had done this thing. 33 But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth.

Luke 8:45-47
45 And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?” When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’ ” 46 But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me.” 47 Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately.

Matthew 9:20-22
20 And suddenly, a woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years came from behind and touched the hem of His garment. 21 For she said to herself, “If only I may touch His garment, I shall be made well.” 22 But Jesus turned around, and when He saw her He said, “Be of good cheer, daughter; your faith has made you well.” And the woman was made well from that hour.

In Mark Jesus asks who touched hm and looks around for her. In Luke he asks who touched hm but doesn't look around. In Matthew, Jesus neither needs to ask nor look around for the toucher. He KNOWS what has happened. Is this not evidence of a move from a lower to a higher Christology in terms of Jesus' knowledge level?

Another example from the Gospels indicating that Jesus' wisdom though extaordinary wasn't superhuman comes in Luke 2: 52 which says "and Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and Men." An all- knowing God doesn't need to grow in wisdom since he already knows everything. 1st Samuel 2:26 says the exact same thing about the child Samuel who was by no means considered to be a god.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay. Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek ... and King James.

Or it would have been nice if he spoke King James. Because how much has been lost in translation to us today is untold.

That, and many more reasons, is why we just have to believe God wrote all the books of the Bible ... and then protected them down thru the ages, all the way down to us.

But back to Hellenism for a second. As far as I'm concerned Toynbee crashed and burned. Turns out he had a a strong bias against Hellenism, based on skimpy evidence.

Toynbee said Hellenism committed suicide around the 5th c. BC. When Hellenism turn to "man and city-state worship." That Toynbee considered idolatry, or turning away from God(s).

If that's true, Jesus would have definitely rejected Hellenism, and would have been working against Hellenism, to bring them back to God. He was doing the same to the Judaic religion of his day, that had combined with Hellenic rulers.

Jesus did this, I suppose killing two birds with one stone, by introducing "The Father." Jesus wasn't a "man" or "city-state" worshiper.

So how Christianity became about man worship I don't know.

The Wikipedia article I referenced lists Aramaic phrases Jesus spoke quoted in the original language in the Gospels. So the evidence that Jesus spoke Aramaic is highly probable the other two languages-possible based on circumstantial evidence.

Your statement that we just have to believe that God wrote all the books of the Bible and then protected them down through the ages seems disingenuous. What do you really mean?

And you still haven't shown us where Toynbee said that Hellenism was only exterior and used a compost metaphor. Now you claim he has a strong bias against Hellenism, stated that Hellenism committed suicide around the 5th Century BC and turned to man and city-state worship. Where do you read that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks for the article. Quite informative.

I was reminded of when Jesus read Isaiah in His hometown Synagogue. Not only did the common folk understand exactly what He read, but they also understood the implications of that fulfilled prophecy -- and thus attempted to murder one of their own, throwing Him off the cliff. This proves that those in Nazareth and Galilee may have been "unlettered and unlearned," but they surely could understand Hebrew.

The synagogues were centers for study of the Torah. Jesus may have learned Hebrew from the synagogue. But like awareness said they could have been reading the Septuagint in the synagogue. Historians say that there were a considerable number of Gentiles in Galilee and the Greek language was widely used. It's possible that most Jews in that area were bilingual. Or Jesus could have been reading from an Aramaic translation. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Aramaic.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your statement that we just have to believe that God wrote all the books of the Bible and then protected them down through the ages seems disingenuous. What do you really mean?

I mean taking the Bible as written by God simplifies everything. Then Hellenism, or any other ism means nothing, cuz God is speaking.

Now if you want to get into that God spoke Aramaic, or Greek, and/or Hebrew, that might be interesting.

Originally Posted by zeek

And you still haven't shown us where Toynbee said that Hellenism was only exterior and used a compost metaphor.

That's because looking into it I fell into a Toynbee rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by xeek

Now you claim he has a strong bias against Hellenism, stated that Hellenism committed suicide around the 5th Century BC and turned to man and city-state worship. Where do you read that?

It's all over the internet, in many reviews of his history, from notable sources.

Here's just one sample :
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...hellenism.html

I found more. Here's another :
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...old-j-toynbee/

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In Mark Jesus asks who touched hm and looks around for her. In Luke he asks who touched hm but doesn't look around. In Matthew, Jesus neither needs to ask nor look around for the toucher. He KNOWS what has happened. Is this not evidence of a move from a lower to a higher Christology in terms of Jesus' knowledge level?

Nah. Jesus was just doing what he saw his father do in the garden of Eden, when his Father didn't know where Adam and Eve were. I guess we could call it divine amnesia.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I mean taking the Bible as written by God simplifies everything. Then Hellenism, or any other ism means nothing, cuz God is speaking.

Taking the Bible as written by God oversimplifies everything. It is ignores the points of view of the authors.

Now if you want to get into that God spoke Aramaic, or Greek, and/or Hebrew, that might be interesting.

How does that work anyway?

That's because looking into it I fell into a Toynbee rabbit hole.
It's all over the internet, in many reviews of his history, from notable sources.
Here's just one sample :
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...hellenism.html
I found more. Here's another :
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...old-j-toynbee/

The authors you cited take issue with Toynbee's anti-humanist stance. Be that as it may, I cited Toynbee below primarily as a witness to the influence of Hellenism on the Jesus movement. By the first century Greek thought had descended into a skeptical mood which permeated the life of the ancient world. The Christian synthesis transformed Hellenism by focusing on Jesus as the Incarnation of God and thus uniting the ideal with the empirical, the human and divine. This view is affirmed in the first letter of John 1:1-3 probably written toward the end of the first century.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Taking the Bible is written by God oversimplifies everything. It is ignores the points of view of the authors.

But you're talking different authors. When taking the Bible as written by God means there's only one author. The authors were just channels, vessels, that God wrote thru. That way we can use the Bible as a whole, and every verse applies universally, specifically to everyone, and in every time and age ... cuz every word is God speaking.

This is the way to look at the Bible that is common among many Bible believers ; a very common way by most on LCD, btw, that can easily be spotted all over the place out here. Speaking of that, I think you and I have been where they are in the past. Believing that way is not unfamiliar to us. In fact, I often shift into that way of believing out here, as I've seen you do.

Apparently, you can get out of fundamentalism, but you can't get the fundamentalism out of you.

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah how does that work anyway?

Truth be told, if God worked thru human authors, to create "His Word" He would have no choice but to "speak" or deliver to them in terms that they would understand.

And all the authors were just flawed human beings, so we can't expect them to transcribe it accurately. As a result, what comes thru on the page would be shaped by humans with human flaws, and other limitations common to us all. Thus we have authors that contradict other authors. You've recently shown that with the different accounts of a woman that touched the hem of Jesus' garment.

So . . .

Some things I can say about this that is unassailable:

• The Bible was penned by human hands.
• All the books of the Bible were written by human males.
• All books were written by human male Jews.
• The whole Bible is, from cover to cover, a Jewish book.

These things I know to be factual.

Originally Posted by zeek

The author's you cited take issue with Toynbee's anti humanistic stance. Be that as it may, I cited Toynbee primarily as a witness to the influence of Hellenism on the Jesus movement. By the first century Greek thought had descended into a skeptical mood which permeated the life of the ancient world. The Christian synthesis transformed Hellenism by focusing on Jesus as the Incarnation of God and thus uniting the ideal with the empirical, the human and divine.

In researching the Septuagint, and it's formation, I've found that the reason the the Torah, and eventually the whole Tanakh, had to be translated was because the Jews had become so Hellenized that they lost their Hebrew language.

In fact, the Septuagint wasn't translated in one fell swoop. The development of the Septuagint that's come down to us today wasn't finished til like the 15th c. AD.

But the need for it, started back in circa the 3rd c. BC. It was first translated orally, as was the need for the Jews in the Hellenic period, in their synagogues, when a dragoman did the readings, from Hebrew to Greek.

In the end, Hellenism produced not only the Septuagint, but also the New Testament. So Hellenism won.

Did Toynbee come to that same conclusion, with his concern about Hellenistic humanism, and its worship of man and city-states?

But again, how did Christianity become about man worship? Was that a carry-over from Hellenism too?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

But you're talking different authors. When taking the Bible as written by God means there's only one author. The authors were just channels, vessels, that God wrote thru. That way we can use the Bible as a whole, and every verse applies universally, specifically to everyone, and in every time and age ... cuz every word is God speaking.

If you try to look at the Bible that way even as a thought experiment, you'll find it doesn't work. Peter and Paul may be vessels, but if they are "just" vessels then their individual personalities would make no difference in the truth they convey. But it is precisely the differences, their individuality that reveals different facets of the truth. Peter's betrayal occasions the depth of Jesus" forgiveness. Paul's persecutory zeal occasions Jesus' power to transform. Revelation is interactional.

The New Testament is multi-perspectival not one-size-fits -all. That's why the different author's have different "flavors", and different theologies. And that's why the so-called Church Fathers, the proto-orthodox winners of the struggle for the church's soul, retained those different POVs in the New Testament canon.

Besides, you have to overcome a mountain of textual evidence for human authorship which we can go into if you want. It's just that there is no one here arguing vigorously for inerrant divine authorship. If there were, I'd be happy to have that discussion.

This is the way to look at the Bible that is common among many Bible believers ; a very common way by most on LCD, btw, that can easily be spotted all over the place out here. Speaking of that, I think you and I have been where they are in the past. Believing that way is not unfamiliar to us. In fact, I often shift into that way of believing out here, as I've seen you do. Apparently, you can get out of fundamentalism, but you can't get the fundamentalism out of you.

I remember that you said that it appeared that way to you. But, I don't recall proposing that the Bible was literally written by God. Are you sure that, if I uttered some faint expression of faith it wouldn't sound like fundamentalism to you?

Truth be told, if God worked thru human authors, to create "His Word" He would have no choice but to "speak" or deliver to them in terms that they would understand. And all the authors were just flawed human beings, so we can't expect them to transcribe it accurately. As a result, what comes thru on the page would be shaped by humans with human flaws, and other limitations common to us all. Thus we have authors that contradict other authors. You've recently shown that with the different accounts of a woman that touched the hem of Jesus' garment.
So . . .Some things I can say about this that is unassailable:

• The Bible was penned by human hands.
• All the books of the Bible were written by human males.
• All books were written by human male Jews.
• The whole Bible is, from cover to cover, a Jewish book.

These things I know to be factual.

The Biblical writers shouldn't be reduced to mere tools of an alien force. Nor must we conclude that their writing was uninspired or devoid of revelation.

"The inspiration of the biblical writers is their receptive and creative response to potentially revelatory facts. The inspiration of the writers of the New Testament is their acceptance of Jesus as the Christ, and with him, of the New Being, of which they became witnesses. Since there is no revelation unless there is someone who receives it as revelation, the act of reception is a part of the event itself. The Bible is both original event and original document; it witnesses to that of which it is a part."

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (p. 35). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.

In researching the Septuagint, and it's formation, I've found that the reason the the Torah, and eventually the whole Tanakh, had to be translated was because the Jews had become so Hellenized that they lost their Hebrew language. In fact, the Septuagint wasn't translated in one fell swoop. The development of the Septuagint that's come down to us today wasn't finished til like the 15th c. AD. But the need for it, started back in circa the 3rd c. BC. It was first translated orally, as was the need for the Jews in the Hellenic period, in their synagogues, when a dragoman did the readings, from Hebrew to Greek. In the end, Hellenism produced not only the Septuagint, but also the New Testament. So Hellenism won.

Perhaps, but, to continue with your military metaphor, winning two battles, even big ones, doesn't amount to winning the war. Not to say you're wrong. It's just that there are many more battles to examine.

Did Toynbee come to that same conclusion, with his concern about Hellenistic humanism, and its worship of man and city-states? But again, how did Christianity become about man worship? Was that a carry-over from Hellenism too?

Like I said before, I cited Toynbee below as a witness to the influence of Hellenism on the Jesus movement, not to judge the accuracy of his philosophy of history. But, it's an interesting question. According to Hurtado :

"...the historical evidence does not really permit the attribution of Jesus-devotion to pagan influences, and does not support an evolutionary model of development, with a divine Jesus emerging only at a secondary stage of the early Christian movement."

Larry W. Hurtado. How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Kindle Locations 380-381). Kindle Edition.

Whether and how that may be related to the OP topic we can discuss. But, for a straightforward summary of Christianity's turn from the historical Jesus I give you Dr. Schweitzer:

"It is only at first sight that the absolute indifference of early Christianity towards the life of the historical Jesus is disconcerting. When Paul, representing those who recognise the signs of the times, did not desire to know Christ after the flesh, that was the first expression of the impulse of self-preservation by which Christianity continued to be guided for centuries. It felt that with the introduction of the historic Jesus into its faith, there would arise something new, something which had not been foreseen in the thoughts of the Master Himself, and that thereby a contradiction would be brought to light, the solution of which would constitute one of the great problems of the world.

Primitive Christianity was therefore right to live wholly in the future with the Christ who was to come, and to preserve of the historic Jesus only detached sayings, a few miracles, His death and resurrection. By abolishing both the world and the historical Jesus it escaped the inner division described above, and remained consistent in its point of view. We, on our part, have reason to be grateful to the early Christians that, in consequence of this attitude they have handed down to us, not biographies of Jesus but only Gospels, and that therefore we possess the Idea and the Person with the minimum of historical and contemporary limitations.

But the world continued to exist, and its continuance brought this one-sided view to an end. The supra-mundane Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth had to be brought together into a single personality at once historical and raised above time. That was accomplished by Gnosticism and the Logos Christology. Both, from opposite standpoints, because they were seeking the same goal, agreed in sublimating the historical Jesus into the supra-mundane Idea. The result of this development, which followed on the discrediting of eschatology, was that the historical Jesus was again introduced into the field of view of Christianity, but in such a way that all justification for, and interest in, the investigation of His life and historical personality were done away with.

Greek theology was as indifferent in regard to the historical Jesus who lives concealed in the Gospels as was the early eschatological theology. More than that, it was dangerous to Him; for it created a new supernatural-historical Gospel, and we may consider it fortunate that the Synoptics were already so firmly established that the Fourth Gospel could not oust them; instead, the Church, as though from the inner necessity of the antitheses which now began to be a constructive element in her thought, was obliged to set up two antithetic Gospels alongside of one another.

When at Chalcedon the West overcame the East, its doctrine of the two natures dissolved the unity of the Person, and thereby cut off the last possibility of a return to the historical Jesus. The self-contradiction was elevated into a law. But the Manhood was so far admitted as to preserve, in appearance, the rights of history. Thus by a deception the formula kept the life prisoner and prevented the leading spirits of the Reformation from grasping the idea of a return to the historical Jesus.

This dogma had first to be shattered before men could once more go out in quest of the historical Jesus, before they could even grasp the thought of His existence. That the historic Jesus is something different from the Jesus Christ of the doctrine of the Two Natures seems to us now self-evident. We can, at the present day, scarcely imagine the long agony in which the historical view of the life of Jesus came to birth. And even when He was once more recalled to life, He was still, like Lazarus of old, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes—the grave-clothes of the dogma of the Dual Nature."

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Collected Works of Albert Schweitzer Book 3) (pp. 3-4). Actonian Press. Kindle Edition.

[awareness]

Interesting post. Lots'a meat. Good thing. Packed it into doggy-bags, or rabbit-bags, for trips down the rabbit holes you opened up on this long post. Obviously, it's not possible to write comprehensibly on them, cuz there are books written about the subjects and authors you introduce, and we don't have that kind of space, nor time.

I'll try to keep responses short and sweet.

Originally Posted by zeek

If you try to look at the Bible that way even as a thought experiment, you'll find it doesn't work. Peter and Paul may be vessels, but if they are "just" vessels then their individual personalities would make no difference in the truth they convey. But it is precisely the differences, their individuality that reveals different facets of the truth. Peter's betrayal occasions the depth of Jesus" forgiveness. Paul's persecutory zeal occasions Jesus' power to transform. Revelation is interactional.

The New Testament is multi-perspectival not one-size-fits -all. That's why the different author's have different "flavors", and different theologies. And that's why the so-called Church Fathers, the proto-orthodox winners of the struggle for the church's soul, retained those different POVs in the New Testament canon.

But they didn't include The Gospel of Peter, nor The Gospel of Thomas. Peter and Thomas! Disciples! Eyewitnesses! Why not?

Talking about the differences in the authors of the NT, both those gospels live up to that.

So then, sadly, we don't have any surviving records from any of the disciples. Why not?

John 6:66 says : "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." All because Jesus said : "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

In the gospel called Mark, when Jesus explains why he speaks in parables, he says : "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:"

So the disciples were given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God.

So why didn't any of them tell us about it? Were they also, "disciples that went back and walked no more with Jesus?"

Okay, I got the off my chest. But I sure would have liked to hear from each of them.

You say, when speaking of the different authors, "it's their individuality that reveals different facets of the truth."

Well I say, because the 12 didn't leave us anything, that, we're missing many facets of the truth. And not just facets but, the mystery of the kingdom of God.

That's all for now. I'll go down your rabbit-holes in another post ... soon.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interesting post. Lots'a meat. Good thing. Packed it into doggy-bags, or rabbit-bags, for trips down the rabbit holes you opened up on this long post. Obviously, it's not possible to write comprehensibly on them, cuz there are books written about the subjects and authors you introduce, and we don't have that kind of space, nor time.

I'll try to keep responses short and sweet.


But they didn't include The Gospel of Peter, nor The Gospel of Thomas. Peter and Thomas! Disciples! Eyewitnesses! Why not?

Talking about the differences in the authors of the NT, both those gospels live up to that.

So then, sadly, we don't have any surviving records from any of the disciples. Why not?

John 6:66 says : "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." All because Jesus said : "Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

In the gospel called Mark, when Jesus explains why he speaks in parables, he says : "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:"

So the disciples were given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God.

So why didn't any of them tell us about it? Were they also, "disciples that went back and walked no more with Jesus?"

Okay, I got the off my chest. But I sure would have liked to hear from each of them.

You say, when speaking of the different authors, "it's their individuality that reveals different facets of the truth."

Well I say, because the 12 didn't leave us anything, that, we're missing many facets of the truth. And not just facets but, the mystery of the kingdom of God.

That's all for now. I'll go down your rabbit-holes in another post ... soon.

Well... The gospels of Peter and of Thomas are fantastical and gnostic respectively. From the standpoint of history the absence of documentation of the perspectives of the rest of the 12 is a great loss. And that statement assumes that the epistles in the name of Peter in the canon are actually his which is doubtful especially with regard to second Peter. Anyway, it's late. Perhaps, we'll have more to say on this tomorrow.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well... The gospels of Peter and of Thomas are fantastical and gnostic respectively.

Where does the needle have to register on the fantastic-o-meter and the gnostic-o-meter to throw a book out of the canon? Cuz that needle has to be high for canonical books too.

And maybe the actual answer as to why we don't hear from the 12 is because they were illiterate.

The gospel we call John has Jesus saying "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."

Maybe that was their contribution.

[awareness]

This thread has gone idle.

So can someone tell me why our earliest NT books, by Paul, does not speak of the goings-on found in the much later written gospels, and why the gospels don't cite, reference, or credit, the earlier written epistles of Paul?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

This thread has gone idle.

So can someone tell me why our earliest NT books, by Paul, does not speak of the goings-on found in the much later written gospels, and why the gospels don't cite, reference, or credit, the earlier written epistles of Paul?

As the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945 show, the early Jesus movement was a lot more diverse than the traditional view suggests. Christianity seems to have evolved in a number of different local cultures and in different ways that eventually became a variety of competing beliefs.

In that historical context, it is not surprising to find Paul simply unaware of the oral traditions that evolved into the gospels stories you refer to. And the gospel writers may not have had access to Paul's epistles. Even the author of "Luke/Acts" who relates so many stories about Paul, doesn't quote his epistles. Sometimes his accounts of Paul's adventures conflict with Paul's own version of what happened.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

As the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945 show, the early Jesus movement was a lot more diverse than the traditional view suggests. Christianity seems to have evolved in a number of different local cultures and in different ways that eventually became a variety of competing beliefs.

Given this obvious discrepancy or lack between "Paul's gospel," (Rom 2:16, 16:25) and the later gospels, I don't know now but, apparently Jesus had some pretty high ideals. Ideals that if lived up to would have never produced "competing" beliefs. I'm thinking of the sermon on the mount.

Originally Posted by zeek

In that historical context, it is not surprising to find Paul simply unaware of the oral traditions that evolved into the gospels stories you refer to.

Doesn't this suggest that the stories grew as time went on, and weren't developed in Paul's early days and writings?

If we only had Paul's earliest accounts of Jesus, we wouldn't know much about the historical Jesus. Perhaps that's because according to Paul he wasn't going by the oral tradition of the stories about Jesus ; he was going by the revealed Jesus, the one that appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

And seems Paul's revealed Jesus cared only for a few things about his historical self ; like his death, resurrection, appearances, ascension, and becoming a life giving spirit. Paul's revealed Jesus doesn't even mention his own virgin birth, his own passion account, nor his own sermon on the mount.

Originally Posted by zeek

And the gospel writers may not have had access to Paul's epistles. Even the author of "Luke/Acts" who relates so many stories about Paul, doesn't quote his epistles. Sometimes his accounts of Paul's adventures conflict with Paul's own version of what happened.

True, except for Luke. Luke, whoever he was, claims to be gathering material to compose his gospel. Paul's letters were passed among the churches. Surely whoever Luke was would have some copies of Paul's letters.

Maybe the gospels don't mention the epistles of Paul because they are written from the perspective of the historical Jesus, and the historical Jesus didn't know Paul.

At any rate, following Jesus, early on, in the 1st century, there does seem to be different gospels.

Paul warned of different gospels, even during his day. Seems, as he feared, they came along on down the line. And Christianity became poor poor.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

But they didn't include The Gospel of Peter, nor The Gospel of Thomas. Peter and Thomas! Disciples! Eyewitnesses! Why not?

Good question Harold. I believe the answer is that these writings did not reflect, much less match, the oral record that was passed down from the earliest days of the church. As you know, the life and times and teachings of Jesus were passed down orally, not in writing, until the Gospels were put to pen and paper (or papyrus as it were). The wise men who put together the cannon undoubtedly had knowledge of the oral record, and would accept or reject any writings based upon this oral record.

Originally Posted by awareness

If we only had Paul's earliest accounts of Jesus, we wouldn't know much about the historical Jesus. Perhaps that's because according to Paul he wasn't going by the oral tradition of the stories about Jesus ; he was going by the revealed Jesus, the one that appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Great post! Sometimes I wonder about you Harold. I never can figure out if you're just a blind squirrel finding the world's largest nut, or if you are a genius of biblical proportions. Maybe it's a little of both. In any event, your point about Paul is well taken. Remember, Paul had no knowledge or access to the earliest oral tradition...he was too busy killing Christians to listen to the stories they were telling. By the time Saul became Paul he was more concerned with the resurrected Jesus that appeared to him, and with "the Spirit of Him who raised Christ Jesus from the dead". And since the Gospels had not yet been written (and Paul being a Rabbi and a scholar would have been somewhat dismissive of oral tradition over written scripture) he probably relied upon his own revelations and visions (coupled with his vast knowledge of scripture) more than the Gospel stories and history.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Given this obvious discrepancy or lack between "Paul's gospel," (Rom 2:16, 16:25) and the later gospels, I don't know now but, apparently Jesus had some pretty high ideals. Ideals that if lived up to would have never produced "competing" beliefs. I'm thinking of the sermon on the mount.

But, Jesus didn't transmit his teaching in written form and those who wrote about him represented a variety of views.

Doesn't this suggest that the stories grew as time went on, and weren't developed in Paul's early days and writings?

Sure. Plus they may have understood Jesus differently from the outset. That would be only natural.

If we only had Paul's earliest accounts of Jesus, we wouldn't know much about the historical Jesus. Perhaps that's because according to Paul he wasn't going by the oral tradition of the stories about Jesus ; he was going by the revealed Jesus, the one that appeared to him on the road to Damascus.

Yes, Paul also reflects an awareness of the beliefs and practices of the churches. Thus, his epistles have great historical value.

And seems Paul's revealed Jesus cared only for a few things about his historical self ; like his death, resurrection, appearances, ascension, and becoming a life giving spirit. Paul's revealed Jesus doesn't even mention his own virgin birth, his own passion account, nor his own sermon on the mount.

Paul was focused on the Christ of faith not the Jesus of history.

True, except for Luke. Luke, whoever he was, claims to be gathering material to compose his gospel. Paul's letters were passed among the churches. Surely whoever Luke was would have some copies of Paul's letters.

What makes you so sure?

Maybe the gospels don't mention the epistles of Paul because they are written from the perspective of the historical Jesus, and the historical Jesus didn't know Paul.

We don't have any writing from Jesus's perspective.

At any rate, following Jesus, early on, in the 1st century, there does seem to be different gospels. Paul warned of different gospels, even during his day. Seems, as he feared, they came along on down the line. And Christianity became poor poor.

Maybe Christianity became "poor poor", if indeed is, when it excluded some of the "different" gospels and the people who wrote them. How much richer would Christianity be if Christians hadn't burned writings they disagreed with?

Evangelical Christianity's embrace of Trump's presidency reminds me of the pattern through which the Jesus movement became Church Christianity. Like many Evangelicals today, Proto-orthodox Christians understood power as the possession of an Almighty God on high, not of the people below.

In Romans 13:1 Paul says "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." Thus, Pauline Christians understood the emperor to be God’s deputy on earth, upholding divine justice, not as a tyrant whose position was based on force.

Church Christianity willingly accepted imperial patronage because it had a great deal to gain from it. Christian writers like Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–c. 340) were quick to characterize Constantine as ‘the deputy of Christ’, and eager to insist that the alliance of church and Empire was part of God’s providential plan for the world.

[awareness]

Such a gracious post this blind squirrel of biblical proportion genius is shy to crack your nut. But :

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Good question Harold. I believe the answer is that these writings did not reflect, much less match, the oral record that was passed down from the earliest days of the church.

Since the gospel of Thomas is just sayings of Jesus some leading scholars surmise that the GoT may have been the closest to the oral period. And John Dominic Crossan believes the Gospel of Peter was written before the synoptic's, and came out of the oral stories being passed around.

He calls the Gospel of Peter the cross gospel, because it has a walking talking cross in it. From the gospel :

[35] But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.'

When I first read the gospel of Peter I cracked up over the walking talking cross. I thought : How ridiculous. No wonder the book is not in the NT canon.

But then upon further reflection I realized the symbolic meaning in the story ; that was simply spoken, or spoken simply, in what was common story telling methods back then (common enough to also be used in the stories in the canonical gospels (technically, spoken using mythological terms, imagery, and methods)) :

The meaning being that, the death and resurrection of Jesus was very important to God, and that message was even proclaimed to the dead.

I don't know why they just couldn't say it in plain English, so to speak. I guess they enjoyed mind games back then -- what else did they have for entertainment?

So in the end, I cut the silly Gospel of Peter some slack.

Originally Posted by Untohim

As you know, the life and times and teachings of Jesus were passed down orally, not in writing, until the Gospels were put to pen and paper (or papyrus as it were). The wise men who put together the cannon undoubtedly had knowledge of the oral record, and would accept or reject any writings based upon this oral record.

But I don't know if I can cut the "wise men" that selected the canon the same slack. They didn't act like true followers of Jesus as far as I'm concerned.

And doggone-it Untohim, there is no oral record. I sure wish there was. We only have written records. YouTube would have been nice.

But alas, more "miracles" have been discovered since back then.

Originally Posted by Untohim

Great post! Sometimes I wonder about you Harold. I never can figure out if you're just a blind squirrel finding the world's largest nut, or if you are a genius of biblical proportions. Maybe it's a little of both.

Thanks. I think. What's "genius of biblical proportions?" If it's divine genius, I'm down with that. But not if it means "stable genius."

Originally Posted by Untohim

In any event, your point about Paul is well taken. Remember, Paul had no knowledge or access to the earliest oral tradition...he was too busy killing Christians to listen to the stories they were telling.

Paul hung with the authoritative originators of the oral stories, Peter, James and John ... and prolly -- we don't know -- maybe even with Mary Magdalene -- maybe The Gospel of Mary tells, but it's missing pages.

So Paul was clearly closer to the oral stories than the authors of the gospels. But now that you bring it up, when was Saul "killing Christians?"

First. There weren't any Christians at that point. And the timeline? He had to be killing somewhere between Jesus leaving his brother and the disciples behind, and Paul becoming buddies with them?

Jesus died circa 30ad. Paul was writing his epistles in the 50s and 60s, to established communities (churches) of Jesus followers. Stories of Jesus had to be flying around everywhere. Paul was prolly spreading them in his oral speakings to the communities.

The timeline? Was Paul a kid when Jesus died? or was he being trained as a Pharisee? He seemed to be an equal to Peter and James. Did he only kill Christians for a week or two? And why Damascus? Why not kill the disciples? Wouldn't killing the head of the snake make more sense, and be more effective at eliminating the new Jesus cult? The timeline is troubling. It is indeed like I'm blind. Where's the world's biggest nut?

But something just don't add up about Paul. I find it odd that he hung with Peter, James, and John, and other of the earliest followers of Jesus, and he doesn't have gospel like stories about Jesus in his epistles. I also find it odd that the gospels don't speak of Paul. Not once! Not one time is Paul mentioned in any of the gospels, including the one attributed to Luke.

Originally Posted by Untohim

By the time Saul became Paul he was more concerned with the resurrected Jesus that appeared to him, and with "the Spirit of Him who raised Christ Jesus from the dead". And since the Gospels had not yet been written (and Paul being a Rabbi and a scholar would have been somewhat dismissive of oral tradition over written scripture) he probably relied upon his own revelations and visions (coupled with his vast knowledge of scripture) more than the Gospel stories and history.

Well he undeniably stated that he got his gospel right from direct revelation of Christ.

Thanks for you gracious reply bro Untohim.

[zeek]

Just to summarize the thesis of the thread: it is that the Jesus movement became what Witness Lee derogatively referred to as "Christianity" because Christ did not return quickly as expected. This created the second great crisis in the faith of his followers. The first was, of course, Jesus's crucifixion. A third fact of fateful significance in the development of Christianity was the rejection of Christ by the majority of the Jews and His acceptance by a growing number of gentiles. This acceptance was facilitated by the Hellenization of Judaism and the Gospel and the church's internalization of Greco-Roman style government.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

Just to summarize the thesis of the thread: it is that the Jesus movement became what Witness Lee derogatively referred to as "Christianity" because Christ did not return quickly as expected. This created the second great crisis in the faith of his followers. The first was, of course, Jesus's crucifixion. A third fact of fateful significance in the development of Christianity was the rejection of Christ by the majority of the Jews and His acceptance by a growing number of gentiles. This acceptance was facilitated by the Hellenization of Judaism and the Gospel and the church's internalization of Greco-Roman style government.

Witness Lee's acute awareness and hatred for Christianity were the result of his experiences as an Asian wherein the characteristics of Western culture that Christianity bears were alien and repulsive to him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee's acute awareness and hatred for Christianity were the result of his experiences as an Asian wherein the characteristics of Western culture that Christianity bears were alien and repulsive to him.

Nee and Lee would grow up hearing that Western missionaries were Christian Imperialists. So to them it's likely that they considered Christianity poor even before their conversion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Nee and Lee would grow up hearing that Western missionaries were Christian Imperialists. So to them it's likely that they considered Christianity poor even before their conversion.

In what sense did they convert? Both Nee and Lee came from Christian families. Nee's parents were Methodists; Lee's parents were Southern Baptist like yours. Nevertheless the general culture in which they grew up was not Western culture. Anyway Aaron et al has addressed this issue at great length on the main forum http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...?t=5150&page=2 so we need not belabor the point here.

Christianity was born of the clash between Judaic and Greco-Roman societies. This clash can be illustrated pointedly in the conflict regarding the meaning of Divine Law. Yale Professor Christine Hayes discusses this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-sv09t15hg&app=desktop

The characterization of Divine Law as utterly rational and in harmony with nature was widespread throughout the Hellenistic world of late antiquity. This created a cognitive dissonance for the Jews who's Divine Law didn't look like the Greco-Roman definition of Divine Law but rather more like human law grounded in the will of a sovereign that doesn't necessarily conform to truth and has irrational aspects. This was particularly true of the impurity laws, the dietary laws and the laws concerning circumcision which became an embarrassment to the Jews.

Philo bridged the divide by equating Mosaic law with divine natural law and transferring to it the characteristic attributes of divine natural law which were that it was rational, true, universal, immutable, and unwritten. To accomplish this task he used the allegorical method extensively.

Paul accepted the basic Greco-Roman dichotomy between divine natural law on the one hand and human positive law on the other hand. However his response to the incongruity between biblical and classical conceptions of Divine Law was the opposite of Philo's.

Paul represented the Mosaic law as particular temporary, non-rational and not conducive to virtue. Hayes argues that Paul's representation of the Mosaic law in positive law terms was a strategic accommodation to his gentile audience. Particularizing the Mosaic law enabled Paul to argue that it did not obligate Gentiles, who's entry into "God's community" was required if the end-time visions of the prophets were to be fulfilled, was affected through faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

In what sense did they convert?

Good question. I just assumed they had some kind of conversion experience, a metanoia. But maybe not. Maybe they grew up in their respective denominations, learned there, and expanded upon it, with little influence from Chinese culture. But that's doubtful.

Originally Posted by zeek

Both Nee and Lee came from Christian families. Nee's parents were Methodists; Lee's parents were Southern Baptist like yours. Nevertheless the general culture in which they grew up was not Western culture. Anyway Aaron et al has addressed this issue at great length on the main forum http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...?t=5150&page=2 so we need not belabor the point here.

That's my thought as well. Nee and Lee were Chinese ... duh!

Originally Posted by z

Christianity was born of the clash between Judaic and Greco-Roman societies. This clash can be illustrated pointedly in the conflict regarding the meaning of Divine Law. Yale Professor Christine Hayes discusses this here:

Hayes is incredible. I watched the whole video. I'd buy her book if it weren't so expensive. She gets pretty complex ... then at the end says that she didn't get into the complexity of the subject of divine and Judaic law ... and my head was already spinning with it all.

While written law can be reinterpreted, divine natural law is very stubborn ; the latter immutable, the former not. One written by God's hand, if you will, and the other written by man's hand.

Originally Posted by z

The characterization of Divine Law as utterly rational and in harmony with nature was widespread throughout the Hellenistic world of late antiquity. This created a cognitive dissonance for the Jews who's Divine Law didn't look like the Greco-Roman definition of Divine Law but rather more like human law grounded in the will of a sovereign that doesn't necessarily conform to truth and has irrational aspects. This was particularly true of the impurity laws, the dietary laws and the laws concerning circumcision which became an embarrassment to the Jews.

Natures' laws (divine law, kingdom law) exists whether we believe in them or not. Not so for human law, grounded in the will of a sovereign. They require believing. Christian salvation literally hangs on believing.

The Greco-Roman's sure got the Jews dancing, to prove that the Torah Law, or Mosaic Law, was divine law, and as rational and immutable as nature's law.

So there was a whole lotta syncretism going on, when Jesus burst on the scene. There was Philo, and also 4 Maccabees, written in the first and second century.

Greco-Roman Hellenism back then was to the Jews what science is to Christianity today. So the same struggle is going on today, between revealed book law and nature's law ; between religion and science.

Originally Posted by z

Philo bridged the divide by equating Mosaic law with divine natural law and transferring to it the characteristic attributes of divine natural law which were that it was rational, true, universal, immutable, and unwritten. To accomplish this task he used the allegorical method extensively.

Not to knock Philo. We've got so little documentation from back then that we've got to appreciate anything we get. But seems to me that Philo, being a Jew, started with a devotional premise -- Mosaic law -- and then wrapped his threads of syncretism around it using material purchased from the Greco-Roman's.

Originally Posted by z

Paul accepted the basic Greco-Roman dichotomy between divine natural law on the one hand and human positive law on the other hand. However his response to the incongruity between biblical and classical conceptions of Divine Law was the opposite of Philo's.

Paul represented the Mosaic law as particular temporary, non-rational and not conducive to virtue. Hayes argues that Paul's representation of the Mosaic law in positive law terms was a strategic accommodation to his gentile audience. Particularizing the Mosaic law enabled Paul to argue that it did not obligate Gentiles, who's entry into "God's community" was required if the end-time visions of the prophets were to be fulfilled, was affected through faith.

Oh Paul and the law. He clearly had OCD over it. He was rebelling against the law like I do Southern Baptist fundamentalism.

I won't get into the law of the members, cuz Paul had a much better new law to speak of, called, the law of Christ. Was/is this new law, rational, true, universal, immutable, and unwritten? If so then it is Greco-Roman type divine law. Sooooo ... introducing : THE LOGOS - the creative sustaining force of the cosmos, according Heraclitus, and the prologue of the gospel attributed to John. The logos syncretizes Christianity with the Greco-Roman.

Writing that the logos became flesh, Hellenized Jesus. So the new law -- the law of Christ -- is Greco-Roman. But according to the record Jesus, while referencing nature here and there, lived by the Father's law.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Good question. I just assumed they had some kind of conversion experience, a metanoia. But maybe not. Maybe they grew up in their respective denominations, learned there, and expanded upon it, with little influence from Chinese culture. But that's doubtful.


That's my thought as well. Nee and Lee were Chinese ... duh!


Hayes is incredible. I watched the whole video. I'd buy her book if it weren't so expensive. She gets pretty complex ... then at the end says that she didn't get into the complexity of the subject of divine and Judaic law ... and my head was already spinning with it all.

While written law can be reinterpreted, divine natural law is very stubborn ; the latter immutable, the former not. One written by God's hand, if you will, and the other written by man's hand.


Natures' laws (divine law, kingdom law) exists whether we believe in them or not. Not so for human law, grounded in the will of a sovereign. They require believing. Christian salvation literally hangs on believing.

The Greco-Roman's sure got the Jews dancing, to prove that the Torah Law, or Mosaic Law, was divine law, and as rational and immutable as nature's law.

So there was a whole lotta syncretism going on, when Jesus burst on the scene. There was Philo, and also 4 Maccabees, written in the first and second century.

Greco-Roman Hellenism back then was to the Jews what science is to Christianity today. So the same struggle is going on today, between revealed book law and nature's law ; between religion and science.


Not to knock Philo. We've got so little documentation from back then that we've got to appreciate anything we get. But seems to me that Philo, being a Jew, started with a devotional premise -- Mosaic law -- and then wrapped his threads of syncretism around it using material purchased from the Greco-Roman's.


Oh Paul and the law. He clearly had OCD over it. He was rebelling against the law like I do Southern Baptist fundamentalism.

I won't get into the law of the members, cuz Paul had a much better new law to speak of, called, the law of Christ. Was/is this new law, rational, true, universal, immutable, and unwritten? If so then it is Greco-Roman type divine law. Sooooo ... introducing : THE LOGOS - the creative sustaining force of the cosmos, according Heraclitus, and the prologue of the gospel attributed to John. The logos syncretizes Christianity with the Greco-Roman.

Writing that the logos became flesh, Hellenized Jesus. So the new law -- the law of Christ -- is Greco-Roman. But according to the record Jesus, while referencing nature here and there, lived by the Father's law.

So the question arises whether Jesus himself was influenced by Hellenism and if so how? According to Hayes, Hellenistic Jews saw the Torah's purity laws as irrational. The purity system of the Jewish social world took its starting point from the commandment "be holy as God is holy" [Leviticus 19:2]. For that commandment Jesus radically substituted "be compassionate as God is compassionate". Luke 6:36.

For Jesus compassion not holiness was the essential character of God. He criticized the Judaic purity laws. The Jews considered untithed produce to be impure. Jesus criticizes this saying "but woe to you Pharisees for you tithe mint and rue and every herb and neglect justice and the love of God." Luke 11:42

Samaritans and the dead were considered unclean. In the famous parable, Jesus praised the impure Samaritan who showed compassion for an impure "half-dead" man. Jesus conversed with and exorcised unclean spirits, and touched and healed people with leprosy and other defiling diseases. He shared table fellowship with "tax collectors and sinners" the impure of society.

So, Jesus not only taught the principles of divine natural law, he lived them by practicing free healing, eating openly with the impure of society and living simply in harmony with God the Father who's law wasn't merely the arbitrary will of a sovereign but the expression of God's loving care that he saw immanent in nature.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, Jesus not only taught the principles of divine natural law, he lived them by practicing free healing, eating openly with the impure of society and simple living in harmony with God the Father who's law wasn't merely the arbitrary will of a sovereign but the expression of God's loving care that he saw immanent in nature.

You're really seeing into Jesus. If what you're seeing is true then Jesus was Hellenized. In fact, if true, Jesus was a syncretizer of Judaism and Hellenism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're really seeing into Jesus. If what you're seeing is true then Jesus was Hellenized. In fact, if true, Jesus was a syncretizer of Judaism and Hellenism.

Here are two contrasting views on the subject for thoughtful consideration:

Greek believers at Corinth did not care for the corporate church life, but cared instead for their personal and individual interests. This produced division. Whenever there are divisions there cannot be the temple of God. Therefore, after covering certain crucial matters in chapters one and two, Paul indicates in chapter three that the Corinthians are completely wrong in caring for their individual interests and not for God's temple, God's corporate building.

In 3:17 Paul specifically points out that God's building, the temple, is holy. It is not secular, worldly, or Greek. Actually, the word holy in this verse stands in contrast to anything Greek. God's holy temple is separate from anything human, secular, and worldly; in particular, it is separated from anything Greek.

If we consider the context of the first three chapters of this book, we shall realize that Paul's intention was to impress the believers at Corinth that God's building is separate from anything Greek. The Greek believers still valued their wisdom, philosophy, culture, and way of living. They regarded Greek culture as the best. But Paul says that God's temple is holy, separate from anything worldly and particularly from anything Greek.

In verse 16 Paul emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God dwells in the believers as His corporate temple. But as long as the believers at Corinth were individualistic and as long as they cared for their personal interests, especially for their Greek philosophy and way of living, they were neither holy nor corporate. Then they could not experience very much of the indwelling of the Spirit or enjoy the Spirit's indwelling. If we do not have a proper corporate church life, we cannot have much enjoyment of the indwelling of the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit dwells within our spirit. But the Spirit's indwelling in the church corporately is much richer and is more prevailing than His indwelling in the believers individually.

If we consider all these matters, we shall realize that Paul's concept is deep. His thought is to convince all the individualistic Greek believers that they must care for the corporate church life and not for their individualistic interests, preferences, and choices. (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 23, Section 2)

If Greek thinking was so inimical to the church, then surely Jesus couldn't have been influenced by it. In fact, according to Lee, Jesus couldn't have been affected by anything human, secular or worldly. So to Lee the Greek thinking that crept into the church was "poor poor Christianity". Both the Judaizers and the Hellenizers were off. Jesus and the church must admit no earthly, human, cultural origin.

Ancient Christians did not consider it accidental that the Incarnation occurred at the historical moment of conjunction between the Jewish religion, Greek philosophy, and the Roman Empire.
[Tarnas, Richard. Passion of the Western Mind (Kindle Locations 1895-1896). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

Tarnas says that the so called Church fathers recognized cultural and philosophical influences and believed that the convergence of ideas was of Providential origins. To Lee that was evidence of their corruption. Lee was consistent in this regard in that he denied that his Chinese background influenced his own thinking even though someone with any knowledge of Taoism could see that his theology coincidentally correlated with that way of thinking. Having spent 13 years under his teaching I came to believe that he was unconscious of and in denial about the influence of his own cultural origin on his thinking. That would mean that he deceived himself before he went on to deceive others. This is not unusual. The most convincing liars are those who first lie to themselves.


Don't you think, that based on what I have already presented below, it's warranted to conclude that if Jesus' critique of the Judaic purity system was informed by a Hellenistic Judaism that he based this view on the teaching he received from his parents and the local synagogue? Would the local practice of Judaism in Galilee by the first century have been a Hellenized practice? After all, the region had been under Greek influence for over 300 years. The character of Jesus teaching is powerful but not in the way of formal Greek philosophy except as it is presented in the Gospel of John which is probably less a reflection of the historical Jesus manner of discourse than that of the author. He was, rather, more like the Greek Cynic philosopher.

The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely. But his work was among the farms and villages of Lower Galilee. His strategy, implicitly for himself and explicitly for his followers, was the combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power. And, lest he himself be interpreted as simply the new broker of a new God, he moved on constantly, settling down neither at Nazareth nor Capernaum. He was neither broker nor mediator but, somewhat paradoxically, the announcer that neither should exist between humanity and divinity or between humanity and itself. Miracle and parable, healing and eating were calculated to force individuals into unmediated physical and spiritual contact with God and unmediated physical and spiritual contact with one another. He announced, in other words, the brokerless kingdom of God. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

If this is true then "Poor poor Christianity" goes right back to Jesus himself. Crossan goes on:

I propose that at the heart of any Christianity there is always, covertly or overtly, a dialectic between a historically read Jesus and a theologically read Christ. Christianity is always, in other words, a Jesus/Christ/ianity. The New Testament itself contains a spectrum of divergent theological interpretations, each of which focuses on different aspects or clusters of aspects concerning the historical Jesus, or better, different historical Jesuses. It may be, for example, only the sayings, or only the miracles, or only the death, that is of primary concern for a given tradition, but any of those emphases presumes divergent historical Jesuses who said something, did something, and died in a certain way. I think, therefore, that different visions of the historical Jesus present a certain dialectic with different theological interpretations and that the New Testament itself is an obvious expression of that plurality’s inevitability. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

That to me sounds more like Christianity as it exists in the real world past and present and the local church movement is part of it.

[awareness]

Lots to chew on.

Originally Posted by zeek

Greek believers at Corinth did not care for the corporate church life, but cared instead for their personal and individual interests. This produced division. Whenever there are divisions there cannot be the temple of God. Therefore, after covering certain crucial matters in chapters one and two, Paul indicates in chapter three that the Corinthians are completely wrong in caring for their individual interests and not for God's temple, God's corporate building.

In 3:17 Paul specifically points out that God's building, the temple, is holy. It is not secular, worldly, or Greek. Actually, the word holy in this verse stands in contrast to anything Greek. God's holy temple is separate from anything human, secular, and worldly; in particular, it is separated from anything Greek.

If we consider the context of the first three chapters of this book, we shall realize that Paul's intention was to impress the believers at Corinth that God's building is separate from anything Greek. The Greek believers still valued their wisdom, philosophy, culture, and way of living. They regarded Greek culture as the best. But Paul says that God's temple is holy, separate from anything worldly and particularly from anything Greek.

In verse 16 Paul emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God dwells in the believers as His corporate temple. But as long as the believers at Corinth were individualistic and as long as they cared for their personal interests, especially for their Greek philosophy and way of living, they were neither holy nor corporate. Then they could not experience very much of the indwelling of the Spirit or enjoy the Spirit's indwelling. If we do not have a proper corporate church life, we cannot have much enjoyment of the indwelling of the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit dwells within our spirit. But the Spirit's indwelling in the church corporately is much richer and is more prevailing than His indwelling in the believers individually.

If we consider all these matters, we shall realize that Paul's concept is deep. His thought is to convince all the individualistic Greek believers that they must care for the corporate church life and not for their individualistic interests, preferences, and choices. (Life-Study of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 23, Section 2)

It's pretty clear that Witness Lee is seeing into scripture things that aren't there : like Paul's point being 'especially not Greek.'

Originally Posted by z

If Greek thinking was so inimical to the church, then surely Jesus couldn't have been influenced by it. In fact, according to Lee, Jesus couldn't have been affected by anything human, secular or worldly.

Let's call this 'Lee's Teflon Jesus" ; a non-human Jesus ; perhaps functioning by docetist means. Again, Lee's seeing in scripture things that aren't there ... or claiming so.

No wonder we stopped believing in Lee ; by seeking to be uniquely new, and superior, he contradicted the very book he claimed to be basing it on.

Originally Posted by z

So to Lee the Greek thinking that crept into the church was "poor poor Christianity".

If that's the case the whole New Testament was the beginning of poor Christianity, as it's written in Greek.

There's loads of evidence. Just one : ekklēsia, a Greek polis word ; as in, "upon this rock I will build my church." We know Jesus did not say this. He spoke Aramaic. The word in Aramaic is ladoth, a old Semitic term. Both terms mean "assembly." However, that's neither here nor there, cuz we don’t know the exact Aramaic words that Jesus used

As a result, unless more documents from back then are discovered, in Aramaic, we'll never get at the historical Jesus. Cuz our record of him, and what he did and said, is a translation.

Originally Posted by z

Ancient Christians did not consider it accidental that the Incarnation occurred at the historical moment of conjunction between the Jewish religion, Greek philosophy, and the Roman Empire.
[Tarnas, Richard. Passion of the Western Mind (Kindle Locations 1895-1896). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.]

This is true. But since we're only getting Jesus thru translation we can't be certain if Jesus was Teflon to all that or not.

I'm reading Constantine's Bible, a book about the formation of the canon. In his buildup to 'why the canon,' he speaks of the influence of the Greek polis philosophy on the Christian movement. Not just the beginning of the movement, but the structure of the Christians institution, and the need for a canon.

Originally Posted by z

Tarnas says that the so called Church fathers recognized cultural and philosophical influences and believed that the convergence of ideas was of Providential origins. To Lee that was evidence of their corruption.

As stated : the New Testament is written in Greek ... not Hebrew or Aramaic. By Lee's standard, Christianity began poor.

Originally Posted by z

Lee was consistent in this regard in that he denied that his Chinese background influenced his own thinking even though someone with any knowledge of Taoism could see that his theology coincidentally correlated with that way of thinking. Having spent 13 years under his teaching I came to believe that he was unconscious of and in denial about the influence of his own cultural origin on his thinking. That would mean that he deceived himself before he went on to deceive others. This is not unusual. The most convincing liars are those who first lie to themselves.

I see this as self delusion. Thanks for the Taoist reference. That makes sense.

Originally Posted by z

Don't you think, that based on what I have already presented below, it's warranted to conclude that if Jesus' critique of the Judaic purity system was informed by a Hellenistic Judaism that he based this view on the teaching he received from his parents and the local synagogue?

Since Jesus was fully human, and "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52), I do think.

Originally Posted by z

Would the local practice of Judaism in Galilee by the first century have been a Hellenized practice? After all, the region had been under Greek influence for over 300 years. The character of Jesus teaching is powerful but not in the way of formal Greek philosophy except as it is presented in the Gospel of John which is probably less a reflection of the historical Jesus manner of discourse than that of the author. He was, rather, more like the Greek Cynic philosopher.

The historical Jesus was, then, a peasant Jewish Cynic. His peasant village was close enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris that sight and knowledge of Cynicism are neither inexplicable nor unlikely. But his work was among the farms and villages of Lower Galilee. His strategy, implicitly for himself and explicitly for his followers, was the combination of free healing and common eating, a religious and economic egalitarianism that negated alike and at once the hierarchical and patronal normalcies of Jewish religion and Roman power. And, lest he himself be interpreted as simply the new broker of a new God, he moved on constantly, settling down neither at Nazareth nor Capernaum. He was neither broker nor mediator but, somewhat paradoxically, the announcer that neither should exist between humanity and divinity or between humanity and itself. Miracle and parable, healing and eating were calculated to force individuals into unmediated physical and spiritual contact with God and unmediated physical and spiritual contact with one another. He announced, in other words, the brokerless kingdom of God. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

If this is true then "Poor poor Christianity" goes right back to Jesus himself.

If only we weren't getting Jesus thru translation. But perhaps we can gather that Jesus taught a brokerless kingdom of God.

Originally Posted by z

Crossan goes on:

I propose that at the heart of any Christianity there is always, covertly or overtly, a dialectic between a historically read Jesus and a theologically read Christ. Christianity is always, in other words, a Jesus/Christ/ianity. The New Testament itself contains a spectrum of divergent theological interpretations, each of which focuses on different aspects or clusters of aspects concerning the historical Jesus, or better, different historical Jesuses. It may be, for example, only the sayings, or only the miracles, or only the death, that is of primary concern for a given tradition, but any of those emphases presumes divergent historical Jesuses who said something, did something, and died in a certain way. I think, therefore, that different visions of the historical Jesus present a certain dialectic with different theological interpretations and that the New Testament itself is an obvious expression of that plurality’s inevitability. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant . HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

That to me sounds more like Christianity as it exists in the real world past and present and the local church movement is part of it.

Translated Jesus, and Greek polis/Roman power, influenced the very structure of Christianity, and Lee's top down hierarchy was a cookie-cutter of that.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Lots to chew on. It's pretty clear that Witness Lee is seeing into scripture things that aren't there : like Paul's point being 'especially not Greek.' Let's call this 'Lee's Teflon Jesus" ; a non-human Jesus ; perhaps functioning by docetist means. Again, Lee's seeing in scripture things that aren't there ... or claiming so.
No wonder we stopped believing in Lee ; by seeking to be uniquely new, and superior, he contradicted the very book he claimed to be basing it on.
If that's the case the whole New Testament was the beginning of poor Christianity, as it's written in Greek. There's loads of evidence. Just one : ekklēsia, a Greek polis word ; as in, "upon this rock I will build my church." We know Jesus did not say this. He spoke Aramaic. The word in Aramaic is ladoth, a old Semitic term. Both terms mean "assembly." However, that's neither here nor there, cuz we don’t know the exact Aramaic words that Jesus used.

I doubt the historical Jesus really said that. It only appears in the Gospel of Matthew. The preponderance of evidence is that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God not the church or himself. The exclusivism implied in Matthew came later when his followers became a Judaic sect on it's way to becoming a separate movement.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I doubt the historical Jesus really said that. It only appears in the Gospel of Matthew.

As I've pointed out. Jesus didn't say what is said in the gospels. They are written in Greek, and so if anything they are translations of unknown sources, of what Jesus said in Aramaic.

Originally Posted by zeek

The preponderance of evidence is that Jesus preached the Kingdom of God ...

Yes he did. And it was suppose to come soon ; soon enough that the 12 disciples would judge over the 12 tribes of Israel.

Originally Posted by zeek

. . . not the church or himself. The exclusivism implied in Matthew came later when his followers became a Judaic sect on it's way to becoming a separate movement.

Jesus mentions church-ekklesia-assembly only once, in Matthew. The imperial state church says Jesus meant upon Peter he would build his church ; the first pope.

But the actual meaning was, upon this divine revelation -- "You are the Christ/messiah, the Son of the living God" -- I will build my church. That's a far cry from where the RCC puts it. Jesus was preaching the kingdom of God, and that is what the assembly-ekklesia was all about.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

As I've pointed out. Jesus didn't say what is said in the gospels. They are written in Greek, and so if anything they are translations of unknown sources, of what Jesus said in Aramaic.

I found your statement above perplexing. It's as if you are suggesting that accurate translation is impossible. You also seem to be ignoring those few Jesus sayings in Aramaic and the possibility that he may have spoken some Greek which would not have been uncommon in Galilee during his time. Even the Jesus Seminar voted that 18% of Jesus' sayings in the gospels are unequivocally authentic.

Yes he did. And it was suppose to come soon ; soon enough that the 12 disciples would judge over the 12 tribes of Israel.

Why did the Kingdom need to come in the future if it was already at hand as Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry according to Mark?

Jesus mentions church-ekklesia-assembly only once, in Matthew. The imperial state church says Jesus meant upon Peter he would build his church ; the first pope. But the actual meaning was, upon this divine revelation -- "You are the Christ/messiah, the Son of the living God" -- I will build my church. That's a far cry from where the RCC puts it. Jesus was preaching the kingdom of God, and that is what the assembly-ekklesia was all about.

I question whether the historical Jesus would have said it all. The church isn't mentioned in Mark which is considered the earliest extant gospel by most scholars. It seems more like an origin narrative to legitimate a church standing on the apostolic authority of Peter.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I found your statement above perplexing. It's as if you are suggesting that accurate translation is impossible.

Sorry for my confusing expressions. And an accurate translation just may be impossible, I don't know. But that's not my point. We're reading Greek. Whether or not it's accurate it has to be a translation of the events and sayings that took place ... not to mention the problem of being written decades later.

Originally Posted by z

You also seem to be ignoring those few Jesus sayings in Aramaic and the possibility that he may have spoken some Greek which would not have been uncommon in Galilee during his time.

Thanks for pointing it out. We shouldn't ignore that possibility. But are you thinking that Jesus just picked up the Greek, or that he went to school to learn it? If he went to school then he would definitely be Hellenized. In fact, if he just picked up the Greek then, that would mean that he was picking up Hellenic influences. We may not have any actual evidence, but given how widespread and long standing Hellenism was, it's likely that Jesus was Hellenized to some extent. What we've got of it, in Greek, was certainly Hellenized.

Originally Posted by z

Even the Jesus Seminar voted that 18% of Jesus' sayings in the gospels are unequivocally authentic.

That's a lot to call into question. The JS leave us with even less than the little that we've got already. I don't know if they're helping. And if Jesus didn't speak Greek, then they are wrong.

Originally Posted by z

Why did the Kingdom need to come in the future if it was already at hand as Jesus said at the beginning of his ministry according to Mark?

I suppose you're talking about Mar_1:15 : And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. But as I understand it there is a debate among scholars of what "at hand" means. Does it mean, 'the kingdom is standing in front of you?' Or does it mean that the kingdom is near as in coming soon?

Originally Posted by z

I question whether the historical Jesus would have said it all. The church isn't mentioned in Mark which is considered the earliest extant gospel by most scholars. It seems more like an origin narrative to legitimate a church standing on the apostolic authority of Peter.

Isn't it thought that Peter dictated it to Mark, who wrote it down in Greek? But we don't know the author of the gospel of Mark, or any of the others, for that matter. We're flying blind here.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry for my confusing expressions. And an accurate translation just may be impossible, I don't know.

Why would it be impossible?

But that's not my point. We're reading Greek. Whether or not it's accurate it has to be a translation of the events and sayings that took place ... not to mention the problem of being written decades later.

Right. But, so what? That's a more or less comprehensible language problem about which more is being understood through scholarly work including the now accessible Dead Sea scrolls which are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Thanks for pointing it out. We shouldn't ignore that possibility. But are you thinking that Jesus just picked up the Greek, or that he went to school to learn it? If he went to school then he would definitely be Hellenized. In fact, if he just picked up the Greek then, that would mean that he was picking up Hellenic influences. We may not have any actual evidence, but given how widespread and long standing Hellenism was, it's likely that Jesus was Hellenized to some extent. What we've got of it, in Greek, was certainly Hellenized.

About Jesus specifically we have the Aramaic sayings but no factual statement in the NT as to what language(s) he spoke. But, about first century Galilee there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that Hellenistic culture and the Greek language were part of his everyday social environment.

"Three hundred years of hellenistic influence just before the time of Jesus is an especially important factor. Hellenistic influence has been downplayed by scholars in the interest of buttressing the picture of Jesus appearing in the midst of a thoroughly Jewish culture. Unfortunately for this view, archeological evidence of hellenization in Galilee continues to increase.

Since language is such a basic index of cultural influence, it is significant that southern Galilee was largely Greek-speaking in the first century, though of course bilingual.

Although the Ptolemies and Seleucids had not colonized Galilee by founding a new city in the middle of the region, Galilee was literally surrounded by cities on the hellenistic model. The towns of the Decapolis were newly founded hellenistic cities. One of them, Scythopolis, was on the southern border of Galilee and another, Gadara, was just across the Jordan, a day’s walk from Nazareth or Sepphoris.

All of these cities were proud of their hellenistic institutions, including theaters, sporting arenas (gymnasia), and schools. Gadara produced famous philosophers and poets of the Cynic school, including Meleager (100 B.C.E.), Philodemus (110–40 B.C.E.), and Oenomaus (120 C.E.).

Tiberias, built by Herod Antipas on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in 19 C.E., was founded on the hellenistic model. And Sepphoris, an hour’s walk from Nazareth, was a thoroughly hellenized city."

Mack, Burton L.. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (pp. 57-58). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

That's a lot to call into question. The JS leave us with even less than the little that we've got already. I don't know if they're helping. And if Jesus didn't speak Greek, then they are wrong.

I appreciate that that's how it seems to you. Your skepticism seems to cut both ways. But, again you haven't supported your conclusion. Above you stated accurate translation may be impossible; now you assert impossibility is an established fact. Was that a leap of doubt?

Accurate work got done through translation in the Roman Empire everyday. Otherwise how would the empire function effectively? I'm not denying the significance of translation on language or meaning. But, to conclude that if translation took place accurate meaning was not conveyed is too much unless you can show positively how and why.

I suppose you're talking about Mar_1:15 : And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. But as I understand it there is a debate among scholars of what "at hand" means. Does it mean, 'the kingdom is standing in front of you?' Or does it mean that the kingdom is near as in coming soon?

That's a big question upon which the OP question the meaning of what Christianity is depends. And it's tied to Jesus' self-understanding which is a difficult question in itself. Out of the ambiguity of these issues in the texts has arisen all of the sects and denominations and now the different scholarly schools of thought. That's why people turn to divinely inspired authorities of God like the Pope, Joseph Smith, Nee and Lee who claim to have answers that mere mortals don't possess.

Isn't it thought that Peter dictated it to Mark, who wrote it down in Greek? But we don't know the author of the gospel of Mark, or any of the others, for that matter. We're flying blind here.

It's surprising that Peter didn't mention to Mark that Jesus had said "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church", when he dictated the gospel to him. You would think it would be a difficult detail for him to forget what with the pun on his own name as a mnemonic device. He doesn't mention it in his Epistles either. Nor does Paul mention that Peter relayed the story to him in any of his letters.

[awareness]

Great response. Thanks for taking the time to reply. And I'm sure the hordes reading this thread appreciate it too.

Originally Posted by zeek

Why would it be impossible?

I know you know that translations are hard. That's why we've got so many of them. And now, we even have footnotes to explain the translated wording. Not just Lee, but The Net Bible to boot.

Originally Posted by z

Right. But, so what? That's a more or less comprehensible language problem about which more is being understood through scholarly work including the now accessible Dead Sea scrolls which are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

"2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

I've heard plenty of Christians saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove their Christian faith.

The truth is, these finds, and the Nag Hammadi finds, are disturbing the Christian faith. We're finding out more and more how they thought back then. Sound minded Christians today would consider that their superstitious mindset was silly to the absurd ; some of it, for sure. And when we realize how they thought back then, and apply it to the stories we consider authoritative, it's disturbing.

I mean, the 'walking talking cross' found in the Gospel of Peter is just absurd. But so is the virgin birth found in the canonical gospels. That's how they thought back then, 2000 years ago ... get that, back 2000 years ago. We know very little of what went on back then. Only some writings that have managed to survive, that can only tell very little. So finding new records is a sensation to the scholars, and it trickles down to ordinary Christian believers, thanks to the web.

Originally Posted by z

About Jesus specifically we have the Aramaic sayings but no factual statement in the NT as to what language(s) he spoke. But, about first century Galilee there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that Hellenistic culture and the Greek language were part of his everyday social environment.

"Three hundred years of hellenistic influence just before the time of Jesus is an especially important factor. Hellenistic influence has been downplayed by scholars in the interest of buttressing the picture of Jesus appearing in the midst of a thoroughly Jewish culture. Unfortunately for this view, archeological evidence of hellenization in Galilee continues to increase.

Since language is such a basic index of cultural influence, it is significant that southern Galilee was largely Greek-speaking in the first century, though of course bilingual.

Although the Ptolemies and Seleucids had not colonized Galilee by founding a new city in the middle of the region, Galilee was literally surrounded by cities on the hellenistic model. The towns of the Decapolis were newly founded hellenistic cities. One of them, Scythopolis, was on the southern border of Galilee and another, Gadara, was just across the Jordan, a day’s walk from Nazareth or Sepphoris.

All of these cities were proud of their hellenistic institutions, including theaters, sporting arenas (gymnasia), and schools. Gadara produced famous philosophers and poets of the Cynic school, including Meleager (100 B.C.E.), Philodemus (110–40 B.C.E.), and Oenomaus (120 C.E.).

Tiberias, built by Herod Antipas on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in 19 C.E., was founded on the hellenistic model. And Sepphoris, an hour’s walk from Nazareth, was a thoroughly hellenized city."

Mack, Burton L.. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (pp. 57-58). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Thanks for presenting that.

Originally Posted by z

I appreciate that that's how it seems to you. Your skepticism seems to cut both ways. But, again you haven't supported your conclusion. Above you stated accurate translation may be impossible; now you assert impossibility is an established fact. Was that a leap of doubt?

Just adding it up as best I can.

Originally Posted by z

Accurate work got done through translation in the Roman Empire everyday. Otherwise how would the empire function effectively? I'm not denying the significance of translation on language or meaning. But, to conclude that if translation took place accurate meaning was not conveyed is too much unless you can show positively how and why.

I'd have to be bilingual to determine that.

Originally Posted by z

That's a big question upon which the OP question the meaning of what Christianity is depends. And it's tied to Jesus' self-understanding which is a difficult question in itself. Out of the ambiguity of these issues in the texts has arisen all of the sects and denominations and now the different scholarly schools of thought. That's why people turn to divinely inspired authorities of God like the Pope, Joseph Smith, Nee and Lee who claim to have answers that mere mortals don't possess.

I guess we fall for those that have the explanations. We love explanations.

Originally Posted by z

It's surprising that Peter didn't mention to Mark that Jesus had said "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church", when he dictated the gospel to him.

That's an argument against Peter dictating to Mark.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great response. Thanks for taking the time to reply. And I'm sure the hordes reading this thread appreciate it too.


I know you know that translations are hard. That's why we've got so many of them. And now, we even have footnotes to explain the translated wording. Not just Lee, but The Net Bible to boot.

"2. Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]"

I've heard plenty of Christians saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove their Christian faith.

The truth is, these finds, and the Nag Hammadi finds, are disturbing the Christian faith. We're finding out more and more how they thought back then. Sound minded Christians today would consider that their superstitious mindset was silly to the absurd ; some of it, for sure. And when we realize how they thought back then, and apply it to the stories we consider authoritative, it's disturbing.

I mean, the 'walking talking cross' found in the Gospel of Peter is just absurd. But so is the virgin birth found in the canonical gospels. That's how they thought back then, 2000 years ago ... get that, back 2000 years ago. We know very little of what went on back then. Only some writings that have managed to survive, that can only tell very little. So finding new records is a sensation to the scholars, and it trickles down to ordinary Christian believers, thanks to the web.


Thanks for presenting that.


Just adding it up as best I can.


I'd have to be bilingual to determine that.


I guess we fall for those that have the explanations. We love explanations.


That's an argument against Peter dictating to Mark.

I don't know if anybody is reading this thread besides you and me. The question is why Christian's were seduced away from the simple teachings of Jesus to create the corrupt institution that Lee alleged was "Christianity. I figured that all people that were ever involved in the Lord's recovery must have supposed that something like that happened.

Apostasy was a word we used to refer to it. And we believed that God himself is going to restore the church back to its original state or, perhaps even a better state. In that sense the Lord's recovery was part of the larger Christian restoration movement.

So obviously it's a vast and controversial subject about which there is no agreement among Christians generally. I've been pursuing the hypothesis that Hellenism which is sometimes blamed for the apostasy was actually an influence from the beginning possibly even on Jesus himself. I'm investigating the historical evidence. But I admit it isn't a conclusively proven theory and I haven't insisted that anybody accept it as a condition in order to participate on this thread. I welcome all points of view.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't know if anybody is reading this thread besides you and me.

Tracking the views reveals some are. I don't get it. LCer's and exLCer's are very familiar with seeing most of Christianity as poor. We got lots of that in the LC. I still see it that way.

That's why I'm interested in this thread. I too would like to know when and where it went south.

Originally Posted by z

The question is why Christian's were seduced away from the simple teachings of Jesus to create the corrupt institution that Lee alleged was "Christianity.

Not only did the disciples fail to "get" (grok) Jesus, after Jesus left lots of others had difficulty getting Jesus. Conflicting groups cropped up quickly. By Paul's time they were already present.

Things had to be explained. Jesus' baptism for one thing. And how about that body that could walk thru walls, and disguise itself so that even those that were close to him couldn't recognize him? What about that body? Was it just a phantom, a seeming? And what about the kingdom? What happened to that? The Romans still ruled the holy land.

So very early on there were differences of opinions about Jesus springing up. Which one was the Christianity that Jesus taught and practiced? Those that weren't took Christianity south. And reactions against them didn't help either.

Originally Posted by z

I figured that all people that were ever involved in the Lord's recovery must have supposed that something like that happened.

Well most protestants would agree that something like that happened at Constantine. He certainly made profound and lasting changes to Christianity, and even the scriptures ... with the force of law I might add.

Originally Posted by z

Apostasy was a word we used to refer to it. And we believed that God himself is going to restore the church back to its original state or, perhaps even a better state. In that sense the Lord's recovery was part of the larger Christian restoration movement.

If only we can get the church back to its early pristine state, God will pour out the same blessings He poured out at Pentecost ... and oh, Jesus will come back. It all depends upon us.

Originally Posted by z

So obviously it's a vast and controversial subject about which there is no agreement among Christians generally. I've been pursuing the hypothesis that Hellenism which is sometimes blamed for the apostasy was actually an influence from the beginning possibly even on Jesus himself. I'm investigating the historical evidence. But I admit it isn't a conclusively proven theory and I haven't insisted that anybody accept it as a condition in order to participate on this thread. I welcome all points of view.

The Christianity we have today is based upon Hellenistic methods and schools. Even our canon was formed using Hellenistic methods of classification. Because of prophet Montanus, and his new revelations from the Holy Spirit, Eusebius and the bishops wouldn't use "inspiration" to determine the books of our canon. Lots weren't even used, like how the disciple was selected to replace Judas (Acts 1:26).

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Tracking the views reveals some are. I don't get it. LCer's and exLCer's are very familiar with seeing most of Christianity as poor. We got lots of that in the LC. I still see it that way.

That's why I'm interested in this thread. I too would like to know when and where it went south.

Even though ex-local churchers are aware of Witness Lee's negative appraisal of Christianity and have their own opinions about it they may be reluctant to engage in a discussion in which their own opinions become just one of many. The important thing to a dogmatist is to preserve the illusion that he possesses the final answer. The more I delve into the history of the origins of the church, the more questions I have. Why would one that is content with dogmatic faith want to give up their certainty for questions?

To the Christian isn't unquestioning faith is a virtue? If so, doesn't knowledge or the pursuit of it corrupt them? Hasn't a frequent poster in Alt Views told us this many times? His method includes dismissing facts and sources that might get in the way of his dogma which he calls "The Faith". Perhaps other readers of this thread share that brother's aversion to knowledge but are simply more reticent about expressing it in a forum where it might be challenged.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Even though ex-local churchers are aware of Witness Lee's negative appraisal of Christianity and have their own opinions about it they may be reluctant to engage in a discussion in which their own opinions become just one of many. The important thing to a dogmatist is to preserve the illusion that he possesses the final answer. The more I delve into the history of the origins of the church, the more questions I have. Why would one that is content with dogmatic faith want to give up their certainty for questions?

To the Christian isn't unquestioning faith is a virtue? If so, doesn't knowledge or the pursuit of it corrupt them? Hasn't a frequent poster in Alt Views told us this many times? His method includes dismissing facts and sources that might get in the way of his dogma which he calls "The Faith". Perhaps other readers of this thread share that brother's aversion to knowledge but are simply more reticent about expressing it in a forum where it might be challenged.

I guess you are right. ExLCers know full well about poor Christianity. Some of them, I suppose, like our brother Ohio perchance, gave that idea up after leaving the LC, and now no longer look on Christianity as poor, except here and there maybe ... like Lee's Local Church. To them, the ones that warmed back up to what Lee called poor, even Roman Catholicism isn't totally poor. It gave us our canon, and the creeds. That's not totally poor. Some see Evangelical Christianity as not poor.

So maybe they still hold Christianity as poor, but only Imperial Christianity, that was born with Constantine, they hold as poor, and that to them is when Christianity became poor. They hold the traditional Protestant view.

Not all of it was/is poor. In fact, those thinking Roman Catholicism made Christianity poor, stand on what the RCC founded : The Canon ; the selections of the books that make up our Bible ; that we now stand on as the very Word of God.

And that to them is the antithesis of poor. Problem solved. Christianity no longer poor.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess you are right. ExLCers know full well about poor Christianity. Some of them, I suppose, like our brother Ohio perchance, gave that idea up after leaving the LC, and now no longer look on Christianity as poor, except here and there maybe ... like Lee's Local Church. To them, the ones that warmed back up to what Lee called poor, even Roman Catholicism isn't totally poor. It gave us our canon, and the creeds. That's not totally poor. Some see Evangelical Christianity as not poor.

So maybe they still hold Christianity as poor, but only Imperial Christianity, that was born with Constantine, they hold as poor, and that to them is when Christianity became poor. They hold the traditional Protestant view.

Not all of it was/is poor. In fact, those thinking Roman Catholicism made Christianity poor, stand on what the RCC founded : The Canon ; the selections of the books that make up our Bible ; that we now stand on as the very Word of God.

And that to them is the antithesis of poor. Problem solved. Christianity no longer poor.

To Witness Lee, Christianity was a negative term. It meant that humans had constructed something other then what God intended for Christ. Lee's often repeated slogan for this was "Every 'anity' (sic) is a vanity." Ergo, for Lee Christianity is a vanity. God's intention was to constitute the church with Christ. Christianity was an aberration.

While Lee admitted there was an element of Christ in Christianity, as he explained it, in Christianity Christ was mixed with something it shouldn't be. Metaphorically he referred to this as "leaven".

When I was in the local church I was fully indoctrinated into this kind of thinking and I accepted it wholeheartedly. But historical research shows that non-Christ elements such as Hellenism were there from the beginning. And, the perfectionism implied in this kind of thinking is Neo-platonic and doesn't seem to be attainable in this world.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

To Witness Lee, Christianity was a negative term. It meant that humans had constructed something other then what God intended for Christ. Lee's often repeated slogan for this was "Every 'anity' (sic) is a vanity." Ergo, for Lee Christianity is a vanity. God's intention was to constitute the church with Christ. Christianity was an aberration.

And of course what Lee was constructing is what Christ intended ... with The Recovery ... back to the "Christianity" of Jesus. What a joke that to do that would mean making Christianity Jewish again - MCJA - (going back past Paul to James). But I don't recall Lee ever defining to where/when he was recovering back to ... other than one church-one city ... that doesn't go back to Jesus, nor did he intend such a thing ... not according to the gospels.

Originally Posted by z

While Lee admitted there was an element of Christ in Christianity, as he explained it, in Christianity Christ was mixed with something it shouldn't be. Metaphorically he referred to this as "leaven".

And that is likely true. The question is, when did the leaven come in? For example, one could wonder if Koine Greek was yeast added to the early lump of Christendom. And of course another possibility for yeast to enter into the early Jesus movement is the many sects that sprang up early on.

Originally Posted by z

When I was in the local church I was fully indoctrinated into this kind of thinking and I accepted it wholeheartedly. But historical research shows that non-Christ elements such as Hellenism were there from the beginning.

But if we believe in the sovereignty of God it's obvious that God wanted Jesus, and his movement, to come up during the Hellenic period.

Originally Posted by z

And, the perfectionism implied in this kind of thinking is Neo-platonic and doesn't seem to be attainable in this world.

But maybe if we can get everything setup just right, God will pour out the Spirit again, like Pentecost. That Recovery would be up to God ... and given our track record, if it's up to us humans, we ain't never gonna get it right.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And of course what Lee was constructing is what Christ intended ... with The Recovery ... back to the "Christianity" of Jesus. What a joke that to do that would mean making Christianity Jewish again - MCJA - (going back past Paul to James). But I don't recall Lee ever defining to where/when he was recovering back to ... other than one church-one city ... that doesn't go back to Jesus, nor did he intend such a thing ... not according to the gospels.


And that is likely true. The question is, when did the leaven come in? For example, one could wonder if Koine Greek was yeast added to the early lump of Christendom. And of course another possibility for yeast to enter into the early Jesus movement is the many sects that sprang up early on.


But if we believe in the sovereignty of God it's obvious that God wanted Jesus, and his movement, to come up during the Hellenic period.


But maybe if we can get everything setup just right, God will pour out the Spirit again, like Pentecost. That Recovery would be up to God ... and given our track record, if it's up to us humans, we ain't never gonna get it right.

I haven't found any historical confirmation of the Pentecostal event recorded in Acts 2. Of course it's ludicrous to suppose that we can bring back Jesus have him die and resurrect again in order to reproduce the Acts 2 event. On the other hand the Eucharist itself is seen as a means of invoking the death and resurrection of Christ symbolically and people do believe that they are in-filled with the Holy Spirit as a result of that ritual.

Isn't it remarkable that 32 years (approximately 37 years in your case, I think) after leaving the local church and for all intents and purposes organized Christianity we continue to study and be fascinated by the Bible. Unfortunately the Evangelical Christians here don't appreciate that because our views don't strictly conform to theirs.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I haven't found any historical confirmation of the Pentecostal event recorded in Acts 2.

How do we get historical confirmation of anything? We're stuck with books. Acts is one of them.

I agree that It would be nice to 'hear' from others, 'that were there,' beside Luke's (or whoever) secondhand account. The author of Luke, writing decades after the events he tells of, admits to gathering up all the stories available at that time. And the Pentecost event was one of them.

But as told all the disciples were there. Why don't we hear from them? What's up with that?

Early church father Irenaeus, late 2nd c., said :

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

That's why there are only four gospels? But there were 12 disciples. Why not 12 gospels. Wouldn't that be better to base the number of gospels on, rather than the winds, pillars, and corners of the universe?

And we have many "Acts." We've got : "The Acts of John" ; "The Acts of Paul" ; "The Acts of Peter" ; and a dozen others. So why only one Acts in our canon, by a guy that's gathering stories, and telling them secondhand?

The Pentecost was a giant event. Nothing like that had ever happened, or happened since. It must have blown every bodies mind. Wouldn't everyone want to tell that story?

I guess not. Also, like you pointed out, no Recovery or Restoration will ever bring that back. The Eucharist is a very poor substitute. It's just killing Jesus all over again.

Originally Posted by z

Isn't it remarkable that 32 years (approximately 37 years in your case, I think) after leaving the local church and for all intents and purposes organized Christianity we continue to study and be fascinated by the Bible. Unfortunately the Evangelical Christians here don't appreciate that because our views don't strictly conform to theirs.

And we study it more than they do. Go figure.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

How do we get historical confirmation of anything? We're stuck with books. Acts is one of them.

I agree that It would be nice to 'hear' from others, 'that were there,' beside Luke's (or whoever) secondhand account. The author of Luke, writing decades after the events he tells of, admits to gathering up all the stories available at that time. And the Pentecost event was one of them.

But as told all the disciples were there. Why don't we hear from them? What's up with that?

Early church father Irenaeus, late 2nd c., said :

"There are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

That's why there are only four gospels? But there were 12 disciples. Why not 12 gospels. Wouldn't that be better to base the number of gospels on, rather than the winds, pillars, and corners of the universe?

And we have many "Acts." We've got : "The Acts of John" ; "The Acts of Paul" ; "The Acts of Peter" ; and a dozen others. So why only one Acts in our canon, by a guy that's gathering stories, and telling them secondhand?

The Pentecost was a giant event. Nothing like that had ever happened, or happened since. It must have blown every bodies mind. Wouldn't everyone want to tell that story?

I guess not. Also, like you pointed out, no Recovery or Restoration will ever bring that back. The Eucharist is a very poor substitute. It's just killing Jesus all over again.


And we study it more than they do. Go figure.

I am aware that like me you are reading early primary Christian sources as well as studying the works of professional historians who have investigated the era. You have often commented on the fantastical character of the writings of authors from the early centuries of the common era. Burton L. Mack, scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament confirms this.

"An explosion of the collective imagination signals change, and the first Christian century experienced just such an explosion. It marks the time as uncertain and it registers an outpouring of human energy and intellectual activity in the production of myths.

Christians were not the only people creating new myths. The literature of the time is famous for its fantastic worlds and imaginary explorations of legendary figures. But Christians were the ones who managed the mythology that western culture eventually accepted as its own.

Christians have never been comfortable with the notion of myth or willing to see their own myths as the product of human imagination and intellectual labor. This strong resistance is not due to a perversity peculiar to Christians but is a peculiarity integral to the Christian myth itself. The Christian myth was generated in a social experiment aware of its recent beginnings, and because the myth was about those beginnings, early Christians imagined their myth as history.

The myth focused on the importance of Jesus as the founder figure of the movements, congregations, and institutions Christians were forming. Thus history and myth were fused into a single characterization, and the myths of origin were written and imagined as having happened at a recent time and in a specific place.

Christians of the second, third, and fourth centuries found themselves troubled by the resemblance of their myths to both Greek and Jewish mythologies. They could distance themselves from these other cultures and distinguish their myths from the others only by emphasizing the recent historical setting of their myths and the impression given by the narrative gospels that the myths really happened."

Mack, Burton L.. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (pp. 207-208). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I am aware that like me you are reading early primary Christian sources as well as studying the works of professional historians who have investigated the era. You have often commented on the fantastical character of the writings of authors from the early centuries of the common era. Burton L. Mack, scholar of early Christian history and the New Testament confirms this.

"An explosion of the collective imagination signals change, and the first Christian century experienced just such an explosion. It marks the time as uncertain and it registers an outpouring of human energy and intellectual activity in the production of myths.

Christians were not the only people creating new myths. The literature of the time is famous for its fantastic worlds and imaginary explorations of legendary figures. But Christians were the ones who managed the mythology that western culture eventually accepted as its own.

Christians have never been comfortable with the notion of myth or willing to see their own myths as the product of human imagination and intellectual labor. This strong resistance is not due to a perversity peculiar to Christians but is a peculiarity integral to the Christian myth itself. The Christian myth was generated in a social experiment aware of its recent beginnings, and because the myth was about those beginnings, early Christians imagined their myth as history.

The myth focused on the importance of Jesus as the founder figure of the movements, congregations, and institutions Christians were forming. Thus history and myth were fused into a single characterization, and the myths of origin were written and imagined as having happened at a recent time and in a specific place.

Christians of the second, third, and fourth centuries found themselves troubled by the resemblance of their myths to both Greek and Jewish mythologies. They could distance themselves from these other cultures and distinguish their myths from the others only by emphasizing the recent historical setting of their myths and the impression given by the narrative gospels that the myths really happened."

Mack, Burton L.. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (pp. 207-208). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

What a synchronicity. I was just thinking the same thing early this morning.

I'm reading The Lost Books of the Bible. I'm amazed that during the early days of Christianity, during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even the 4th century, those that called themselves Christians made up all kinds of mythologies about Jesus.

Maybe that's why Burton Mack considered the canonical gospels mythology ... or at least one of his reasons.

To make my point I'd like to present something from The Gospel of Nicodemus, or The Acts of Pilate :

Acts of Pilate
THE DESCENT INTO HELL
*And Joseph arose and said unto Annas and Caiaphas: Truly and of right do ye marvel because ye have heard that Jesus hath been seen alive after death, and that he hath ascended into heaven. Nevertheless it is more marvelous that he rose not alone from the dead, but did raise up alive many other dead out of their sepulchres, and they have been seen of many in Jerusalem. And now hearken unto me; for we all know the blessed Simeon, the high priest which received the child Jesus in his hands in the temple. And this Simeon had two sons, brothers in blood and we all were at their falling asleep and at their burial. Go therefore and look upon their sepulchres: for they are open, because they have risen, and behold they are in the city of Arimathaea dwelling together in prayer. And indeed men hear them crying out, yet they speak with no man, but are silent as dead men. But come, let us go unto them and with all honour and gentleness bring them unto us, and if we adjure them, perchance they will tell us concerning the mystery of their rising again.

When they heard these things, they all rejoiced. And Annas and Caiaphas, Nicodemus and Joseph and Gamaliel went and found them not in their sepulchre, but they went unto the city of Arimathaea, and found them there, kneeling on their knees and giving themselves unto prayer. And they kissed them, and with all reverence and in the fear of God they brought them to Jerusalem into the synagogue. And they shut the doors and took the law of the Lord and put it into their hands, and adjured them by the God Adonai and the God of Israel which spake unto our fathers by the prophets, saying: Believe ye that it is Jesus which raised you from the dead? Tell us how ye have arisen from the dead.

And when Karinus and Leucius heard this adjuration, they trembled in their body and groaned, being troubled in heart. And looking up together unto heaven they made the seal of the cross with their fingers upon their tongues, and forthwith they spake both of them, saying: Give us each a volume of paper, and let us write that which we have seen and heard. And they gave them unto them, and each of them sat down and wrote, saying:

*O Lord Jesu Christ, the life and resurrection of the dead (al. resurrection of the dead and the life of the living), suffer us to speak of the mysteries of thy majesty which thou didst perform after thy death upon the cross, inasmuch as we have been adjured by thy Name. For thou didst command us thy servants to tell no man the secrets of thy divine majesty which thou wroughtest in hell.

Now when we were set together with all our fathers in the deep, in obscurity of darkness, on a sudden there came a golden heat of the sun and a purple and royal light shining upon us. And immediately the father of the whole race of men, together with all the patriarchs and prophets, rejoiced, saying: This light is the beginning (author) of everlasting light which did promise to send unto us his co-eternal light. And Esaias cried out and said: This is the light of the Father, even the Son of God, according as I prophesied when I lived upon the earth: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim beyond Jordan, of Galilee of the Gentiles, the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light, and they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them did the light shine. And now hath it come and shone upon us that sit in death.

And as we all rejoiced in the light which shined upon us, there came unto us our father Simeon, and he rejoicing said unto us: Glorify ye the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; for I received him in my hands in the temple when he was born a child, and being moved of the Holy Ghost I made confession and said unto him: Now have mine eyes seen thy salvation which thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of thy people Israel. And when they heard these things, the whole multitude of the saints rejoiced yet more.

And after that there came one as it were a dweller in the wilderness, and he was inquired of by all: Who art thou? And he answered them and said: I am John, the voice and the prophet of the most High, which came before the face of his advent to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people, for the remission of their sins. And when I saw him coming unto me, being moved of the Holy Ghost, I said: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world. And I baptized him in the river of Jordan, and saw the Holy Ghost descending upon him in the likeness of a dove, and heard a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And now have I come before his face, and come down to declare unto you that he is at hand to visit us, even the day spring, the Son of God, coming from on high unto us that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.

*And when father Adam that was first created heard this, even that Jesus was baptized in Jordan, he cried out to Seth his son, saying: Declare unto thy sons the patriarchs and the prophets all that thou didst hear from Michael the archangel, when I sent thee unto the gates of paradise that thou mightest entreat God to send thee his angel to give thee the oil of the tree of mercy to anoint my body when I was sick. Then Seth drew near unto the holy patriarchs and prophets, and said: When I, Seth, was praying at the gates of paradise, behold Michael the angel of the Lord appeared unto me, saying: I am sent unto thee from the Lord: it is I that am set over the body of man. And I say unto thee, Seth, vex not thyself with tears, praying and entreating for the oil of the tree of mercy, that thou mayest anoint thy father Adam for the pain of his body: for thou wilt not be able to receive it save in the last days and times, save when five thousand and five hundred (al. 5,952) years are accomplished: then shall the most beloved Son of God come upon the earth to raise up the body of Adam and the bodies of the dead, and he shall come and be baptized in Jordan. And when he is come forth of the water of Jordan, then shall he anoint with the oil of mercy all that believe on him, and that oil of mercy shall be unto all generations of them that shall be born of water and of the Holy Ghost, unto life eternal. Then shall the most beloved Son of God, even Christ Jesus, come down upon the earth and shall bring in our father Adam into paradise unto the tree of mercy.

And when they heard all these things of Seth, all the patriarchs and prophets rejoiced with a great rejoicing.

*And while all the saints were rejoicing, behold Satan the prince and chief of death said unto Hell: Make thyself ready to receive Jesus who boasteth himself that he is the Son of God, whereas he is a man that feareth death, and sayeth: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. And he hath been much mine enemy, doing me great hurt, and many that I had made blind, lame, dumb, leprous, and possessed he hath healed with a word: and some whom I have brought unto thee dead, them hath he taken away from thee.

Hell answered and said unto Satan the prince: Who is he that is so mighty, if he be a man that feareth death? for all the mighty ones of the earth are held in subjection by my power, even they whom thou hast brought me subdued by thy power. If, then, thou art mighty, what manner of man is this Jesus who, though he fear death, resisteth thy power? If he be so mighty in his manhood, verily I say unto thee he is almighty in his god-head, and no man can withstand his power. And when he saith that he feareth death, he would ensnare thee, and woe shall be unto thee for everlasting ages. But Satan the prince of Tartarus said: Why doubtest thou and fearest to receive this Jesus which is thine adversary and mine? For I tempted him, and have stirred up mine ancient people of the Jews with envy and wrath against him. I have sharpened a spear to thrust him through, gall and vinegar have I mingled to give him to drink, and I have prepared a cross to crucify him and nails to pierce him: and his death is nigh at hand, that I may bring him unto thee to be subject unto thee and me.

Hell answered and said: Thou hast told me that it is he that hath taken away dead men from me. For there be many which while they lived on the earth have taken dead men from me, yet not by their own power but by prayer to God, and their almighty God hath taken them from me. Who is this Jesus which by his own word without prayer hath drawn dead men from me? Perchance it is he which by the word of his command did restore to life Lazarus which was four days dead and stank and was corrupt, whom I held here dead. Satan the prince of death answered and said: It is that same Jesus. When Hell heard that he said unto him: I adjure thee by thy strength and mine own that thou bring him not unto me. For at that time I, when I heard the command of his word, did quake and was overwhelmed with fear, and all my ministries with me were troubled. Neither could we keep Lazarus, but he like an eagle shaking himself leaped forth with all agility and swiftness, and departed from us, and the earth also which held the dead body of Lazarus straightway gave him up alive. Wherefore now I know that that man which was able to do these things is a God strong in command and mighty in manhood, and that he is the saviour of mankind. And if thou bring him unto me he will set free all that are here shut up in the hard prison and bound in the chains of their sins that cannot be broken, and will bring them unto the life of his god head for ever.

*And as Satan the prince, and Hell, spoke this together, suddenly there came a voice as of thunder and a spiritual cry: Remove, O princes, your gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in. When Hell heard that he said unto Satan the prince: Depart from me and go out of mine abode: if thou be a mighty man of war, fight thou against the King of glory. But what hast thou to do with him? And Hell cast Satan forth out of his dwelling. Then said Hell unto his wicked ministers: Shut ye the hard gates of brass and put on them the bars of iron and withstand stoutly, lest we that hold captivity be taken captive.

But when all the multitude of the saints heard it, they spake with a voice of rebuking unto Hell: Open thy gates, that the King of glory may come in. And David cried out, saying: Did I not when I was alive upon earth, foretell unto you: Let them give thanks unto the Lord, even his mercies and his wonders unto the children of men; who hath broken the gates of brass and smitten the bars of iron in sunder? he hath taken them out of the way of their iniquity. And thereafter in like manner Esaias said: Did not I when I was alive upon earth foretell unto you: The dead shall arise, and they that are in the tombs shall rise again, and they that are in the earth shall rejoice, for the dew which cometh of the Lord is their healing? And again I said: O death, where is thy sting? O Hell, where is thy victory?

When they heard that of Esaias, all the saints said unto Hell: Open thy gates: now shalt thou be overcome and weak and without strength. And there came a great voice as of thunder, saying: Remove, O princes, your gates, and be ye lift up ye doors of hell, and the King of glory shall come in. And when Hell saw that they so cried out twice, he said, as if he knew it not: Who is the King of glory? And David answered Hell and said: The words of this cry do I know, for by his spirit I prophesied the same; and now I say unto thee that which I said before: The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle, he is the King of glory. And: The Lord looked down from heaven that he might hear the groanings of them that are in fetters and deliver the children of them that have been slain. And now, O thou most foul and stinking Hell, open thy gates, that the King of glory may come in. And as David spake thus unto Hell, the Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succour of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins.

*When Hell and death and their wicked ministers saw that, they were stricken with fear, they and their cruel officers, at the sight of the brightness of so great light in their own realm, seeing Christ of a sudden in their abode, and they cried out, saying: We are overcome by thee. Who art thou that art sent by the Lord for our confusion? Who art thou that without all damage of corruption, and with the signs (?) of thy majesty unblemished, dost in wrath condemn our power? Who art thou that art so great and so small, both humble and exalted, both soldier and commander, a marvelous warrior in the shape of a bondsman, and a King of glory dead and living, whom the cross bare slain upon it? Thou that didst lie dead in the sepulchre hast come down unto us living and at thy death all creation quaked and all the stars were shaken and thou hast become free among the dead and dost rout our legions. Who art thou that settest free the prisoners that are held bound by original sin and restorest them into their former liberty? Who art thou that sheddest thy divine and bright light upon them that were blinded with the darkness of their sins? After the same manner all the legions of devils were stricken with like fear and cried out all together in the terror of their confusion, saying: Whence art thou, Jesus, a man so mighty and bright in majesty, so excellent without spot and clean from sin? For that world of earth which hath been always subject unto us until now, and did pay tribute to our profit, hath never sent unto us a dead man like thee, nor ever dispatched such a gift unto Hell. Who then art thou that so fearlessly enterest our borders, and not only fearest not our torments, but besides essayest to bear away all men out of our bonds? Peradventure thou art that Jesus, of whom Satan our prince said that by thy death of the cross thou shouldest receive the dominion of the whole world.

Then did the King of glory in his majesty trample upon death, and laid hold on Satan the prince and delivered him unto the power of Hell, and drew Adam to him unto his own brightness.

*Then Hell, receiving Satan the prince, with sore reproach said unto him: O prince of perdition and chief of destruction, Beelzebub, the scorn of the angels and spitting of the righteous why wouldest thou do this? Thou wouldest crucify the King of glory and at his decease didst promise us great spoils of his death: like a fool thou knewest not what thou didst. For behold now, this Jesus putteth to flight by the brightness of his majesty all the darkness of death, and hath broken the strong depths of the prisons, and let out the prisoners and loosed them that were bound. And all that were sighing in our torments do rejoice against us, and at their prayers our dominions are vanquished and our realms conquered, and now no nation of men feareth us any more. And beside this, the dead which were never wont to be proud triumph over us, and the captives which never could be joyful do threaten us. O prince Satan, father of all the wicked and ungodly and renegades wherefore wouldest thou do this? They that from the beginning until now have despaired of life and salvation-now is none of their wonted roarings heard, neither doth any groan from them sound in our ears, nor is there any sign of tears upon the face of any of them. O prince Satan, holder of the keys of hell, those thy riches which thou hadst gained by the tree of transgression and the losing of paradise, thou hast lost by the tree of the cross, and all thy gladness hath perished. When thou didst hang up Christ Jesus the King of glory thou wroughtest against thyself and against me. Henceforth thou shalt know what eternal torments and infinite pains thou art to suffer in my keeping for ever. O prince Satan, author of death and head of all pride, thou oughtest first to have sought out matter of evil in this Jesus: Wherefore didst thou adventure without cause to crucify him unjustly against whom thou foundest no blame, and to bring into our realm the innocent and righteous one, and to lose the guilty and the ungodly and unrighteous of the whole world? And when Hell had spoken thus unto Satan the prince, then said the King of glory unto Hell: Satan the prince shall be in thy power unto all ages in the stead of Adam and his children, even those that are my righteous ones.

*And the Lord stretching forth his hand, said: Come unto me, all ye my saints which bear mine image and my likeness. Ye that by the tree and the devil and death were condemned, behold now the devil and death condemned by the tree. And forthwith all the saints were gathered in one under the hand of the Lord. And the Lord holding the right hand of Adam, said unto him: Peace be unto thee with all thy children that are my righteous ones. But Adam, casting himself at the knees of the Lord entreated him with tears and beseechings, and said with a loud voice: I will magnify thee, O Lord, for thou hast set me up and not made my foes to triumph over me: O Lord my God I cried unto thee and thou hast healed me; Lord, thou hast brought my soul out of hell, thou hast delivered me from them that go down to the pit. Sing praises unto the Lord all ye saints of his, and give thanks unto him for the remembrance of his holiness. For there is wrath in his indignation and life is in his good pleasure. In like manner all the saints of God kneeled and cast themselves at the feet of the Lord, saying with one accord: Thou art come, O redeemer of the world: that which thou didst foretell by the law and by thy prophets, that hast thou accomplished in deed. Thou hast redeemed the living by thy cross, and by the death of the cross thou hast come down unto us, that thou mightest save us out of hell and death through thy majesty. O Lord, like as thou hast set the name of thy glory in the heavens and set up thy cross for a token of redemption upon the earth, so, Lord, set thou up the sign of the victory of thy cross in hell, that death may have no more dominion.

And the Lord stretched forth his hand and made the sign of the cross over Adam and over all his saints, and he took the right hand of Adam and went up out of hell, and all the saints followed him. Then did holy David cry aloud and say: Sing unto the Lord a new song, for he hath done marvelous things. His right hand hath wrought salvation for him and his holy arm. The Lord hath made known his saving health, before the face of all nations hath he revealed his righteousness. And the whole multitude of the saints answered, saying: Such honour have all his saints. Amen, Alleluia.
~~ Lightfoot, J.B.. The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden: Banned Books from the Bible (Kindle Locations 1734-1740). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

This is obvious mythology ....

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

What a synchronicity. I was just thinking the same thing early this morning.

I'm reading The Lost Books of the Bible. I'm amazed that during the early days of Christianity, during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even the 4th century, those that called themselves Christians made up all kinds of mythologies about Jesus.

Maybe that's why Burton Mack considered the canonical gospels mythology ... or at least one of his reasons.

To make my point I'd like to present something from The Gospel of Nicodemus, or The Acts of Pilate :

Acts of Pilate
THE DESCENT INTO HELL
*And Joseph arose and said unto Annas and Caiaphas etc....

This is obvious mythology ....

"The Acts of Plate" strikes me as an imaginative story with allegorical elements like a talking hell. It was likely intended to be read in church meetings for encouragement and inspiration. Today people get good feelings by watching movies and TV shows with fictional narratives and characters in much the same way.

[zeek]

Most scholars today agree the idea of a crucified messiah starts with the historical Jesus who was actually crucified. The origin of the metaphysical elements of the narrative is still hotly debated.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Most scholars today agree the idea of a crucified messiah starts with the historical Jesus who was actually crucified. The origin of the metaphysical elements of the narrative is still hotly debated.

The eating of human sacrifices has been going on long before Jesus. The metaphysics is now symbolic, when we take the Lord's Table. Even then it's been believed for a thousand years that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Jesus.

We eat our messiah, that was a human sacrifice.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The eating of human sacrifices has been going on long before Jesus. The metaphysics is now symbolic, when we take the Lord's Table. Even then it's been believed for a thousand years that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Jesus.

We eat our messiah, that was a human sacrifice.

Yes but the sacred Christian meal is symbolic not literal, physical or corporeal. That's a step up from animal sacrifice and two steps up from human sacrifice. It does involve acceptance of the notion that God sacrificed his son in order to be one's personal savior. Insofar as that implies acceptance of the validity human sacrifice on any level, can we conclude that that has a 100% salutary effect on one's conscience? Anyway, it looks to me like Christianity began with the response of Jesus's followers to the crucifixion which many scholars today don't believe was something that was anticipated for the Messiah even by Jesus.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

The eating of human sacrifices has been going on long before Jesus. The metaphysics is now symbolic, when we take the Lord's Table. Even then it's been believed for a thousand years that the bread and wine are actually the body and blood of Jesus.

We eat our messiah, that was a human sacrifice.

Of course we believe in human sacrifice. Parents sacrifice their time, their money, their resources, even their lives for their kids. When people donate a kidney to a sick person that is "human sacrifice". When people give blood that is a blood sacrifice. The word sacrifice means to "surrender possession of".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course we believe in human sacrifice. Parents sacrifice their time, their money, their resources, even their lives for their kids. When people donate a kidney to a sick person that is "human sacrifice". When people give blood that is a blood sacrifice. The word sacrifice means to "surrender possession of".

You're using the term analogically rather than literally referring to the sacrifice of people to gods. In this particular instance you are intentionally equivocating cuz I'm quite sure you know what awareness meant.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

You're using the term analogically rather than literally referring to the sacrifice of people to gods. In this particular instance you are intentionally equivocating cuz I'm quite sure you know what awareness meant.

I think it is a simple fact that "human sacrifice" is common, necessary, and still very much part of this modern world.

And yes, that includes sacrificing the human life to "gods". After all, soldiers sacrifice their lives all the time. Many of these megalomaniacs that start these horrific wars are atheists, which is simply another way of saying they see themselves as Gods.

The difference between them and Jesus is that Jesus sacrificed His life for us and they want us to sacrifice our lives for them.

[awareness]

I'm talking about human sacrifice and cannibalism, like the Aztecs did everyday, by cutting out the heart while beating, and tossing the body down the stairs, for the owner of the sacrificed person to take home and eat.

I'm not talking about sacrificing your money at Walmart, to buy a sacrificed cow, for a burnt offering on the BBQ. I'm talking about human sacrifice, and eating it.

Speaking generally, following the evolution and development of human history, human sacrifice to a deity, and eating it, was practiced by early man. Then, as typified by Abraham's sacrifice of Issac, sacrifices to propitiate God was switched from human sacrifice, to animal sacrifice. In the Bible human sacrifice is punishable by stoning.

Zeek spoke about the sacrificed messiah. I just pointed out that our scarified messiah was a human sacrifice, that we're still eating today.

This is just a type of the old practice of early man, of sacrificing human's to propitiate a deity, and then eating it. Something God forbid in the OT.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm talking about human sacrifice and cannibalism, like the Aztecs did everyday, by cutting out the heart while beating, and tossing the body down the stairs, for the owner of the sacrificed person to take home and eat.

I'm not talking about sacrificing your money at Walmart, to buy a sacrificed cow, for a burnt offering on the BBQ. I'm talking about human sacrifice, and eating it.

Speaking generally, following the evolution and development of human history, human sacrifice to a deity, and eating it, was practiced by early man. Then, as typified by Abraham's sacrifice of Issac, sacrifices to propitiate God was switched from human sacrifice, to animal sacrifice. In the Bible human sacrifice is punishable by stoning.

Zeek spoke about the sacrificed messiah. I just pointed out that our scarified messiah was a human sacrifice, that we're still eating today.

This is just a type of the old practice of early man, of sacrificing human's to propitiate a deity, and then eating it. Something God forbid in the OT.

Let's be realistic. Stalin required human sacrifices, Mao required human sacrifices, Hitler required human sacrifices, all the Roman emperors required human sacrifices, and yes, the US govt required human sacrifices. That is the way of the world and human govt.

The only exception to this rule is Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Let's be realistic. Stalin required human sacrifices, Mao required human sacrifices, Hitler required human sacrifices, all the Roman emperors required human sacrifices, and yes, the US govt required human sacrifices. That is the way of the world and human govt.

Did they sacrifice to a deity, and then eat the sacrifices?

Originally Posted by Z

The only exception to this rule is Jesus.

What do you mean by that? Wasn't Jesus a human sacrifice, that we eat?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did they sacrifice to a deity, and then eat the sacrifices?

Yes. Roman Emperors all considered themselves deities. Likewise with Kings who had "divine right to rule". Stalin and Mao were atheists, just a convoluted way of saying they were Gods. Yes, these rulers "ate the sacrifice". Think of Nero burning down half the city so he could get a good break on the purchase of the land.

Originally Posted by awareness

What do you mean by that? Wasn't Jesus a human sacrifice, that we eat?

The rule is that human govt requires a human sacrifice from the subjects, Jesus is the exception to the rule, in His case the human sacrifice was from the Lord. In every other govt the rulers eat the human sacrifice, in the heavenly kingdom the subjects eat the sacrifice from the Lord.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes. Roman Emperors all considered themselves deities. Likewise with Kings who had "divine right to rule". Stalin and Mao were atheists, just a convoluted way of saying they were Gods. Yes, these rulers "ate the sacrifice". Think of Nero burning down half the city so he could get a good break on the purchase of the land.



The rule is that human govt requires a human sacrifice from the subjects, Jesus is the exception to the rule, in His case the human sacrifice was from the Lord. In every other govt the rulers eat the human sacrifice, in the heavenly kingdom the subjects eat the sacrifice from the Lord.

I think we'd have a better conversation if you tried to understand me. Am I not being clear about the practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think we'd have a better conversation if you tried to understand me. Am I not being clear about the practice of human sacrifice and cannibalism?

Of course I know what you are saying. You are saying that Jesus death was a human sacrifice and His instructions to us that He was giving His body and blood for us to eat and drink are analogous to cannibalism. I agree with you.

What you are missing in your insight is that it was not the Christians that crucified Jesus, nor was it according to Jewish law, nor was it according to Roman law. He was crucified by the religious and political leaders as a matter of expediency. That is what they have been doing for all of recorded history. In Egypt they slaughtered the Jewish males because they were becoming a problem. All of the Roman emperors did this, particularly Nero. All of the kings and emperors have done this. Hitler did this, etc.

There are two sides to the Lord's human sacrifice and you have only looked at one of the sides. Yes, Jesus gave His life for us. But on the other hand it was the grasping leaders trying to hold onto their position and power that took his life. They are the ones who performed the human sacrifice.

Consider the Lord's word to those that asked for a sign. If the sky is red at night you say you will have peace tomorrow, but if the sky is red in the morning you say it will be stormy. On the one hand Jesus' death was the end of the day for his followers, the sky was red at night, in the coming age we will have peace. But for those that took His life they saw it as the dawn of their day. This age we are in is an evil and adulterous age ruled by those who took the Lord's life (which according to you was a human sacrifice and cannibalism). They are not simply interested in killing the Lord, they also want to take His widow's house, i.e. "eating" Him. They are in for a storm.

How can abortion be viewed as anything but human sacrifice? Why? Expediency. So stop pretending like "human sacrifice" is something superstitious people from long ago practiced, it is taking place today more than ever and is at the very focal point of our political debate.

I realize that you like to draw Abraham and Isaac into this little debate to show that human sacrifice is in the OT, but that is a very misguided interpretation. Yes, Abraham had set his mind to offer up Isaac, but that was never God's plan. The OT laws and practices don't come from Abraham, they come from God. This experience demonstrated to Isaac that the way of faith is the crucified life. That was the point, not to sacrifice Isaac to God, but to train up Isaac in the way he should go.

The real OT references to human sacrifice are firstly the Passover. They put the blood of the lamb on the doorpost to signify that in this family a lamb had already been sacrificed. This refers back to the babies killed by the Egyptians. The Passover was God's justice in response to the human sacrifice the Egyptians had performed.

Secondly in Deuteronomy the Bible says that God is dispossessing the people because they cause their sons and daughters to pass through the fire, and they cause their seed to pass through the fire. The term "fetus" means "seed". This was a reference to abortion and infanticide. Human sacrifice. This is still done today, we don't toss these dead babies in the trash, we incinerate them, make them to pass through the fire. The medical personnel that perform these are modern day priests to Molech and Baal.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course I know what you are saying. You are saying that Jesus death was a human sacrifice and His instructions to us that He was giving His body and blood for us to eat and drink are analogous to cannibalism. I agree with you.

Finally. I knew you had to understand me. It was frustrating that you were dancing around it. You've proven yourself to be quite a good dancer.

Originally Posted by ZNP

What you are missing in your insight is that it was not the Christians that crucified Jesus, nor was it according to Jewish law, nor was it according to Roman law.

Of course it wasn't the Christians that crucified Jesus, there weren't any. And according to Leviticus 24:16 the punishment for blasphemy is death. And the Romans crucified all that were a threat to Caesar, and all who claimed to be the messiah. Jesus knew this, as a messiah was crucified by the Romans when he was young. That's why he wanted to keep the claim secret.

Originally Posted by ZNP

He was crucified by the religious and political leaders as a matter of expediency. That is what they have been doing for all of recorded history.

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

And by your wide ranging definition God sacrifice all but a handful of the human race, and the critters, with the flood.

As I've been taught since a kid it was God's plan to sacrifice the Lamb of God for the sins of the world. If that's true, a human sacrifice OF HIS SON was part of His plan.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

And by your wide ranging definition God sacrifice all but a handful of the human race, and the critters, with the flood.

As I've been taught since a kid it was God's plan to sacrifice the Lamb of God for the sins of the world. If that's true, a human sacrifice OF HIS SON was part of His plan.

Yes it was part of God's plan. But it was also God's plan that it would be the Roman Govt that sacrificed Jesus.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it was part of God's plan. But it was also God's plan that it would be the Roman Govt that sacrificed Jesus.

So how does the fact that God used a proxy change the human sacrifice of His son?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So how does the fact that God used a proxy change the human sacrifice of His son?

Jesus sacrifice was the price that He had to pay to rescue us from sin.

The one who demanded Jesus death was not God the father, but Satan. The one who devours widow's houses is not God the Father but Satan.

That is why it says "For God so loved the world that He gave His Son". It was the price that was required to redeem us from sin and He was willing to pay it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus sacrifice was the price that He had to pay to rescue us from sin.

The one who demanded Jesus death was not God the father, but Satan. The one who devours widow's houses is not God the Father but Satan.

That is why it says "For God so loved the world that He gave His Son". It was the price that was required to redeem us from sin and He was willing to pay it.

I rest my case.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Jesus sacrifice was the price that He had to pay to rescue us from sin.

The one who demanded Jesus death was not God the father, but Satan. The one who devours widow's houses is not God the Father but Satan.

That is why it says "For God so loved the world that He gave His Son". It was the price that was required to redeem us from sin and He was willing to pay it.

What demanded Jesus' death in our place was not the Father nor Satan, but the Law of God.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What demanded Jesus' death in our place was not the Father nor Satan, but the Law of God.

That is only one side of the coin, the law of God would never have demanded death if it had not been for sin, and it was Satan that tempted man to sin. My point is that Satan has tried to raise the price on the salvation of man to the uttermost.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I rest my case.

You were making a case? What was it?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That is only one side of the coin, the law of God would never have demanded death if it had not been for sin, and it was Satan that tempted man to sin. My point is that Satan has tried to raise the price on the salvation of man to the uttermost.

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse on our behalf, as it is written, cursed is the one hanging from a tree." (Gal 3.13)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse on our behalf, as it is written, cursed is the one hanging from a tree." (Gal 3.13)

9 as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for [a]murderers of fathers and [b]murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You were making a case? What was it?

lol ... and I thought you were getting it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My point is that Satan has tried to raise the price on the salvation of man to the uttermost.

God : "Satan made me do it. Satan made me need the human sacrifice of my son."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

lol ... and I thought you were getting it.

And I thought you might tell us what it is.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

And I thought you might tell us what it is.

I did brother. I pointed out the eating of our crucified messiah.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I did brother. I pointed out the eating of our crucified messiah.

Your point is that "we eat the crucified savior" when we eat the Lord's supper?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your point is that "we eat the crucified savior" when we eat the Lord's supper?

Yes, and that it's a carryover from the early practice of sacrificing a human to propitiate a deity, and then eating the flesh and blood of the sacrificed.

But it's become more civilized, as now, to Christians, it's is symbolic, and not literal ; exempting transubstantiation that says it is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. I guess we haven't become completely civilized.

As witnessed by animal sacrifice ; a improved barbarism. The Hebrews sacrificed animals as a propitiation for sin, as a substitutionary atonement.

Really? Their Torah tells that the sacrifice was a pleasing aroma, "a sweet savour unto the LORD." Really? Was it like getting a whiff a neighbors' BBQ? God smells? Really? Is He human, even before "becoming human?" Don't get me going.

If this Red Heifer -- referenced in the hermeneutic thread -- really does mean the building of the 3rd temple, the Jews will resume animal sacrifice. Which means they are no more civilized than stone and bronze age peoples.

It's obviously an ancient superstition ; that was in very common currency in the 1st century (the Iron age). Which is why it was attributed to Jesus. The need for a sacrifice was in the zeitgeist back then. That Jesus was a sacrifice would have been readily acceptable, and even better, a once and for all sacrifice ; another improvement ... of sorts (except the devil is in the details).

But c'mon? Haven't we outgrown such silliness? Surely the God of the universe wouldn't be so uncivilized. Oh, but, I forgot. The God of the Hebrews has a history of uncivilized actions. No wonder they had to propitiate their God ... out of fear.

Which at bottom is why we still eat Jesus ; a human sacrifice ; like God needs a death of something, of not just critters, but even His son, to forgive sins. That's a mean God, not a "God is love" God. That God earns fear, and the need for propitiation by scared humans. Not unless to God, torture and beastliness is love.

Who knows? The heavenly lexicon may have different meanings to our earthly one. I certainly don't know. I'm just concerned about God. I don't like "Him" depicted as a beast.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes, and that it's a carryover from the early practice of sacrificing a human to propitiate a deity, and then eating the flesh and blood of the sacrificed.

I am not aware of any ancient practice of sacrificing the Lord, or the deity. You think this is like the Mayans or Aztecs, the problem is they didn't sacrifice their own son, they didn't sacrifice their God. All of those religions took people from the commoners. You are afraid of the volcano? You want us to do something about it? Fine, give us your 12 year old daughter that is what the volcano wants. Likewise, the Romans did the same thing. You aren't happy? You want your own leader? Fine, let's nail him to a cross.

Originally Posted by awareness

But it's become more civilized, as now, to Christians, it's is symbolic, and not literal ; exempting transubstantiation that says it is the literal flesh and blood of Jesus. I guess we haven't become completely civilized.

If you think it is more civilized now then you are blind. You think what Pol Pot did was more civilized? How about Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler? What about 911. Those are all human sacrifices on a far larger and more horrific scale than anything the Mayans did. Once again, it is the complete opposite of the Lord's table. These rulers kill their people so that they can eat, the Lord gave His body so that we could eat.

Originally Posted by awareness

...It's obviously an ancient superstition ; that was in very common currency in the 1st century (the Iron age). Which is why it was attributed to Jesus. The need for a sacrifice was in the zeitgeist back then. That Jesus was a sacrifice would have been readily acceptable, and even better, a once and for all sacrifice ; another improvement ... of sorts (except the devil is in the details).

If it is an "ancient" superstition you haven't explained Hitler's gas chambers, a very modern invention. You haven't explained Rwanda, a very modern genocide.

Originally Posted by awareness

But c'mon? Haven't we outgrown such silliness? Surely the God of the universe wouldn't be so uncivilized.

How are you so blind? Do you even know where your tax dollars go? You do realize that we have done away with habeas corpus for our enemies. You do realize that we have pretended to outlaw torture until it was more convenient to just "redefine" it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I am not aware of any ancient practice of sacrificing the Lord, or the deity. You think this is like the Mayans or Aztecs, the problem is they didn't sacrifice their own son, they didn't sacrifice their God. All of those religions took people from the commoners. You are afraid of the volcano? You want us to do something about it? Fine, give us your 12 year old daughter that is what the volcano wants. Likewise, the Romans did the same thing. You aren't happy? You want your own leader? Fine, let's nail him to a cross.



If you think it is more civilized now then you are blind. You think what Pol Pot did was more civilized? How about Stalin, or Mao, or Hitler? What about 911. Those are all human sacrifices on a far larger and more horrific scale than anything the Mayans did. Once again, it is the complete opposite of the Lord's table. These rulers kill their people so that they can eat, the Lord gave His body so that we could eat.



If it is an "ancient" superstition you haven't explained Hitler's gas chambers, a very modern invention. You haven't explained Rwanda, a very modern genocide.



How are you so blind? Do you even know where your tax dollars go? You do realize that we have done away with habeas corpus for our enemies. You do realize that we have pretended to outlaw torture until it was more convenient to just "redefine" it.

I see you're back to trying not to get it. Forget God's lexicon. You've got your own.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I see you're back to trying not to get it. Forget God's lexicon. You've got your own.

So let me get this straight, you are saying the world would be a better place without the human sacrifice made by the Lord Jesus?

You are saying that sacrifice was uncivilized and superstitious.

If I have understood that correctly then I have a whole host of other questions that I still don't understand.

1. What is the purpose of life other than not dying?

2. How can you have faith, hope and love without the expression of these?

3. Without faith, hope and love -- how can we have art?

It seems to me in your little mind you have created a world without sacrifice, without love, or hope or faith, and without art. Yet you think that is a "more civilized" world? You have created a world where the goal of human life is to not die, which you haven't provided any option for that to happen, so it will soon be a very depressed world. Hopefully I have misunderstood, so by all means I eagerly await your response.

It also seems quite sad to me that you think the Lord's sacrifice on the cross is the product of archaic superstition. That suggests to me you haven't received the Lord's redemptive work by faith. What is even sadder is that an unbeliever would be the moderator for a Christian website, being a regular contributor for 10+ years?! Why?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let me get this straight, you are saying the world would be a better place without the human sacrifice made by the Lord Jesus?

You are saying that sacrifice was uncivilized and superstitious.

If I have understood that correctly then I have a whole host of other questions that I still don't understand.

1. What is the purpose of life other than not dying?

2. How can you have faith, hope and love without the expression of these?

3. Without faith, hope and love -- how can we have art?

It seems to me in your little mind you have created a world without sacrifice, without love, or hope or faith, and without art. Yet you think that is a "more civilized" world? You have created a world where the goal of human life is to not die, which you haven't provided any option for that to happen, so it will soon be a very depressed world. Hopefully I have misunderstood, so by all means I eagerly await your response.

It also seems quite sad to me that you think the Lord's sacrifice on the cross is the product of archaic superstition. That suggests to me you haven't received the Lord's redemptive work by faith. What is even sadder is that an unbeliever would be the moderator for a Christian website, being a regular contributor for 10+ years?! Why?

I'm glad you ask. I think we've beaten the sacrificed messiah to death. Besides, I'm pretty sure that most educated in this age of science, don't tend to believe in superstitions like they did 2000 yrs ago, or even 1000 yrs ago (except religions, that want to bring us back to those times, or hold us to them). I think there's no doubt that historically humans have been very superstitious. In any event they were very superstitious back in Jesus' day.

I think we need to come back to the purpose of this thread : trying to figure out where and when Christianity made a wrong turn.

I'm presently reading The Acts of Paul and Thecla. As the Wiki points out it's an apocryphal story written during the time of John the apostle. In other words, during the apostolic period, around the same time the gospels were written, prolly before John, Luke, and Acts. It reflects their gift for storytelling back then.

Needless to say Thecla is a supernatural wonder woman. In her teens she was engaged to be married. Til she sat in her window for 3 days, without eating or drinking, enraptured to Paul's teaching in the house next door.

Then she became a virgin companion of Paul, and a servant of Jesus Christ. She was arrested and put on fire at the stake. But God brought water up of the ground, and from the sky, and put the fire out.

Then they tied her to a she-lion and put her in the auditorium with wild beasts. The she-lion killed 2 of the beasts, but God had to take care of the rest. But not before she jumped into the killer fish pool, and baptized herself, whereupon all the fish came to the top dead. And they all glorified God at the wonders.

Later she moved into a cave. And anyone entering her cave were immediately healed, or the demons came out of them with a noise. She put the doctors out of business.

But none of this fabulous story is my point. My point is Tertullian's response to it. As Wiki points out, Tertullian (155 c. to 240 c.) "inveighed against its use in the advocacy of a woman's right to preach and to baptize."

And that's where I think Christianity possibly took a wrong turn, via the proto-orthodox banning women from leadership.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's where I think Christianity possibly took a wrong turn, via the proto-orthodox banning women from leadership.

This does not appear to me to answer much less even respond to my questions.

You reiterated this concept of "superstitious religion" so please answer my questions:

You are saying that sacrifice was uncivilized and superstitious.

If I have understood that correctly then I have a whole host of other questions that I still don't understand.

1. What is the purpose of life other than not dying?

2. How can you have faith, hope and love without the expression of these?

3. Without faith, hope and love -- how can we have art?

of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This does not appear to me to answer much less even respond to my questions.

You reiterated this concept of "superstitious religion" so please answer my questions:

You are saying that sacrifice was uncivilized and superstitious.

Oh heck, I thought I might get away with ZNPing you back. But okay.

Yes, I'm saying the sacrifice of humans or animals is uncivilized and superstition. Moreover, I'll go even further and say, that there are deities, or a deity, that propitiates because of it is the invention of man. Those deities don't exist. Okay, they might exist, but they don't care if I burn an animal. If they were any kind of real deity they'd be against it.

Just as God should have been against the sacrifice of His son. He could find other ways to forgive us. He's God for-gosh-sakes. Surely if He had to, He could invent a new kinder more humane way.

Plus, there's hints enough in the gospels that Jesus thought God would intervene and setup His Kingdom on earth : "Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" ; The disciples will judge over the 12 tribes ; "there be some standing here" ; "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." As the story goes, He didn't.

If God is God, and he has at least human mores, He would never allow such a thing as human sacrifice. He didn't in the Old Testament.

And I would think, I would hope, we're long past all that. The Jews restoring animal sacrifice should embarrass them. It will most everyone else, except the Santeria or some other crazy superstitious religion.

Originally Posted by ZNP

If I have understood that correctly then I have a whole host of other questions that I still don't understand.

Z : 1. What is the purpose of life other than not dying?

Oh not that question!

Z : 2. How can you have faith, hope and love without the expression of these?

I don't know I just do.

Z : 3. Without faith, hope and love -- how can we have art?

Those must have existed 75,000 yrs ago. They just found archaeological evidence of art going back that far.

Z : of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Strawman.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Z : 1. What is the purpose of life other than not dying?

Oh not that question!

Z : 2. How can you have faith, hope and love without the expression of these?

I don't know I just do.

Z : 3. Without faith, hope and love -- how can we have art?

Those must have existed 75,000 yrs ago. They just found archaeological evidence of art going back that far.

Z : of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Strawman.

How is this a straw man? You have very clearly said that the blood of the covenant is an unholy thing, it is not "Godly". You have said that the animal sacrifices by the Jews are an embarrassment and that Jesus Human sacrifice is unholy. That is the "blood of the covenant". You said any deity that respects that blood "is an invention of man" and that if they were real deities they would be against the sacrifice.

Not Godly is by definition "unholy".

So then your post makes it very clear that you consider the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. Or did I misunderstand?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How is this a straw man? You have very clearly said that the blood of the covenant is an unholy thing, it is not "Godly". You have said that the animal sacrifices by the Jews are an embarrassment and that Jesus Human sacrifice is unholy. That is the "blood of the covenant". You said any deity that respects that blood "is an invention of man" and that if they were real deities they would be against the sacrifice.

Not Godly is by definition "unholy".

So then your post makes it very clear that you consider the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. Or did I misunderstand?

There is power, power, wonder-working power
In the blood of the Lamb
There is power, power, wonder-working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb…

I sang that growing up. Even as a kid I was repulsed by it. It was a great tune, but POWER IN THE BLOOD? Why? How awful!

So there's the blood of the beasts (OT), and blood of the Lamb (NT). Obviously they believed in blood sacrifices in the OT, and that was carried over into the NT.

But actually they were both carryovers from the ancient early days of man, when they sacrificed humans to a deity, thinking it would win favor ; like the Aztecs that believed daily human sacrifices were necessary for the sun to rise in the morning. In other words, a superstition.

You as a scientist surely know this.

Brother Ohio, over yonder on the hermeneutics thread, standing on the Bible stated :

Forgiveness of sins demands the shedding of blood.

To me that sounds like what a violent alcoholic that beats his wife and kids every night would say. Not something coming from a God.

I remember saying something like, I don't like God depicted as a beast. Any God requiring blood to forgive is just that kind of beast.

That God is not the real God. That's a fake God. A invention of man, carrying it over from the Stone age, and Bronze age, into the Iron age. Ages we're long past. Or should be.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

[COLOR="DarkRed"]But actually they were both carryovers from the ancient early days of man, when they sacrificed humans to a deity, thinking it would win favor ; like the Aztecs that believed daily human sacrifices were necessary for the sun to rise in the morning. In other words, a superstition.

You as a scientist surely know this.

Sure. Oldest forms of currency were simply a simplified barter system (cattle, salt, etc.). Things of value that everyone needed were used as a form of money. The problem is that this is foolish. If everyone is keeping a pile of salt in their piggy bank then you drive up the price of salt used to preserve your food. Ultimately this moved to gold and silver coinage. Again, stupid for the same reason. But all of those forms of currency demonstrate that we use what we value. We came off the gold standard in the 1930s. They called it the "petrodollar" because petroleum was the key component of our economy (not simply the buying and selling of it, but also the thing that powered the economy). Prior to this you could have called the economy in the South a "slave economy" again, not because the biggest part of the economy was buying and selling slaves, but because that was the power that produced the goods. In reality, our dollars today are "sweat". Our economy is tied to our GDP, and the value of our currency is based on the value of our Gross domestic product.

God respects our labor, so He doesn't disrespect this form of currency "for God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love which ye showed toward his name, in that ye ministered unto the saints, and still do minister."

But this currency does demonstrate how unfair or uneven the worldly system is. Some CEO's have pay packages in excess of $50 million a year, whereas the average salary worldwide is $18,000 (half of the entire world's population makes less than that). That is we value the sweat of a 1 hr. of a CEO's time greater than an entire year for more than 3 billion people.

So then, if you were God what would you value? Cows? Salt? Gold? Sweat?

God values Blood. That means God values life.

According to you this is superstitious, antiquated, and inhumane. Really? What does BP value (the company responsible for the deepwater horizon oil spill)? How about Merck (you remember the scandal with Vioxx)? Exxon (of the Exxon Valdez fame)? What about Ford and Firestone with their exploding tires? And who can forget Union Carbide certainly not those still alive in Bhopal. No, if I were God the only thing I'd value is life and wouldn't care less about your paper money.

So the Aztecs believed in daily human sacrifices, interesting, didn't know that. But obviously completely irrelevant to a forum on the Local Church and the Christian faith. Unless of course you are trying to show how much more civilized they were than us. 1 human per day, that is 365 a year? In the last 100 years we have been killing over 1 million people a year in wars. So what is that 0.1%? That does not include purges, genocides and gas chambers.

Hopefully your claim that we are now more civilized was designed as a joke. Surely you don't believe that. Hitler demonstrates humanity becoming civilized and less superstitious? How about the Rape of Nanking? I don't even want to discuss the third world countries like China, Russia, Rwanda, etc. But what about the US, that shining beacon of light? Other than the atomic bomb, and a nuclear arsenal that can incinerate the world, what's not to like? Oh yeah, we now have made blowing up people very impersonal, simply push a button in Washington DC, and a missile incinerates a village halfway around the world.

In the old days, those superstitious, bloody, uncivilized days, no one would think of blowing up a funeral party. They would kill most of the men, take the women and children as slaves or servants. But now, no one values human life, push a button blow them all up. And this is not in some attempt to kill genuine enemies, this is when we accidentally killed some innocents and we now want to obliterate the whole town so there are no witnesses. You are seriously cracked if you think we are now more civilized. God values blood, obviously governments and corporations don't.

And don't talk about animal sacrifices. You seriously think that the way we kill cows, sheep, pigs and chickens is more humane now than when it was done in the open, by priests, according to the law? Why do you think people pay extra for kosher meat, it certainly is simply the Jews and Muslims.

[awareness]

-1

Brother ZNP you have totally defeated me. That we are more civilized is a delusion. We've just got it so we kill them over there, while we live just fine over here.

You claim that we don't value blood, but God does. But we, the human race, do value blood. We value shedding it.

And, according to the record, so does God. Matthew, Mark, and Luke mention Jesus shedding his blood for the many, for remission of sin.

John doesn't mention any of that. John just says we drink Jesus' blood.

If early man, sacrificing humans to deities, and later sacrificing animals, for the same reason, were uncivilized, and we today are uncivilized, what good did Jesus shedding his blood do?

John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

But the sacrificial Lamb of God did no such thing. Sin existed before that shedding of innocent blood, and still exists today. When was it taken away?

It's obviously symbolic. Such sacrifices were the norm back then. Once human sacrifice to deities were the norm. Then animal sacrifice was the norm. We were coming along. Then, according to the record, God brought back human sacrifice. Was He disappointed we switched to animal sacrifice?

So now we eat that human sacrifice. You are right, we aren't less uncivilized. We celebrate the drinking of the blood of a human sacrifice.

And we don't see it as superstition? When it's all superstition. It sprang out of superstition -- sacrificing humans to a deity -- continued as superstition -- sacrificing animals to a deity -- and continues today -- when we drink the blood, and eat the flesh, of a human sacrifice.

How is this not superstition?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Unless of course you are trying to show how much more civilized they were than us. 1 human per day, that is 365 a year? In the last 100 years we have been killing over 1 million people a year in wars. So what is that 0.1%? That does not include purges, genocides and gas chambers.

Hopefully your claim that we are now more civilized was designed as a joke.

Did you say someone here thinks we are now more civilized? For real?

We slaughter one million unborn babies a year. Worldwide ~150,000 unborn are killed daily. That's almost 2 per second! 2 abortions each and every second!

Sacrificing 1 human a day sounds real civilized!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

John the Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."

But the sacrificial Lamb of God did no such thing. Sin existed before that shedding of innocent blood, and still exists today. When was it taken away?

You are completely mistaken. The fact that there are sinners who are sinning does not mean that the opportunity to receive Jesus sacrifice is not open to them and that should they receive that redemptive work by faith they will have their sins removed.

John did not say that those whose sins would be washed away would then become sinless or that their flesh would be eliminated. Taking away the sins opens the way to fellowship with God, walk with God and be one with God.

You simply need one person like the Apostle Paul, a man involved with persecuting and killing the saints, to demonstrate that this is true.

[awareness]

An unquestionable superstition :

Jewish ritual chicken slaughter endures despite concerns

"Many of those who participate in it believe it absolves them of their sins, which are transferred to the chicken. The slaughtered chicken can then be donated to the poor or another worthy cause if not kept for the family."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jewish-ri...165650371.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

An unquestionable superstition :

Jewish ritual chicken slaughter endures despite concerns

"Many of those who participate in it believe it absolves them of their sins, which are transferred to the chicken. The slaughtered chicken can then be donated to the poor or another worthy cause if not kept for the family."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/jewish-ri...165650371.html

If you are trying to make a point about "Christianity being invented because the apocalypse didn't come soon enough" then I missed it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you are trying to make a point about "Christianity being invented because the apocalypse didn't come soon enough" then I missed it.

It does seem that this thread went off topic a while back as we were swept away by the theme of human sacrifice. I suppose we can tie it to the OP question by asking whether the crucifixion was legitimately interpreted as a human sacrifice for the remission of sins or not.

If Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for something it seems like his crucifixion would have been in vain or, in other words, meaningless.Even though the gospel accounts say that Jesus informed his disciples that he would be killed and rise again Mark 8:31, they were amazed and astonished when it happened. The needed some rationale in order to understand it. Some scholars think that Jesus expected to be an earthly messianic king and therefore did not anticipate his crucifixion and therefore wouldn't have taught the disciples about it in advance.

The idea of substitutionary sacrifice was alive and well in 1st century Judaic Temple practice. So it isn't a stretch to suppose his followers sought meaning in Jesus's crucifixion by viewing it as analogous to sacrifices that gave them access to God.

The elaboration the theme of divine sacrifice by Paul in the epistles would have been a further development of a theme that was near the beginning of the post crucifixion understanding of Jesus by his followers. If we consider that any doctrinal development outside of Jesus's own explicit teachings can be part of the original faith, then the theme of sacrifice could be. On that basis, sacrifice as a theme escapes the category of a deviant version of Christianity even if Jesus didn't teach about it himself.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

It does seem that this thread went off topic a while back as we were swept away by the theme of human sacrifice. I suppose we can tie it to the OP question by asking whether the crucifixion was legitimately interpreted as a human sacrifice for the remission of sins or not.

If Jesus didn't sacrifice himself for something it seems like his crucifixion would have been in vain or, in other words, meaningless.Even though the gospel accounts say that Jesus informed his disciples that he would be killed and rise again Mark 8:31, they were amazed and astonished when it happened. The[y] needed some rationale in order to understand it. Some scholars think that Jesus expected to be an earthly messianic king and therefore did not anticipate his crucifixion and therefore wouldn't have taught the disciples about it in advance.

The idea of substitutionary sacrifice was alive and well in 1st century Judaic Temple practice. So it isn't a stretch to suppose his followers sought meaning in Jesus's crucifixion by viewing it as analogous to sacrifices that gave them access to God.

The elaboration the theme of divine sacrifice by Paul in the epistles would have been a further development of a theme that was near the beginning of the post crucifixion understanding of Jesus by his followers. If we consider that any doctrinal development outside of Jesus's own explicit teachings can be part of the original faith, then the theme of sacrifice could be. On that basis, sacrifice as a theme escapes the category of a deviant version of Christianity even if Jesus didn't teach about it himself.

Certainly a case can be made that the authors of the gospels found themselves stuck trying to defend why Jesus failed to setup his promised kingdom.

So they used what would readily be accepted by those that believed things like, their sins could be forgiven by putting them on a scapegoat. Only according to them Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for their sins ; no more need of the scapegoat, or the sacrifices at the temple, that they say Jesus scoffed at.

And the later the gospel the more highfalutin their rationals became. However, their stories are all we've got. We don't hear from Jesus himself.He didn't write a book. Thus we can't be sure if the historical Jesus actually taught the ultimate sacrifice of the cross.

It may just be wishful thinking. Why wishful? Cuz, just like the scapegoat, there's no way to prove sins are actually forgiven without knowing what God thinks.

I accepted Jesus at a young age. So I grew up thinking my sins were forgiven, even the ones that came along over the years. Are they? How should I know? Supposedly I'll know at the judgement seat. But then I'm told all I have to say is, I accepted Jesus as my ransom, and I get a free pass. So there's no way I can know that now. And the authors of the gospels, and Paul, aren't writing back to tell us if it is so.

[zeek]

Your would think that when someone wished to know the history of early Christianity they would be able to find the answers to important questions by going to the New Testament book entitled The Acts of the Apostles. But that title seems to be a misnomer since apart from Peter and Paul accounts of the Apostles are sketchy or completely absent.

Acts is apparently not intended to be a story about the origins of the early churches either. When Paul gets to Rome he's greeted by Christians who were already there. [Acts 28:15.] How the church was founded there we're not told.

Nor does Acts say anything about the origin of the church in Alexandria which was the second biggest city in the Empire. It doesn't say anything about the churches in Galilee whatsoever, which one might be tempted to think was important since that's where Jesus was from and that's where he started his ministry.

In Romans 15:18-19 Paul says

"for I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles by word and deed by the power of signs and wonders by the power of the Spirit of God so that from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news of Christ."

Map showing Illyricum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyri...ricum_SPQR.png

Acts says nothing about the origin of churches in Illyricum either. So whatever Acts is meant to be the story of, it isn't a story about the accomplishments of the 12 Apostles in general, the whole story about any Apostle in particular or the story of how the churches took root in many different significant places including the two largest cities in the Roman Empire or Jesus' stomping ground. It even leaves out important details about the lives of Peter and Paul, it's principle characters, including their deaths. Why this is so remains a mystery.

[zeek]

Not surprisingly, Witness Lee thought that the book of Acts was essential for understanding the epistles.

Following Acts we have the Epistles. If we would understand the Epistles, we must have a thorough study of the book of Acts. If we do not have the proper understanding of Acts, we shall not be able to understand the Epistles adequately. Many readers of the New Testament do not have the right understanding of the Epistles, because they do not have a clear vision concerning Acts. Therefore, we look to the Lord to open this book to us and give us a clear view of what is revealed in it. [The Life-Study of Acts Chapter 1]

F.F Bruce states that "the gaps in Luke's narrative can be made up in some degree by the evidence of Paul's own writings but the reconstruction is doubtful." [New Testament History, pg 330]

Referring to the last two verses of the book which leave us hanging as to the fate of the imprisoned Paul, , Bruce admits that Luke has "left us asking questions which he did not regard it as his business to answer, and to which no other writer provides a satisfactory answer." [ibid pg 361]

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Not surprisingly, Witness Lee thought that the book of Acts was essential for understanding the epistles.

Following Acts we have the Epistles. If we would understand the Epistles, we must have a thorough study of the book of Acts. If we do not have the proper understanding of Acts, we shall not be able to understand the Epistles adequately. Many readers of the New Testament do not have the right understanding of the Epistles, because they do not have a clear vision concerning Acts. Therefore, we look to the Lord to open this book to us and give us a clear view of what is revealed in it. [The Life-Study of Acts Chapter 1]

F.F Bruce states that "the gaps in Luke's narrative can be made up in some degree by the evidence of Paul's own writings but the reconstruction is doubtful." [New Testament History, pg 330]

Referring to the last two verses of the book which leave us hanging as to the fate of the imprisoned Paul, , Bruce admits that Luke has "left us asking questions which he did not regard it as his business to answer, and to which no other writer provides a satisfactory answer." [ibid pg 361]

Perhaps the gaps is cuz whoever the author of Luke/Acts was, who admits to gathering information, just didn't have the necessary info in the piles he was working from, and left us hanging about the fate of Paul because he was lacking that info. The scholars just need to apply Occam's razor, and stop jumping to hordes of unsolvable assumptions. That seems to be the simplest answer to lacks in Acts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Perhaps the gaps is cuz whoever the author of Luke/Acts was, who admits to gathering information, just didn't have the necessary info in the piles he was working from, and left us hanging about the fate of Paul because he was lacking that info. The scholars just need to apply Occam's razor, and stop jumping to hordes of unsolvable assumptions. That seems to be the simplest answer to lacks in Acts.

Yes well as Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. What about the possibility that Luke knew more than he was saying in some places and less than he was saying in others?

I've shown evidence that the purpose of the book known as The Acts of the Apostles is not to recount the stories of the Apostles. Nor is it to tell us how the churches were founded.

Whatever Luke's purpose was, if the facts didn't support his thesis he may have suppressed them. A critical reader should be alert for evidence in the text of that possibility.

The narrator recounts the stories from the omniscient point of view. The author may also make assertions that go beyond knowledge or even the possibility of knowledge.

In any case, it seems to me, before we apply Occam's razor, we need to ascertain what the author's purpose is in this book. Do we not?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes well as Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.

Einstein also said, in his God Letter :

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Originally Posted by zeek

What about the possibility that Luke knew more than he was saying in some places and less than he was saying in others?

Of course ... way more ... and way less.

Originally Posted by zeek

I've shown evidence that the purpose of the book known as The Acts of the Apostles is not to recount the stories of the Apostles. Nor is it to tell us how the churches were founded.

Whatever Luke's purpose was, if the facts didn't support his thesis he may have suppressed them. A critical reader should be alert for evidence in the text of that possibility.

The narrator recounts the stories from the omniscient point of view. The author may also make assertions that go beyond knowledge or even the possibility of knowledge.

In any case, it seems to me, before we apply Occam's razor, we need to ascertain what the author's purpose is in this book. Do we not?

We may have to hold that razor til the cows come home. We might never arrive at such knowledge as Lukes' (or whoevers') purpose.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Einstein also said, in his God Letter :

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

Of course ... way more ... and way less.


We may have to hold that razor til the cows come home. We might never arrive at such knowledge as Lukes' (or whoevers') purpose.

The book of Acts contains important clues to what Luke considered to be important. One such clue is his use of the rule of three. For thousands of years the number three has been understood as a powerful rhetorical device. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)

The Greeks understood the rule of three's power and used it as a rhetorical device to persuade to assure and to rule. Where the account of an event in Acts is repeated three times we may reasonably conclude that Luke considered such event to be highly significant to the theme of the book.

Acts repeats the story of Paul's conversion three times. The conversion of Cornelius is repeated on three occasions. Paul's turn to the Gentiles is repeated 3 times. The apostle's decree that Jewish and Gentile believers are to engage in the Lord's table together is repeated 3 times. I think we should look at events that are repeated 3 times as strong indicators as to what the theme of the book of Acts may be.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The book of Acts contains important clues to what Luke considered to be important. One such clue is his use of the rule of three. For thousands of years the number three has been understood as a powerful rhetorical device. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)

The Greeks understood the rule of three's power and used it as a rhetorical device to persuade to assure and to rule. Where the account of an event in Acts is repeated three times we may reasonably conclude that Luke considered such event to be highly significant to the theme of the book.

Acts repeats the story of Paul's conversion three times. The conversion of Cornelius is repeated on three occasions. Paul's turn to the Gentiles is repeated 3 times. The apostle's decree that Jewish and Gentile believers are to engage in the Lord's table together is repeated 3 times. I think we should look at events that are repeated 3 times as strong indicators as to what the theme of the book of Acts may be.

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?

[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. Before something it can become poor don't we need a standard for comparison? Christians generally look to Acts for a standard of how Christianity is supposed to be.

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 book's central theme.

[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.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

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.

Nevertheless, if we want to see what Witness Lee considered "Poor poor Christianity", we have to go to the writings based on the messages he gave over the years. In The History of the Church and the Local Churches messages given by Brother Lee in Los Angeles, California, from February 20 through March 21, 1973, he spelled out three sources of Christianity's problem:

"The enemy Satan has used three main items to damage the church:

• Jewish religion,
• Greek philosophy, and
• human organization.

These are the major sources of the church's division, ruin, and corruption. Because these items invaded the church, some of the faithful, living members of the church were burdened to defend the church, to keep the church away from Judaism, Greek philosophy, and human organization. These defenders were devoted Christians who loved the Lord, but they were not so clear about God's goal to gain the church as the corporate Body, the new man, the kingdom, the household, the habitation of God, the bride, and the warrior. Thus, although their intention was good, they made big mistakes in their defending of the church. In their intention to defend the church, some of them actually brought more damage to the church."

[zeek]

Witness Lee's ideal based on his reading of scripture was a church without religion, philosophy or human organization. And he found Christianity wanting because history had infected it with all three of these plagues. So the goal for his "Lord's recovery" movement was absolute purity in Christ.

What was the reality of the situation? There are cracks in his system visible even in the manifesto, The History of the Church and the Local Churches.

For example, Lee instructs his followers to reject any thought or practice of rank and position in the church. He notes that rank and hierarchy come from the struggle for power. He wishes to avoid even the concept of rank within the church. And how should they go about this? Lee directs church members not to use titles!

"The term elder is not and should not be a title. We do not have the title elder among us but we have some persons who are elders. We do not have any positions or titles in the church."

So, Lee's way to avoid hierarchy is not to call it by name even when it obviously exists because it was ordained by Lee himself. Thus, it is easily seen that Lee's prescription against hierarchy involved directing his followers to practice denial and doublespeak.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Witness Lee's ideal based on his reading of scripture was a church without religion, philosophy or human organization. And he found Christianity wanting because history had infected it with all three of these plagues. So the goal for his "Lord's recovery" movement was absolute purity in Christ.

Whatever that means. The Recovery couldn't have meant going back to before Christianity was Jewish. It stared out Jewish. Same with Greek influence. Christianity was born during the Hellenic period. Moreover, the whole NT is written in Hellenic Koine Greek.

I guess he could have taken the Recovery back to before human organization ; back to Jesus -- 'one is your Master ; and all ye are brethren.' But he didn't.

He can call it anything he wants, but he adopted the RCC hierarchy.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Whatever that means. The Recovery couldn't have meant going back to before Christianity was Jewish. It stared out Jewish. Same with Greek influence. Christianity was born during the Hellenic period. Moreover, the whole NT is written in Hellenic Koine Greek.

I guess he could have taken the Recovery back to before human organization ; back to Jesus -- 'one is your Master ; and all ye are brethren.' But he didn't.

He can call it anything he wants, but he adopted the RCC hierarchy.

As I noted in the last post, Witness Lee had a problem with "human organization." Lee's problem with philosophy is also that it is "human" as he says:

There also should be no philosophy in the church. Philosophy refers to the human thought, the human concept, and the human understanding that is embodied in the human opinion. This philosophy is always expressed in different doctrines. Doctrine can be a cloak to human opinion.

Concerning religion he says:

The will of God is not to have the Jewish religion or the religion of Christianity. The will of God is to have the organic Body of Christ. It is not to have circumcision or uncircumcision. The will of God is to have a new creation (Gal. 6:15). The new creation is the new man (Col. 3:10), and this new man is the church. The History of the Church and the Local Churches by Witness Lee

So the problems that afflict the church are human organization, human philosophy and human religion. [The third factor gets more complicated because the Jewish religion was given by God in the first place.] God dealt with all three by taking them to the cross in the person of Jesus, and creating the "new man". I take that to mean a new humanity. Human problems solved! Am I wrong in supposing that most Christians would agree with this outline?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

As I noted in the last post, Witness Lee had a problem with "human organization." Lee's problem with philosophy is also that it is "human" as he says:

There also should be no philosophy in the church. Philosophy refers to the human thought, the human concept, and the human understanding that is embodied in the human opinion. This philosophy is always expressed in different doctrines. Doctrine can be a cloak to human opinion.

Concerning religion he says:

The will of God is not to have the Jewish religion or the religion of Christianity. The will of God is to have the organic Body of Christ. It is not to have circumcision or uncircumcision. The will of God is to have a new creation (Gal. 6:15). The new creation is the new man (Col. 3:10), and this new man is the church. The History of the Church and the Local Churches by Witness Lee

So the problems that afflict the church are human organization, human philosophy and human religion. [The third factor gets more complicated because the Jewish religion was given by God in the first place.] God dealt with all three by taking them to the cross in the person of Jesus, and creating the "new man". I take that to mean a new humanity. Human problems solved! Am I wrong in supposing that most Christians would agree with this outline?

Even when in the LC I had a problem with the new creation and new man. Not that I didn't see it in the abstract. I just didn't see it in reality. I saw lots of the old man, and old creation, still hanging around. It seemed to me that tribalism was of the old man, and it didn't go away in the new man. So where was the new man? How come he looked just like the old man?

Where is that new man anyway? Lee called it the organic body of Christ, but it turned out to be a body of Lee followers.

Here's what I found on Colossians 3:10 in a footnote in the New English Translation :

FN7 Put off all such things. The commands in vv. 8-9 are based on two reasons given in vv. 9-10 – reasons which are expressed in terms of a metaphor about clothing oneself. Paul says that they have put off the old man and have put on the new man. Two things need to be discussed in reference to Paul’s statement.

(1) What is the meaning of the clothing imagery (i.e., the “have put off” and “have been clothed”)?
(2) What is the meaning of the old man and the new man? Though some commentators understand the participles “have put off” (v. 9) and “have been clothed” (v. 10) as imperatives (i.e., “put off!” and “put on!”), this use of participles is extremely rare in the NT and thus unlikely here. It is better to take them as having the semantic force of indicatives, and thus they give an explanation of what had happened to the Colossians at the time of their conversion – they had taken off the old man and put on the new when they trusted in Christ (cf. 1:4). While it is difficult to say for certain what the background to Paul’s “clothing” metaphor might be (whether it is primarily Jewish and comes from the OT, or primarily Gentile and comes from some facet of the Greco-Roman religious milieu), it is nonetheless clear, on the basis of Paul’s usage of the expression, that the old man refers to man as he is in Adam and dominated by sin (cf. Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22), while the new man refers to the Christian whose new sphere of existence is in Christ. Though the metaphor of clothing oneself primarily reflects outward actions, there is a distinct inward aspect to it, as the rest of v. 10 indicates: being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it. Paul’s point, then, is that Christians should take off their dirty clothing (inappropriate behavior) and put on clean clothing (behavior consistent with knowing Christ) because this has already been accomplished in a positional sense at the time of their conversion (cf. Gal 3:27 with Rom 13:14).

That speaks nothing about the organic body of Christ. That's a superimposition by Lee. It sounds more like the individual subjective experience of converting to Jesus, and putting off the former bad behavior and putting on the clothing of a new way of living.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Even when in the LC I had a problem with the new creation and new man. Not that I didn't see it in the abstract. I just didn't see it in reality. I saw lots of the old man, and old creation, still hanging around. It seemed to me that tribalism was of the old man, and it didn't go away in the new man. So where was the new man? How come he looked just like the old man?

Where is that new man anyway? Lee called it the organic body of Christ, but it turned out to be a body of Lee followers.

Here's what I found on Colossians 3:10 in a footnote in the New English Translation :

FN7 Put off all such things. The commands in vv. 8-9 are based on two reasons given in vv. 9-10 – reasons which are expressed in terms of a metaphor about clothing oneself. Paul says that they have put off the old man and have put on the new man. Two things need to be discussed in reference to Paul’s statement.

(1) What is the meaning of the clothing imagery (i.e., the “have put off” and “have been clothed”)?
(2) What is the meaning of the old man and the new man? Though some commentators understand the participles “have put off” (v. 9) and “have been clothed” (v. 10) as imperatives (i.e., “put off!” and “put on!”), this use of participles is extremely rare in the NT and thus unlikely here. It is better to take them as having the semantic force of indicatives, and thus they give an explanation of what had happened to the Colossians at the time of their conversion – they had taken off the old man and put on the new when they trusted in Christ (cf. 1:4). While it is difficult to say for certain what the background to Paul’s “clothing” metaphor might be (whether it is primarily Jewish and comes from the OT, or primarily Gentile and comes from some facet of the Greco-Roman religious milieu), it is nonetheless clear, on the basis of Paul’s usage of the expression, that the old man refers to man as he is in Adam and dominated by sin (cf. Rom 6:6; Eph 4:22), while the new man refers to the Christian whose new sphere of existence is in Christ. Though the metaphor of clothing oneself primarily reflects outward actions, there is a distinct inward aspect to it, as the rest of v. 10 indicates: being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it. Paul’s point, then, is that Christians should take off their dirty clothing (inappropriate behavior) and put on clean clothing (behavior consistent with knowing Christ) because this has already been accomplished in a positional sense at the time of their conversion (cf. Gal 3:27 with Rom 13:14).

That speaks nothing about the organic body of Christ. That's a superimposition by Lee. It sounds more like the individual subjective experience of converting to Jesus, and putting off the former bad behavior and putting on the clothing of a new way of living.

Well Colossians 3:15 says "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts to which indeed you were called in the one body and be thankful." So Lee wasn't wrong that the body of Christ is what the passage is about.

The problem I have with Lee's argument is that after condemning everything human whether it be religion or philosophy or organization, and then finding that there was a new humanity in Christ, he excludes Christianity from the new humanity and reserves it only for his group-- the local church. That to me demonstrates Witness Lee's sectarian spirit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Well Colossians 3:15 says "And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts to which indeed you were called in the one body and be thankful." So Lee wasn't wrong that the body of Christ is what the passage is about.

The problem I have with Lee's argument is that after condemning everything human whether it be religion or philosophy or organization, and then finding that there was a new humanity in Christ, he excludes Christianity from the new humanity and reserves it only for his group-- the local church. That to me demonstrates Witness Lee's sectarian spirit.

I offered that footnote from the NET Bible to show another interpretation of Col. 3:10, by the 20 hefty scholars that produced that new translation.

And I don't think that Col. 3:15 supports Lee's interpretation. There's no mention in that verse of the "organic" body ; that is a Lee extra-Biblical word, that appears nowhere in any translations of the entire Bible ; it's a Lee figment.

In fact, the following verses after v 10, and up to and including v 15, supports the NET interpretation, as it details what to take off and put on.

Moreover, that the new man "is renewed in knowledge" doesn't seem to apply to the church, but to the individual subjective experience.

Plus 3:15 is speaking to "your" and "you" that's been called.

Col 3:15 Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body

Of course, Lee's interpretation supports his sectarian agenda, that his following was/is the organic body of Christ.

Lee dismisses the translators of the NET Bible, as outside the organic body of Christ. They're in the inorganic false body, that's full of only human, Jewish, Greek, organisation.

And last but not least, Lee's translation has more footnotes in it than those human translators of the NET Bible do. Haha.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I offered that footnote from the NET Bible to show another interpretation of Col. 3:10, by the 20 hefty scholars that produced that new translation.

And I don't think that Col. 3:15 supports Lee's interpretation. There's no mention in that verse of the "organic" body ; that is a Lee extra-Biblical word, that appears nowhere in any translations of the entire Bible ; it's a Lee figment.

In fact, the following verses after v 10, and up to and including v 15, supports the NET interpretation, as it details what to take off and put on.

Moreover, that the new man "is renewed in knowledge" doesn't seem to apply to the church, but to the individual subjective experience.

Plus 3:15 is speaking to "your" and "you" that's been called.

Col 3:15 Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body

Of course, Lee's interpretation supports his sectarian agenda, that his following was/is the organic body of Christ.

Lee dismisses the translators of the NET Bible, as outside the organic body of Christ. They're in the inorganic false body, that's full of only human, Jewish, Greek, organisation.

And last but not least, Lee's translation has more footnotes in it than those human translators of the NET Bible do. Haha.

Lee's idea of an organic Body of Christ is based on John 15 where Jesus says "I am the vine you are the branches..." I don't see that being incompatible with the Net Bible's exegesis of Colossians 3:15. Most of Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's teachings could have been maintained without creating division had it not been for Lee's sectarian spirit. Instead of holding his doctrines with humility he saw himself as being unique. All other Christian organizations were merely human. Lee supposed that his group was uniquely of God.

[zeek]

-----deleted post.....

[jeff of jesus grace]

Originally Posted by awareness

Even when in the LC I had a problem with the new creation and new man. Not that I didn't see it in the abstract. I just didn't see it in reality. I saw lots of the old man, and old creation, still hanging around. It seemed to me that tribalism was of the old man, and it didn't go away in the new man. So where was the new man? How come he looked just like the old man?

Where is that new man anyway?....

Most of the world's Christiandom (what the world sees and calls 'Christian') is not a new creation - it is counterfeit, fake, deceptive, as seen clearly from all Scripture and (thankfully here) all of Watchman Nee's life and teachings inspired and revealed to him by Yahweh.
(Yahweh (God) has graciously prevented me for decades from reading the perverted books by lsm / Witness Lee/ , and others usually (like ecf) ) .
Thus, most 'Christians' either never see or never recognize the new creation and do not become part of the new creation in Christ Jesus,
preferring as they do the approval of their peers or religious leaders instead of the approval of Yahweh (God).

I just started reading this forum today, ... if this particular post doesn't 'fit' in this thread/ section then delete it if you wish.

[jeff of jesus grace]

Originally Posted by zeek

Lee's idea of an organic Body of Christ is based on John 15 where Jesus says "I am the vine you are the branches..." I don't see that being incompatible with the Net Bible's exegesis of Colossians 3:15. Most of Watchman Nee's and Witness Lee's teachings could have been maintained without creating division had it not been for Lee's sectarian spirit. Instead of holding his doctrines with humility he saw himself as being unique. All other Christian organizations were merely human. Lee supposed that his group was uniquely of God.

I don't think so.
Most division is happening when the truth is preached, no matter where.
Even Jesus said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and warned those who want to follow Him, those who are willing to seek and to stand up for the truth, that they will be cast of the their own family (if the family does not believe), and out of the churches/ congregations/ groups they are (or were ) in , since most families, churches, congregations and groups (unions, governments, schools, all that is of the world)
cannot comprehend, cannot grasp, and do not receive nor welcome the truth - thus they reject Jesus' disciples because they first reject Jesus, as Jesus stated clearly in the New Testament.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by jeff of jesus grace

Most of the world's Christiandom (what the world sees and calls 'Christian') is not a new creation - it is counterfeit, fake, deceptive, as seen clearly from all Scripture and (thankfully here) all of Watchman Nee's life and teachings inspired and revealed to him by Yahweh.
(Yahweh (God) has graciously prevented me for decades from reading the perverted books by lsm / Witness Lee/ , and others usually (like ecf) ) .
Thus, most 'Christians' either never see or never recognize the new creation and do not become part of the new creation in Christ Jesus,
preferring as they do the approval of their peers or religious leaders instead of the approval of Yahweh (God).

I just started reading this forum today, ... if this particular post doesn't 'fit' in this thread/ section then delete it if you wish.

Hey brother jeff of jesus grace, welcome. I think your post does 'fit.'

When I was saying that I saw the old man and old creation I saw 'them' in the local church, not just in Christendom.

And brother, I see you speak highly of Nee's life and teaching, as from Yahweh. I'd say his teachings, maybe, but I'm not sure if you know of Nee's private life. Nee had a private life, that was clearly of the old man and old creation. If you continue to dig into this forum you'll find that out.

Do you have an eReader, like a Kindle, or similar? If so, I could help you with that if you wish. Let me know.

Harold

[zeek]

Originally Posted by jeff of jesus grace

I don't think so.
Most division is happening when the truth is preached, no matter where.
Even Jesus said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword, and warned those who want to follow Him, those who are willing to seek and to stand up for the truth, that they will be cast of the their own family (if the family does not believe), and out of the churches/ congregations/ groups they are (or were ) in , since most families, churches, congregations and groups (unions, governments, schools, all that is of the world)
cannot comprehend, cannot grasp, and do not receive nor welcome the truth - thus they reject Jesus' disciples because they first reject Jesus, as Jesus stated clearly in the New Testament.

The sword is a powerful but ambiguous symbol depending on how you interpret it. You don't suppose Jesus was advocating violence do you?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The sword is a powerful but ambiguous symbol depending on how you interpret it. You don't suppose Jesus was advocating violence do you?

jeff of jesus grace grew on me real quick. I miss him. He may have flown the coop. But while waiting for him to possibly come back I thought I'd chime in.

Matt. 10:34 is not specific enough to be determinant. I doubt that Jesus meant that families were going to be having sword fights against each other. That's not the author's point. I won't extend my exegete of that section of Matthew here. v. 37-39 I think makes the author's point.

Instead I'd like to bring up the other mention of swords, brought up in Luke :

Luk 22:35-38 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors," but two swords wasn't enough for a insurrection against the Roman occupation of the holy land.

Remember what happened to John the Baptist. And then, Jesus was called the King of the Jews, that was an open provocation to the Roman occupiers.

Was the Jesus movement, headed up by the 12, a bunch of insurrectionists against the Roman occupiers? Or was Jesus an apocalypticist, soon expecting a supernatural intervention?

I posit the latter. The two swords support the apocalypticist view. They certainly don't indicate a insurrectionist view. Jesus wasn't making military preparations.

In the least, just the two swords doesn't indicate that Jesus was advocating for violence. Or not enough to call Jesus a violent man.

Well, not until Revelation. There, Jesus forgets all about love your enemies. And he has a sword coming out of his mouth.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

jeff of jesus grace grew on me real quick. I miss him. He may have flown the coop. But while waiting for him to possibly come back I thought I'd chime in.

Matt. 10:34 is not specific enough to be determinant. I doubt that Jesus meant that families were going to be having sword fights against each other. That's not the author's point. I won't extend my exegete of that section of Matthew here. v. 37-39 I think makes the author's point.

Instead I'd like to bring up the other mention of swords, brought up in Luke :

Luk 22:35-38 And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing."
He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment."
And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough."

Jesus was "numbered with the transgressors," but two swords wasn't enough for a insurrection against the Roman occupation of the holy land.

Remember what happened to John the Baptist. And then, Jesus was called the King of the Jews, that was an open provocation to the Roman occupiers.

Was the Jesus movement, headed up by the 12, a bunch of insurrectionists against the Roman occupiers? Or was Jesus an apocalypticist, soon expecting a supernatural intervention?

I posit the latter. The two swords support the apocalypticist view. They certainly don't indicate a insurrectionist view. Jesus wasn't making military preparations.

In the least, just the two swords doesn't indicate that Jesus was advocating for violence. Or not enough to call Jesus a violent man.

Well, not until Revelation. There, Jesus forgets all about love your enemies. And he has a sword coming out of his mouth.

If Matthew 10:34 is ambiguous, Luke 22:35-38 is enigmatic. The numerous conflicting explanations Christians give to the passage is evidence of its lack of clear meaning. The story appears only in the Gospel of Luke. It likely says more about the life and times of the author than it does about Jesus.

According to Mark, when Jesus sent the disciples out, "he charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics." According to Matthew, Jesus directed them saying "Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff; for the laborer deserves his food. " According to Luke 9, Jesus said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece."

The passage in Luke 22 suggests that by the time of that gospel was written, missionaries were no longer holding to Jesus' direction to "take nothing..." and the author felt the need to justify the change in practice to include carrying a weapon. If so, it may reveal a swerve from Jesus' simple faith in sufficiency of the Father's protection by the time Luke was written.

[zeek]

One area in which Christianity became poor was in its treatment of women. The authentic and historical Paul held that within the Christian church it made no difference whether one was a man or a woman. All were absolutely equal to each other. See Galatians 3:28.

But in 1st Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul by later Christians but probably not actually written by him, women are told to keep silent in the church. The passage in First Corinthians that says it is shameful for women to speak in the church but correct to ask her husband's for explanations at home contradicts Paul's general attitude toward women. It was probably inserted in the margin by a scribe and into the text in later manuscripts.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

One area in which Christianity became poor was in its treatment of women. The authentic and historical Paul held that within the Christian church it made no difference whether one was a man or a woman. All were absolutely equal to each other. See Galatians 3:28.

But in 1st Timothy, a letter attributed to Paul by later Christians but probably not actually written by him, women are told to keep silent in the church. The passage in First Corinthians that says it is shameful for women to speak in the church but correct to ask her husband's for explanations at home contradicts Paul's general attitude toward women. It was probably inserted in the margin by a scribe and into the text in later manuscripts.

It was a man's world back then.

"Jewish culture in the first century was decidedly patriarchal. The daily prayers of Jewish men included this prayer of thanksgiving: “Praised be God that he has not created me a woman.”"

Jesus had female followers, but his disciples were all men. All the New Testament was written by men. In fact, the whole Bible mentions men 90% of the time. Women are valuable, but only if virgin.

So of course Christianity would be patriarchal. It came up in patriarchal times. And Christianity may have been better had it not.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It was a man's world back then.

"Jewish culture in the first century was decidedly patriarchal. The daily prayers of Jewish men included this prayer of thanksgiving: “Praised be God that he has not created me a woman.”"

Jesus had female followers, but his disciples were all men. All the New Testament was written by men. In fact, the whole Bible mentions men 90% of the time. Women are valuable, but only if virgin.

So of course Christianity would be patriarchal. It came up in patriarchal times. And Christianity may have been better had it not.

Yes Judaism was patriarchal in the first century as were the other cultures of the Mediterranean world. But, you simply ignored the evidence that I presented that Paul as a member of the early Jesus movement preached and practiced something other than the patriarchy typical of the first century.

Women possessed few of the rights of men in Jewish society. They couldn't be witnesses in a court of law or initiate divorce and they were not taught the Torah. They were separated from men in public life and almost invisible as they still are in the traditional parts of the Middle East.

Respectable women were not allowed to leave the house on escorted by a male family member. Meals outside the house were male-only affairs. Childbirth and menstruation were considered sources of impurity that led to a generalized sense of the impurity of women.

That's what makes the role of women in the Jesus movement so strikingly different by contrast. In every single encounter with women in the four gospels Jesus violated the mores of his time.

Jesus defended a woman who entered in all male banquet and washed his feet with her hair. He affirmed Mary's role as his discipl. He talked with a Syro-Phoenician Gentile woman.

Stories of the presence of women at his death suggest that they were among his most devoted followers. Some wealthy women supported the movement itself financially thus disproving your statement that their only value was virginity.

The evidence that women played leadership roles in the early church disproves the notion that the church started out strictly patriarchal. For example in Romans 16:1- 2.

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe a deacon of the church at Cenchreae so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints and help her and whatever she may require from you for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well."

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

In fact, the whole Bible mentions men 90% of the time. Women are valuable, but only if virgin.

Harold..seriously...what Bible are you talking about? It certainly is not the Scriptures that have been used by orthodox Christians for the past 19+ centuries. It seems you have gone from being doped by one shyster (Lee) only to be bamboozled by yet another - liberal "theologians" and secular atheists who despise the God of the Bible and the Scriptures he inspired. I wouldn't think you would have been so impressionable after being burned by Witness.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Harold..seriously...what Bible are you talking about? It certainly is not the Scriptures that have been used by orthodox Christians for the past 19+ centuries. It seems you have gone from being doped by one shyster (Lee) only to be bamboozled by yet another - liberal "theologians" and secular atheists who despise the God of the Bible and the Scriptures he inspired. I wouldn't think you would have been so impressionable after being burned by Witness.
-

I think I get it brother. We've come a long way since then, as far a patriarchy goes. Women's rights have come a long way. It's a rather recent phenomenon, by comparison, but we kinda feel as if it's always been this way,

But of course, it hasn't. In ancient times pretty much all cultures were patriarchal, and women were considered more or less second class citizens.

The Bible comes out of those times, so of course it's patriarchal, by default of it's times and norms. It can't be faulted, but shouldn't be overlooked or ignored.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes Judaism was patriarchal in the first century as were the other cultures of the Mediterranean world. But, you simply ignored the evidence that I presented that Paul as a member of the early Jesus movement preached and practiced something other than the patriarchy typical of the first century.

Sorry about that. I disagree that Paul changed things up. In his undisputed letter, 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul advises "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Plus, Paul wasn't marred, and was prolly celibate ; like the male dominated RCC.

I agree, that there's evidence of tampering even in some of Paul's undisputed writings, concerning women shutting up. If so then why wasn't Gal. 3:28 tampered with, that there's no male or female?

Even so, pretty much in all of Christendom, subordination and inferiority of women stuck, down thru today.

Originally Posted by zeek

That's what makes the role of women in the Jesus movement so strikingly different by contrast. In every single encounter with women in the four gospels Jesus violated the mores of his time.

Jesus defended a woman who entered in all male banquet and washed his feet with her hair. He affirmed Mary's role as his discipl. He talked with a Syro-Phoenician Gentile woman.

Stories of the presence of women at his death suggest that they were among his most devoted followers. Some wealthy women supported the movement itself financially thus disproving your statement that their only value was virginity.

The evidence that women played leadership roles in the early church disproves the notion that the church started out strictly patriarchal. For example in Romans 16:1- 2.

"I commend to you our sister Phoebe a deacon of the church at Cenchreae so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints and help her and whatever she may require from you for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well."

True all that, but then again, Jesus chose only male disciples/apostles. Even in Luke 10, where Jesus sends 70(2) into cities before him, they are all male. This has been used by the RCC to justify no female priests.

Plus, a writing considered to come out of the oral tradition, The Gospel of Thomas, has Jesus saying :

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

That attitude was very early on, closest to Jesus. Was it historical Jesus' actual attitude? We don't know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Sorry about that. I disagree that Paul changed things up. In his undisputed letter, 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul advises "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." Plus, Paul wasn't marred, and was prolly celibate ; like the male dominated RCC.

Take another look at 1st Corinthians 7:1 in its context. The sentence you quoted was not Paul's advice.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Take another look at 1st Corinthians 7:1 in its context. The sentence you quoted was not Paul's advice.

It's not clear. Paul was responding to something written in a letter that the Corinthians sent to him. We have no record of that letter. Is Paul quoting that letter? What means not to touch a woman? Some translations translate it as, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," with quote marks.

But without the letter sent to Paul we can't know for certain what was meant.

The NET Bible footnotes it :

1tn Grk “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” a euphemism for sexual relations. This idiom occurs ten times in Greek literature, and all of the references except one appear to refer to sexual relations (cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 1.8.1 [1.163]; Gen 20:6 [LXX]; Prov 6:29 [LXX]). For discussion see G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 275. Many recent interpreters believe that here again (as in 6:12-13) Paul cites a slogan the Corinthians apparently used to justify their actions. If this is so, Paul agrees with the slogan in part, but corrects it in the following verses to show how the Corinthians misused the idea to justify abstinence within marriage (cf. 8:1, 4; 10:23). See also G. D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV,” JETS 23 (1980): 307-14.

But they don't have the letter either. So how much weight should we give the translators? All we've got is maybe educated opinions?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

That attitude was very early on, closest to Jesus. Was it historical Jesus' actual attitude? We don't know.

Of course we know Jesus' actual attitude Harold - It shines forth clearly and brightly in the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. What we also know is that the wise and knowledgeable men that assembled the New Testament canon rejected the Gospel of Thomas and other such nutty garbage produced by people who probably had rejected the genuine Gospels, and were making it up out of whole cloth. The year(s) that junk like the Gospel of Thomas were produced is absolutely irrelevant - it was junk whenever it was produced and it's junk today.
-

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's not clear. Paul was responding to something written in a letter that the Corinthians sent to him. We have no record of that letter. Is Paul quoting that letter? What means not to touch a woman? Some translations translate it as, "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman," with quote marks.

But without the letter sent to Paul we can't know for certain what was meant.

The NET Bible footnotes it :

1tn Grk “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” a euphemism for sexual relations. This idiom occurs ten times in Greek literature, and all of the references except one appear to refer to sexual relations (cf., e.g., Josephus, Ant. 1.8.1 [1.163]; Gen 20:6 [LXX]; Prov 6:29 [LXX]). For discussion see G. D. Fee, First Corinthians (NICNT), 275. Many recent interpreters believe that here again (as in 6:12-13) Paul cites a slogan the Corinthians apparently used to justify their actions. If this is so, Paul agrees with the slogan in part, but corrects it in the following verses to show how the Corinthians misused the idea to justify abstinence within marriage (cf. 8:1, 4; 10:23). See also G. D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1 in the NIV,” JETS 23 (1980): 307-14.

But they don't have the letter either. So how much weight should we give the translators? All we've got is maybe educated opinions?

It seems clear to me that the interpretation you cited above doesn't support your contention that 1st Corinthians 7:1 indicates that Paul was preaching the inferior status of women or advising men not to touch women. So now you wish to reject the passage all together as incomprehendible rather than to accept what The Net Bible says is the probable interpretation?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

The interpretation you cited doesn't support your contention that 1st Corinthians 7:1 indicates that Paul was preaching the inferior status of women or advising men not to touch women.

And your contention, that Paul introduced equality between the sexes in a predominately patriarchal period, can't be supported by our authoritative record, even if that record has been added to or tampered with. We don't have any autograph copies of any of the books in our record, to know authenticity with certainty.

Was Jesus an egalitarian? I like to think so. Wouldn't he have been at least up to our standards today? Was Paul? I'd like to think so there too, but he wasn't Jesus, and not as much can be expected of him. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

In the end, isn't it likely that they were a product of their times? and so were the story tellers ... and the scribes that tampered with the record?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And your contention, that Paul introduced equality between the sexes in a predominately patriarchal period, can't be supported by our authoritative record, even if that record has been added to or tampered with. We don't have any autograph copies of any of the books in our record, to know authenticity with certainty.

Was Jesus an egalitarian? I like to think so. Wouldn't he have been at least up to our standards today? Was Paul? I'd like to think so there too, but he wasn't Jesus, and not as much can be expected of him. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

In the end, isn't it likely that they were a product of their times? and so were the story tellers ... and the scribes that tampered with the record?

You're making certainty the enemy of probability. Why? So that you can reject the Bible as having no merit whatsoever?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course we know Jesus' actual attitude Harold - It shines forth clearly and brightly in the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. What we also know is that the wise and knowledgeable men that assembled the New Testament canon rejected the Gospel of Thomas and other such nutty garbage produced by people who probably had rejected the genuine Gospels, and were making it up out of whole cloth. The year(s) that junk like the Gospel of Thomas were produced is absolutely irrelevant - it was junk whenever it was produced and it's junk today.
-

About half the sayings in The Gospel of Thomas are also found in the synoptic Gospels. Since you accept those sayings when they appear in the synoptic Gospels, to say that The Gospel of Thomas was made up whole cloth seems mistaken. Do you reject every book that isn't in the canon as worthless? Ancient as it is Thomas has tremendous historical value if nothing else.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course we know Jesus' actual attitude Harold - It shines forth clearly and brightly in the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Well amen to that. At least we've got that. We'd know more if we heard from all the 12 disciples. But we don't. They must have been illiterate, or maybe they walked away from following Jesus after he was gone. We don't know either. We just know that we don't hear from all of the 12 ... or the 70(2). So sorry bro Untohim, we don't have enough important data to know Jesus' attitude for certain. Your certitude is fabricated from limited data.

However, as far as we know the 12 did pass it down, and the pseudepigraphal and apocryphal material picked up on it.

Originally Posted by Untohim

What we also know is that the wise and knowledgeable men that assembled the New Testament canon rejected the Gospel of Thomas and other such nutty garbage produced by people who probably had rejected the genuine Gospels, and were making it up out of whole cloth. The year(s) that junk like the Gospel of Thomas were produced is absolutely irrelevant - it was junk whenever it was produced and it's junk today.

I don't hook my wagon to the GoT. But are you condemning a book that you've never even read? Half of the GoT reflects the canonical gospels. So without thinking you've called a bunch in the NT gospels junk.

Okay, you've shot that messenger full of holes. Let's get back to zeek's point -- that hasn't been thoroughly presented yet -- concerning Jesus and Paul, and how they changed attitudes toward women that wasn't common in the culture they lived in.

Is that true? If so, it was lost early on. More on that as the conversation develops.

Thanks for your comments Untohim.

[awareness]

Okay, so far we haven't determined just when and where Christianity became poor.

But I think, the way that they treated women, they started out poor.

Just sayin'.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay, so far we haven't determined just when and where Christianity became poor.

But I think, the way that they treated women, they started out poor.

Just sayin'.

so then we are defining Christianity as the religion, not the apostle's fellowship in the NT.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

so then we are defining Christianity as the religion, not the apostle's fellowship in the NT.

I don't know about that. But I know that the followers of Jesus, that formed Christianity, treated women like they were lower class citizens.

1Titus 2:12-15* But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.*
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.*
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.*
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.*

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about that. But I know that the followers of Jesus, that formed Christianity, treated women like they were lower class citizens.

1Titus 2:12-15* But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.*
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.*
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.*
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.*

What was the context of Titus chapter 2?


I ask because my employer, the Department of Education, treats me the same way. I am not allowed to speak to press, nor can I usurp authority from the "press secretary" and if I do I'll get fired.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What was the context of Titus chapter 2?


I ask because my employer, the Department of Education, treats me the same way. I am not allowed to speak to press, nor can I usurp authority from the "press secretary" and if I do I'll get fired.

Well at least you've got a job you can freely walk away from. But back then women couldn't walk away from lower class citizenship. They were just consigned to childbearing.

But I don't think Christianity is to blame per se. Christianity came up in patriarchal times.

Women weren't considered much back then. That's why none of the Christian books were written by women.

And why didn't Christianity, being followers of Jesus, give women equality?

But then even Jesus didn't ascribe to that. For example, in The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus speaking to his disciples :

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well at least you've got a job you can freely walk away from. But back then women couldn't walk away from lower class citizenship. They were just consigned to childbearing.

But I don't think Christianity is to blame per se. Christianity came up in patriarchal times.

Women weren't considered much back then. That's why none of the Christian books were written by women.

And why didn't Christianity, being followers of Jesus, give women equality?

But then even Jesus didn't ascribe to that. For example, in The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus speaking to his disciples :

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."

Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

So when you say "Christianity" you are talking about the gospel of Thomas? Why not talk about the NT?


And yes, I am well aware that women's rights have grown greatly thanks to the NT, but certainly not thanks to anyone else.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So when you say "Christianity" you are talking about the gospel of Thomas?

I'm talking about Christian Jesus followers ; the early Christian period (actually extending up to today, among fundamentalist's.

The GoT is a sayings gospel. And whether or not the author put those words into the mouth of Jesus -- like all the later gospel writers -- it still reflects their attitudes toward women back then.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Why not talk about the NT?

Why? Did the NT speak of the equality and rights of women?

Originally Posted by ZNP

And yes, I am well aware that women's rights have grown greatly thanks to the NT, but certainly not thanks to anyone else.

What? How is the NT responsible for women's rights? and not anyone else?

Renowned suffragett's Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Stanton fought for women's rights in the early half of the 19th c.. Stanton attacked traditional Christianity in The Woman's Bible, detailing how religion helped suppress women's rights.

Maybe you're thinking of The Women's Bible.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm talking about Christian Jesus followers ; the early Christian period (actually extending up to today, among fundamentalist's.

The GoT is a sayings gospel. And whether or not the author put those words into the mouth of Jesus -- like all the later gospel writers -- it still reflects their attitudes toward women back then.


Why? Did the NT speak of the equality and rights of women?

The NT is the covenant Christians have with God and therefore defines what it is to be a Christian. Using the common sayings of the day doesn't. It merely reflects the bias of the people who were newly converted (at best) and at worst is simply a stereotype. Some people felt you needed to be circumcised. That does not define Christians, it defines cults.

Originally Posted by awareness

What? How is the NT responsible for women's rights? and not anyone else?

1. According to Paul in the church "there is no male or female". Making the two equal. A radical approach to this topic given the feelings of the day and probably the reason "all in Asia abandoned him".


2. Paul said an elder had to be the husband of one wife. A strong position for monogamy and against polygamy and mistresses, etc. That strengthened the woman's position and was a radical position to take in that day.


3. Saying that an elder had to be the husband of one wife meant that every locality had both an elder and "the wife of an elder" which is also a leadership position. So in a very elegant way Paul made sure every church had a woman in a very important position of authority.

Originally Posted by awareness

Renowned suffragett's Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Stanton fought for women's rights in the early half of the 19th c.. Stanton attacked traditional Christianity in The Woman's Bible, detailing how religion helped suppress women's rights.

Maybe you're thinking of The Women's Bible.

The women's rights movement came out of the movement for ending slavery and giving blacks equal rights. Women said "hey, if you are giving black men the vote why not us". People justified slavery in the US using the Bible incorrectly (Biblical slavery was nothing like slavery of the south. It wasn't racial, it wasn't for life, there were no slave traders, only adults could sell themselves and only to pay off a debt and once the debt was paid they were free. It is analagous to an NFL contract.) Just because people misuse the Bible doesn't mean that is what the Bible says. For example, Awareness is trying to say the Bible is somehow against women's rights when it is exactly the opposite.


2/3 of the church membership is women. Why would so many women be in the church if it were abusive? In the church women can take on virtually every role and ministry. As a result, if Paul had not required that elders be the husband of one wife men probably would only have a token presence.

[awareness]

I guess it's just you and me bro ZNP.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The NT is the covenant Christians have with God and therefore defines what it is to be a Christian. Using the common sayings of the day doesn't. It merely reflects the bias of the people who were newly converted (at best) and at worst is simply a stereotype. Some people felt you needed to be circumcised. That does not define Christians, it defines cults.

It's biological. I doubt we're ever gonna see a male team against a female team at the Superbowl. It becomes cultic when embedded in religion. That women should shut up in the church is cultic. And cultic that women have to wear head covering (so the sons of God don't come and violate them during the meeting ... apparently).

Is that sort of stuff what God demands? No. It's projected upon God, from the customs and mores of the times when Christianity was born, during Paul's times.

Originally Posted by ZNP

1. According to Paul in the church "there is no male or female".

Then why do "women" have to learn from their "male" husbands? Seems in practice there are, or were, male and female after all. But female was lower than male, and are commanded to be obedient. And Paul adds, "And if they will learn any thing," like it's not likely they can even learn. That's why none of the NT books are written by women ; they were illiterate because they weren't allowed to be educated.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Making the two equal. A radical approach to this topic given the feelings of the day and probably the reason "all in Asia abandoned him".

Exactly. "Given the feelings of the day," that even Paul couldn't escape. Cuz he clearly distinguished between male and female. Paul must have been speaking in the abstract when he said no male or female.

Originally Posted by ZNP

2. Paul said an elder had to be the husband of one wife. A strong position for monogamy and against polygamy and mistresses, etc. That strengthened the woman's position and was a radical position to take in that day.

But they are one flesh. So why are elders only male? Seems to me if they are one flesh both are elders.

Originally Posted by ZNP

3. Saying that an elder had to be the husband of one wife meant that every locality had both an elder and "the wife of an elder" which is also a leadership position. So in a very elegant way Paul made sure every church had a woman in a very important position of authority.

Now you must be speaking in the abstract. It doesn't work out that way. Men are in the leadership. Were the wives considered leaders in the local church?

Originally Posted by ZNP

The women's rights movement came out of the movement for ending slavery and giving blacks equal rights. Women said "hey, if you are giving black men the vote why not us". People justified slavery in the US using the Bible incorrectly (Biblical slavery was nothing like slavery of the south. It wasn't racial, it wasn't for life, there were no slave traders, only adults could sell themselves and only to pay off a debt and once the debt was paid they were free. It is analagous to an NFL contract.) Just because people misuse the Bible doesn't mean that is what the Bible says. For example, Awareness is trying to say the Bible is somehow against women's rights when it is exactly the opposite.

Not true. You certainly haven't proven it. The rest of the above is too much to bother unwrapping.

Originally Posted by ZNP

2/3 of the church membership is women. Why would so many women be in the church if it were abusive? In the church women can take on virtually every role and ministry. As a result, if Paul had not required that elders be the husband of one wife men probably would only have a token presence.

That one hit my funny-bone. Thanks for the belly laugh.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I guess it's just you and me bro ZNP.


It's biological. I doubt we're ever gonna see a male team against a female team at the Superbowl. It becomes cultic when embedded in religion. That women should shut up in the church is cultic. And cultic that women have to wear head covering (so the sons of God don't come and violate them during the meeting ... apparently).

Yes it is biological. It makes sense that for 9,950 years of human history women took on the jobs that have been replaced by appliances, and they also had the major job of child rearing for the first few years of life. When the women's suffrage movement first began the argument was that the woman would be 35 by the time all her children left her care and could live for another 50 years, therefore she needed a career. However, in practice women begin their career just like men and we warehouse the kids. 50 years is far too short to know what the impact of this dramatic change will be.

Originally Posted by awareness

Is that sort of stuff what God demands? No. It's projected upon God, from the customs and mores of the times when Christianity was born, during Paul's times.


Then why do "women" have to learn from their "male" husbands? Seems in practice there are, or were, male and female after all. But female was lower than male, and are commanded to be obedient. And Paul adds, "And if they will learn any thing," like it's not likely they can even learn. That's why none of the NT books are written by women ; they were illiterate because they weren't allowed to be educated.

It always bothers me that people get so outraged at one verse while ignoring another. Paul also said "let everyone be subject one to another" in the very same context. Are you so arrogant that you can't learn from your wife? Why can't she learn from her husband?

Originally Posted by awareness

Exactly. "Given the feelings of the day," that even Paul couldn't escape. Cuz he clearly distinguished between male and female. Paul must have been speaking in the abstract when he said no male or female.


But they are one flesh. So why are elders only male? Seems to me if they are one flesh both are elders.

That is how I read it and that is how it works in practice.

Originally Posted by awareness

Now you must be speaking in the abstract. It doesn't work out that way. Men are in the leadership. Were the wives considered leaders in the local church?

In NY I lived with one of the elders. His wife was very influential and pretty much called the shots in her zone of authority, but she did this behind the scenes. I also saw this in Taipei, Andrew Yu's wife was very influential.

Originally Posted by awareness

Not true. You certainly haven't proven it. The rest of the above is too much to bother unwrapping.

Let's take a vote. I say I have proven it.

Originally Posted by awareness

That one hit my funny-bone. Thanks for the belly laugh.

I'm glad we could have a reasonable discussion

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes it is biological. It makes sense that for 9,950 years of human history women took on the jobs that have been replaced by appliances, and they also had the major job of child rearing for the first few years of life. When the women's suffrage movement first began the argument was that the woman would be 35 by the time all her children left her care and could live for another 50 years, therefore she needed a career. However, in practice women begin their career just like men and we warehouse the kids. 50 years is far too short to know what the impact of this dramatic change will be.

I agree. I've been around long enough to see that not that long ago one earner, typically Dad could make ends meet for the family. Now it takes two earners. It caught on quickly. Initially, two earners allowed for better homes, cars, and higher standard of living, than the one earner families. But the cost of living went up as more and more families became two earners ... of course. So in the end there's now no gain for two earning families. But don't worry about the kids, technology is raising them now.

Originally Posted by Z

It always bothers me that people get so outraged at one verse while ignoring another. Paul also said "let everyone be subject one to another" in the very same context. Are you so arrogant that you can't learn from your wife? Why can't she learn from her husband?

Yes. Women we now know are not less intelligent than men. In fact, in general, they have better computer power in their head than men in general have.

Originally Posted by Z

That is how I read it and that is how it works in practice.

I don't know about the practice.

Originally Posted by Z

In NY I lived with one of the elders. His wife was very influential and pretty much called the shots in her zone of authority, but she did this behind the scenes. I also saw this in Taipei, Andrew Yu's wife was very influential.

But not Lee's, or Nee's. And certainly it is the exception, not the rule, that women lead, particularly with Bible literalists.

Originally Posted by Z

Let's take a vote. I say I have proven it.

There's only two of us. So it will be a tie. I guess we'll have cast lots, like they did in Acts, for God to be able to speak the truth of the matter, and settle it once and for all. Cuz he knows more than us that the 1st century was highly patriarchal and misogynistic.

Originally Posted by Z

I'm glad we could have a reasonable discussion

Me too. Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think this discussion on women's rights needs to include the concept of a eusocial society. We have lots of rules that we have to obey for this society to function properly that may or may not make sense to apes, or prehistoric man.

We have to follow traffic laws, there is a whole protocol in place about when you are to stop, when you go, who goes first, etc. Then if there is an accident there is a whole protocol again about how this is handled. None of these laws would be in a non eusocial society. In a group of apes it is simply might makes right and get out of my way.

Now there are a lot of advantages to having a eusocial society -- health care, electricity, social security, safe streets, etc.

The biggest rule that we all have to follow that makes all of this possible is we have to pay taxes. Imagine our society is similar to the ark of the covenant. We have to carry this. The more people we have shouldering the load the easier it is to do this in a good way. But as birth rates decline the society has major problems for their economy. Consider Japan. Too many old people and not enough young working adults to support them. The only possible way this society is sustainable is if the birth rate is at the very least, flat. As long as we replace every senior citizen with a young person this works, when that is no longer the case we are on the decline.

For a gorilla, none of this matters, but for a eusocial society it is crucial that the society has children and raises them to be productive members of society.

So with that in mind, consider the whole fight for "reproductive rights". Not talking about equal pay for women, not talking about giving women the vote, not talking about women breaking the glass ceiling.

Once the US legalized abortion, a major milestone in this battle for reproductive rights divorce rates skyrocketed, single parent mothers also skyrocketed, along with domestic abuse (more common where the man is not the father of the children). The only reason our birth rate hasn't plummeted like Japan is because of our immigrants.

So then in our society the vast majority of the poor are single parent families. The vast majority of kids in a gang are the kids of parents who cannot supervise them (single parent mothers working two jobs, likewise poor immigrants working multiple jobs with large families, etc).

Having a eusocial society requires the keeping of a covenant. The apes don't keep this covenant and they don't have this society. The laws in the Bible are the covenant that we keep so that we can live in a eusocial society. If someone doesn't want to keep those laws then they should not get the benefit of this society.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think this discussion on women's rights needs to include the concept of a eusocial society.

Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off. Not that again. But it is one of your favorite premises.

The rest of your post was just proving your position on eusocialism. But you failed to related it to women's rights in the 1st c.

I'm hoping you'll rectify that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off. Not that again. But it is one of your favorite premises.

The rest of your post was just proving your position on eusocialism. But you failed to related it to women's rights in the 1st c.

I'm hoping you'll rectify that.

Of course I did. This explains why the NT takes a strong issue against homosexual sex, fornication, adultery, and abortion.

It also explains why the NT presents monogamy as an example (elders and deacons husband of one wife) though not a law.

It also ties nicely between the Lord's word about Eunuch's for the kingdom, and James word about pure religion caring for orphans and widows.

[zeek]

If Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion, then Christianity became poor when it became Christianity--a new religion that Jesus never intended to start.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Of course I did. This explains why the NT takes a strong issue against homosexual sex, fornication, adultery, and abortion.

It also explains why the NT presents monogamy as an example (elders and deacons husband of one wife) though not a law.

It also ties nicely between the Lord's word about Eunuch's for the kingdom, and James word about pure religion caring for orphans and widows.

You've provided no substantial proof that 1st c. Christian women weren't considered lower class citizens, and that it wasn't patriarchal and misogynistic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You've provided no substantial proof that 1st c. Christian women weren't considered lower class citizens, and that it wasn't patriarchal and misogynistic.

1. I use the NT to define what a Christian woman is considered.

2. The term "Patriarchal" is not equivalent to misogynistic nor is it equivalent to making women a second class citizen. Appreciating the role of men in society is not equivalent to not appreciating the role of women.

3. The NT does not have a "class system" as far as citizens of the kingdom. Therefore you have not provided the slightest evidence that there is such a misogynistic attitude. In contrast to your unsubstantiated allegations there is the following:

a. Paul taught "there is no male or female" in the kingdom
b. Paul taught that an elder has to be the husband of one wife. That means that for every male leader in the church there is also a female one. Although it is not a rule it is well established statistically that women outnumber men in the church 2:1, therefore a woman leader is a very influential person in the church.
c. Paul instructed the elder women to take a leading role in teaching the younger women.
d. Paul referred to leading coworkers that were women.
e. Paul instructed men to "love their wives as Christ also loved the church" -- a much higher standard than any other society puts on men, either in the past or the present.


In addition consider that neither Paul nor any of the other apostles ever speaks derogatively or dismissively concerning women or sisters.

[awareness]

Had to bring this back to the top :

Originally Posted by zeek

If Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion, then Christianity became poor when it became Christianity--a new religion that Jesus never intended to start.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

You've provided no substantial proof that 1st c. Christian women weren't considered lower class citizens, and that it wasn't patriarchal and misogynistic.

From what I've read, in first century Palestine, women were excluded from testifying in court trials. They were not to be seen in public or to speak with strangers and outside their homes they were to be doubly veiled. Women were not allowed to teach or be taught the Torah in their homes...and they were not to be educated. They had become second-class Jews excluded from the worship and teaching of God with status scarcely above that of slaves.

By comparison, the actions of Jesus towards women were revolutionary. Jesus didn't hesitate to engage an "unclean" foreign woman in public conversation. [John 4:5-9] He ignored all strictures of ritual impurity [Mark 5:25-34, 35-43] He himself taught women [Luke 10:38-42], and gave them equal rank with men as "daughters of Abraham" [Luke 13:10-17], openly ministered to them as "children of wisdom" {Luke 13:10-17] and afforded them the highest respect as persons [Matt. 5:28] Women belong to the inner circle of disciples [Luke 8:1-3]

Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with Him, and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others who provided for Him from their substance.

Women were the first to witness the Resurrection [Luke 24:1-11]. This is a case in which the last [women] became the first as Jesus predicted it would be in the kingdom of God. The Gospel of John concludes with the testimony of a woman, Mary Magdalene, to the Christ's resurrection [John 20:18].

[zeek]

On the other hand, Jesus identified God as the Father and the 12 disciples that Jesus called and gave special authority to were all men. So I don't see how it's possible to avoid the conclusion that Jesus's theological vision was patriarchal.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

On the other hand, Jesus identified God as the Father and the 12 disciples that Jesus called and gave special authority to were all men. So I don't see how it's possible to avoid the conclusion that Jesus's theological vision was patriarchal.

Looks to me like Jesus was a Jew that acted like a gentile. He hobnobbed with the street people ; the downtrodden, outcasts, and unclean. And broke with the Jewish customs and mores by hanging with women. He also allowed women to financially support him ... surely another big no-no, to the Jewish leaders.

But like you said, he grew up in patriarchal times, and so didn't speak out for women's rights. Those kinds of rights, human rights, hadn't developed as values yet.

So we really can't hold it against Jesus that he didn't speak out for equality of women. Had he lived in the 20th century, he prolly would have.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Looks to me like Jesus was a Jew that acted like a gentile. He hobnobbed with the street people ; the downtrodden, outcasts, and unclean. And broke with the Jewish customs and mores by hanging with women. He also allowed women to financially support him ... surely another big no-no, to the Jewish leaders.

But like you said, he grew up in patriarchal times, and so didn't speak out for women's rights. Those kinds of rights, human rights, hadn't developed as values yet.

So we really can't hold it against Jesus that he didn't speak out for equality of women. Had he lived in the 20th century, he prolly would have.

According to Wikipedia, basic human rights were recognized in ancient Egypt as early as 725 BC. The first known recording of human rights were inscribed by Cyrus the great in 539 BC.

But I don't see the concept of natural or human rights being promoted in the Bible per se. Rather, the New Testament writers seem to view Jesus's attitude towards women as an expression of his godly loving-kindness. In other words his acceptance of women was seen as a personal virtue that he possessed not as treatment they were entitled to as a right.

Jesus's attitude towards his mother may be relevant here as well. Without a doubt Jesus considered God to be his father. But he rejected Mary as being his mother according to Mark 3:31-35.

Furthermore, according to John 2 when Jesus' mother told him that the wedding party had run out of wine Jesus said to her "Woman what does your concern have to do with me my hour has not yet come" (NKJV). I can see how his openness toward women not withstanding, Jesus' attitude toward his mother in contrast to his exalted view of God as his Father, lends itself to a patriarchal interpretation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Wikipedia, basic human rights were recognized in ancient Egypt as early as 725 BC. The first known recording of human rights were inscribed by Cyrus the great in 539 BC.

But I don't see the concept of natural or human rights being promoted in the Bible per se. Rather, the New Testament writers seem to view Jesus's attitude towards women as an expression of his godly loving-kindness. In other words his acceptance of women was seen as a personal virtue that he possessed not as treatment they were entitled to as a right.

Jesus's attitude towards his mother may be relevant here as well. Without a doubt Jesus considered God to be his father. But he rejected Mary as being his mother according to Mark 3:31-35.

Furthermore, according to John 2 when Jesus' mother told him that the wedding party had run out of wine Jesus said to her "Woman what does your concern have to do with me my hour has not yet come" (NKJV). I can see how his openness toward women not withstanding, Jesus' attitude toward his mother in contrast to his exalted view of God as his Father, lends itself to a patriarchal interpretation.

What is very telling to me is that the key verse in this debate is Paul's charge in 1Tim 2 --

9 In like manner also that the women in decent deportment and dress adorn themselves with modesty and discretion, not with plaited [hair] and gold, or pearls, or costly clothing,
10 but, what becomes women making profession of the fear of God, by good works.
11 Let a woman learn in quietness in all subjection;
12 but I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man, but to be in quietness;

If these verses prove the argument that the NT is biased against women then you have proven your case, if they don't, then you have no case because these verses are far and away your best case. So why all the other blather? Why not drill down on these verses, press the issue, and hang your case on these verses?

What is lacking from all of the whiners and bellyachers about this issue is even a modicum of discussion as to the society that the church was living in at the time. Women's rights are not solely a church matter. We know this today. When our army and even our civilians go to a country in the Middle East (or in fact anywhere on the planet) we have to learn and respect the customs. Likewise the church is the embassy of the kingdom of the heavens. Until the kingdom comes we are representatives in a strange land and have to respect the customs of a strange people.

For example, take what Paul says about women's clothing. "Decent deportment", "modesty", "discretion", etc. We say exactly the same thing today when instructing our military, government officials, and even our corporate executives who want to be successful in these countries. Does that mean that the US is biased against women? If it doesn't then it means those who are complaining about Paul are two faced hypocrites. If it does then it means those who are complaining about Paul should be judging themselves rather than him.

Now if the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth, and the nation that countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia do billions of dollars of business with on a daily basis, and a nation critical to their national security, if we have to show this level of respect to these despots then how evil and nasty to complain about a few hundred of the poorest and least respected members of the society also behaving with discretion.

Now Paul also said "I do not suffer a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over man". This therefore is the single quote from the NT on which all claims of misogyny hang. And there is a very clear distinction here with the US. We do have people of authority, women, who do teach and exercise authority over men. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have had to get used to it. This is true, but it was only true when an army was at their gate able to crush them had they not called for our help. The context of Paul's word is "2 I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made for all men;
2 for kings and all that are in dignity, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all piety and gravity;". He wasn't speaking to Christians in a new land thousands of miles from the existing power structures and religions. We saw very quickly that Christians in the US did not in any way hold to this kind of teaching. Rather he was speaking to Christians in a very hostile environment. An environment where both Roman and Jew wanted them fed to the lions. To ignore that is willful ignorance and demonstrates someone who is giving counsel without knowledge or prudence. If you want to lead a quiet and tranquil life in the Middle East 2,000 years ago then the local people could not fear that you were completely undermining their entire social structure.

What all these complainers miss is the significance of his statement that they "learn in quietness". Look at the current difficulty with women, girls, trying to go to school in Taliban controlled countries. Step 1 is to allow women to learn. That is what Paul and the NT taught, which was a radical departure from the local society.

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." That is human history. That is how women were freed. Paul took the radical step of teaching women the truth in quietness. He had no authority or power to decree their freedom. But "the truth" does. Therefore, as I have said before and human history has confirmed, the NT, the fellowship of the apostles, and primarily the fellowship of the Apostle Paul, has been critical to advancing women's rights. This is evidenced in the fact that throughout the last 2,000 years women have been the overwhelming majority of church members.

[zeek]

First of all, let's be clear: I never claimed that either Jesus nor Paul were misogynists. In their social cultural context patriarchy was the norm. So from the historical standpoint it wouldn't be surprising if they held patriarchal views. There is evidence that at least some of their views broke from the patriarchal norms of the time in ways that were revolutionary.

There are reasons to doubt that I Timothy was written by Paul. The vocabulary and style and tone of I Timothy is very different from the seven letters the scholars are most certain were written by Paul. In addition to that, the issues addressed in I Timothy seem to belong to a later generation of early Christianity when the process of institutionalization had begun.

Furthermore the role of women is very different in I Timothy than it is in those letters considered to be genuine writings of Paul by modern scholars. In Galatians 3:28 Paul states that in Christ there is no male or female. In other words, men and women are equal in Christ.

In Romans 16:7 Paul refers to Junia which was a women's name, as a prominent apostle. In Romans 16: 1- 16 Paul speaks of other women as leaders in the church. He doesn't object to women prophesying in the church in Corinth.

The passage in 1st Timothy restricts the role of women and disqualifies them from leadership in the church. As justification for constricting the woman's role the author states that a woman was responsible for bringing sin into the world. In the genuine letters of Paul he never blames Eve. The author's conclusion that women can be saved only through childbearing doesn't sound like Paul of the genuine epistles either.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

First of all, let's be clear: I never claimed that either Jesus nor Paul were misogynists. In their social cultural context patriarchy was the norm. So from the historical standpoint it wouldn't be surprising if they held patriarchal views. There is evidence that at least some of their views broke from the patriarchal norms of the time in ways that were revolutionary.

There are reasons to doubt that I Timothy was written by Paul. The vocabulary and style and tone of I Timothy is very different from the seven letters the scholars are most certain were written by Paul. In addition to that, the issues addressed in I Timothy seem to belong to a later generation of early Christianity when the process of institutionalization had begun.

Furthermore the role of women is very different in I Timothy than it is in those letters considered to be genuine writings of Paul by modern scholars. In Galatians 3:28 Paul states that in Christ there is no male or female. In other words, men and women are equal in Christ.

In Romans 16:7 Paul refers to Junia which was a women's name, as a prominent apostle. In Romans 16: 1- 16 Paul speaks of other women as leaders in the church. He doesn't object to women prophesying in the church in Corinth.

The passage in 1st Timothy restricts the role of women and disqualifies them from leadership in the church. As justification for constricting the woman's role the author states that a woman was responsible for bringing sin into the world. In the genuine letters of Paul he never blames Eve. The author's conclusion that women can be saved only through childbearing doesn't sound like Paul of the genuine epistles either.

That is true about Timothy ; even today, in strict Bible based churches, women are to be silent. It's authorship may be in question, but it's been accepted as authoritative for many centuries ... and still is, by other than critical Bible scholars.

But, about Paul and Eve, did you forget that in 2 Corinthians, a non-contested book by Paul, Paul likens 'another Jesus and other gospel' to Eve, being beguiled by the serpent?

I do agree that, "at least some of their [Jesus & Paul] views broke from the patriarchal norms of the times," but question, "in ways that were revolutionary."

It's commendable that they broke norms, but shouldn't that be expected? Jesus was guided by his father, Paul was guided by the revelation of Jesus Christ, and so not by culture or norms of the day. They did perhaps break with norms of the times, yet, according to our authoritative records, neither spoke out a clear message of the equality of the sexes. That would have been revolutionary.

Doesn't that mean, if true -- that Jesus spoke for God, and Paul for Jesus (which it has to be) -- then neither God nor Christ are for the equality of the sexes? And our secular systems, then today, that stand for the equality of the sexes, are rebelling against Gods' ways and wishes, concerning the sexes?

I hope not. I think it quite possible that our records, that are considered authoritative whether genuine or not, weren't concerned about such matters.

The son of man was coming back in their generation. And when that happened, equality of the sexes wouldn't be an issue. Then they would all be "in Christ," where there are no sexes.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That is true about Timothy ; even today, in strict Bible based churches, women are to be silent. It's authorship may be in question, but it's been accepted as authoritative for many centuries ... and still is, by other than critical Bible scholars.

But, about Paul and Eve, did you forget that in 2 Corinthians, a non-contested book by Paul, Paul likens 'another Jesus and other gospel' to Eve, being beguiled by the serpent?

I do agree that, "at least some of their [Jesus & Paul] views broke from the patriarchal norms of the times," but question, "in ways that were revolutionary."

It's commendable that they broke norms, but shouldn't that be expected? Jesus was guided by his father, Paul was guided by the revelation of Jesus Christ, and so not by culture or norms of the day. They did perhaps break with norms of the times, yet, according to our authoritative records, neither spoke out a clear message of the equality of the sexes. That would have been revolutionary.

Doesn't that mean, if true -- that Jesus spoke for God, and Paul for Jesus (which it has to be) -- then neither God nor Christ are for the equality of the sexes? And our secular systems, then today, that stand for the equality of the sexes, are rebelling against Gods' ways and wishes, concerning the sexes?

I hope not. I think it quite possible that our records, that are considered authoritative whether genuine or not, weren't concerned about such matters.

The son of man was coming back in their generation. And when that happened, equality of the sexes wouldn't be an issue. Then they would all be "in Christ," where there are no sexes.

Of course they did. Paul said that in the church there is neither male nor female. Jesus also said the same, that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

But you are completely impractical. Both Paul and Jesus had both a vision of the coming kingdom and also presented a practical path to get there -- "learning in quietness" and "teaching in quietness".

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

That is true about Timothy ; even today, in strict Bible based churches, women are to be silent. It's authorship may be in question, but it's been accepted as authoritative for many centuries ... and still is, by other than critical Bible scholars.

But, about Paul and Eve, did you forget that in 2 Corinthians, a non-contested book by Paul, Paul likens 'another Jesus and other gospel' to Eve, being beguiled by the serpent?

I do agree that, "at least some of their [Jesus & Paul] views broke from the patriarchal norms of the times," but question, "in ways that were revolutionary."

It's commendable that they broke norms, but shouldn't that be expected? Jesus was guided by his father, Paul was guided by the revelation of Jesus Christ, and so not by culture or norms of the day. They did perhaps break with norms of the times, yet, according to our authoritative records, neither spoke out a clear message of the equality of the sexes. That would have been revolutionary.

Doesn't that mean, if true -- that Jesus spoke for God, and Paul for Jesus (which it has to be) -- then neither God nor Christ are for the equality of the sexes? And our secular systems, then today, that stand for the equality of the sexes, are rebelling against Gods' ways and wishes, concerning the sexes?

I hope not. I think it quite possible that our records, that are considered authoritative whether genuine or not, weren't concerned about such matters.

The son of man was coming back in their generation. And when that happened, equality of the sexes wouldn't be an issue. Then they would all be "in Christ," where there are no sexes.

I didn't forget 2nd Corinthians 11: 3. That verse as well as 1st Timothy 2: 14 states that Eve was deceived. But 2nd Corinthians 11:3 is not a teaching about women in the literal sense. It's a metaphor referring to Paul's desire to present the Corinthians as a pure bride to Christ her one husband in the previous verse. The passage in 1st Timothy 2 is the only one in the New Testament that uses Eve's story as a basis for keeping women silent in the churches. And, the experts tell us, it's doubtful that it was penned by Paul the apostle.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't forget 2nd Corinthians 11: 3. That verse as well as 1st Timothy 2: 14 states that Eve was deceived. But 2nd Corinthians 11:3 is not a teaching about women in the literal sense. It's a metaphor referring to Paul's desire to present the Corinthians as a pure bride to Christ her one husband in the previous verse. The passage in 1st Timothy 2 is the only one in the New Testament that uses Eve's story as a basis for keeping women silent in the churches. And, the experts tell us, it's doubtful that it was penned by Paul the apostle.

More evidence, among others, that Paul didn't write 1st Timothy :

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees, so claimed. Surely he would have known the Genesis story well enough not to get it wrong.

Whoever the author was got it wrong. When he writes : "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression," that's not how the version of the story we have in our canon today puts it :
Gen 3:6b - "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her"

So they were both there listening to the talking serpent, and they both 'right there together' transgressed.

Basically, this author is using, and twisting, the Genesis story to support his misogyny against women.

And like the snake handlers in Appalachia, who are following the last 12 verses in Mark, that is a later add in, today churches are following a non-authentic Timothy.

All thanks to Constantine's Bible.

[zeek]

deleted post

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

More evidence, among others, that Paul didn't write 1st Timothy :

Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees, so claimed. Surely he would have known the Genesis story well enough not to get it wrong.

Whoever the author was got it wrong. When he writes : "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression," that's not how the version of the story we have in our canon today puts it :
Gen 3:6b - "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her"

So they were both there listening to the talking serpent, and they both 'right there together' transgressed.

Basically, this author is using, and twisting, the Genesis story to support his misogyny against women.

And like the snake handlers in Appalachia, who are following the last 12 verses in Mark, that is a later add in, today churches are following a non-authentic Timothy.

All thanks to Constantine's Bible.

So, do we agree on the following?

1) Jesus' attitude towards women was refreshingly egalitarian. However he didn't provide an explicit teaching which demanded a fundamental change in the status of women.

2) Paul did propose such a change Galatians 3:28 wherein there was no distinction made between male or female in Christ. However he wasn't fully consistent with this in practice as is illustrated in I Corinthians when he made such a distinction with regard to head covering. This suggests he may not have understood the full implications of the Galatians 3:28 principal. He may have been a bit like Jefferson who stated that all men were created equal and yet own slaves.

3)Nevertheless, both men we're operating under the patriarchal paradigm of an age in which God is seen as the divine Father while the divine character of the mother was suppressed as it was in Old Testament Judaism.

4) As a result, Christianity quickly backslid into a view of women as subordinate to men as is seen in I Timothy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, do we agree on the following?

1) Jesus' attitude towards women was refreshingly egalitarian. However he didn't provide an explicit teaching which demanded a fundamental change in the status of women.

2) Paul did propose such a change Galatians 3:28 wherein there was no distinction made between male or female in Christ. However he wasn't fully consistent with this in practice as for example, when he made such a distinction with regard to head covering for women. This suggests he may not have fully understood the implication of the Galatians 3:28 principal. He may have been a bit like Jefferson who stated that all men were created equal and yet own slaves.

3)Nevertheless, both men were operating under the patriarchal paradigm of an age in which God is seen as the divine Father and the divine character of the Mother is suppressed as it was in Old Testament Judaism.

4) As a result Christianity backslid into a treatment of women as subordinate to men as reflected as early as the teaching regarding women in I Timothy.

I don't.

1. Jesus and Paul had the same teaching. In the kingdom of the heavens there is no male and female.

2. However, in this age there is. To deny that is idiotic. Both Jesus and Paul encouraged abstinence from marriage, but realized for most people that would not be a viable option. Staying unmarried would go a long way to helping women have equal rights. When women are pregnant and are raising two or three kids it can be enough to derail any other career they might have aspired to.

3. Both Jesus and Paul had women in leading roles in the ministry.

4. Paul taught that the single best step that the church could take in the midst of a culture similar to the Taliban, was to "teach women in quietness". In hindsight this has been the single best strategy and no one, certainly not Awareness, has suggested any better strategy to women living in the Middle East 1,900 years ago.

5. Similar to Paul Jesus taught that the wisest path for women would be to take up His cross and follow Him. Again, wisdom that has been proven by hindsight.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't.

1. Jesus and Paul had the same teaching. In the kingdom of the heavens there is no male and female.

2. However, in this age there is. To deny that is idiotic. Both Jesus and Paul encouraged abstinence from marriage, but realized for most people that would not be a viable option. Staying unmarried would go a long way to helping women have equal rights. When women are pregnant and are raising two or three kids it can be enough to derail any other career they might have aspired to.

3. Both Jesus and Paul had women in leading roles in the ministry.

4. Paul taught that the single best step that the church could take in the midst of a culture similar to the Taliban, was to "teach women in quietness". In hindsight this has been the single best strategy and no one, certainly not Awareness, has suggested any better strategy to women living in the Middle East 1,900 years ago.

5. Similar to Paul Jesus taught that the wisest path for women would be to take up His cross and follow Him. Again, wisdom that has been proven by hindsight.

1. So then, if we take Jesus literally, equality of the sexes must wait for the general resurrection. Paul said there was no male or female in Christ. But he violated the principle every time he made a distinction between men and women as he did when he said that women should wear head covering when prophesying and men should not. 1st Timothy contradicts that teaching by implying that women should not be able to prophesy at all.
2. I agree it's literally idiotic. So we must either conclude that Paul is an idiot or look for a metaphorical meaning. The ambiguity of the metaphor leaves it open for interpretation. A common traditional interpretation has it that it means that men and women are equal before God. The idea in jurisprudence that men and women are equal before the law derives from that metaphor.
3. There is evidence that women associated with both Jesus and Paul had leadership positions, not the least of which was as financial backers. But pray tell why did Jesus name no woman among the 12 apostles?
4. Holding "teach women in quietness" as a principal in no way affords women equal rights. So you have made my case that if Jesus and Paul at any point recognized women as equal, the church backslid into once again viewing them as subordinate by the time I Timothy was written.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

1. So then, if we take Jesus literally, equality of the sexes must wait for the general resurrection. Paul said there was no male or female in Christ. But he violated the principle every time he made a distinction between men and women as he did when he said that women should wear head covering when prophesying and men should not. 1st Timothy contradicts that teaching by implying that women should not be able to prophesy at all.

He didn't violate anything, neither Paul or Jesus said that men and women were equal in this life, this kingdom, this age. You remind me of those who thought Jesus told John that he would be alive when the Lord returned. Not what the Lord said.

Originally Posted by zeek

2. I agree it's literally idiotic. So we must either conclude that Paul is an idiot or look for a metaphorical meaning. The ambiguity of the metaphor leaves it open for interpretation. A common traditional interpretation has it that it means that men and women are equal before God. The idea in jurisprudence that men and women are equal before the law derives from that metaphor.

Not idiotic anymore. I conclude Paul had a vision of the future.

Originally Posted by zeek

3. There is evidence that women associated with both Jesus and Paul had leadership positions, not the least of was as financial backers. But pray tell why did Jesus name no woman among the 12 apostles?

That would be hypothetical. I could posit some ideas, but would be the point?

Originally Posted by zeek

4) Holding "teach women in quietness" as a principal in no way affords women equal rights.

Tell that to Malia.

Originally Posted by zeek

So you have made my case that if Jesus and Paul at any point recognized women as equal, the church backslid into once again viewing them as subordinate by the time I Timothy was written.

The first step towards equal rights is equal education. Not evidence of the church backsliding, but rather of the church as being a form of salvation, helping pull people out of this evil and adulterous age.

Where your entire argument is completely illogical and unfounded is the assumption that it was the church that taught people to be misogynists, rather than the church that was rescuing people from sin.

[awareness]

I mistakenly posted this on the Politics thread. Am bringing our discussion of it over here :

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have a different take than you. I feel everything was for a purpose. I feel I grew as a Christian, my faith was tested, and I learned to follow the Lord's leading. The Lord led me into the LC and He led me out.

So no vitriol, simply an awareness of the Chinese government.

I'm happy for ya bro.

Now back to women in 1st c. Palestine : A present day example of how women were treated back then.

Enter, recent news : Lev Tahor

They kidnapped a couple of children in upstate NY and took them to Mexico. They were captured, and the children recovered.

The Lev Tahor is a extremist Jewish cult, that strictly holds true to the Torah. According to them women are to be covered in black from head to toe, starting at age 3.

They are holding to the Jewish customs that were present in 1st c. Palestine. That's the way women were treat in Jesus' day.

And Jesus, nor Paul, spoke out any clear message against it. Instead women were to shut up, and be silent.

And patriarchy and misogyny continued on for centuries, supported by the Bible.

Children kidnapped by Hasidic cult found safe in Mexico, leaders charged

https://www.timesofisrael.com/childr...aders-charged/

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you really so clueless? Both Jesus and Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom to the ends of the earth. That preaching of the truth is what has set people free. That has led to the enlightened age we have today. That has revolutionized the world.

Instead, you would have had this all fizzle out in some pointless "rebellion" 2,000 years ago about what? This from the same guy who applauds Chinese dictators cracking down on all forms of religious expression.

[awareness]

Brought over from politics :

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm happy for ya bro.

Now back to women in 1st c. Palestine : A present day example of how women were treated back then.

Enter, recent news : Lev Tahor

They kidnapped a couple of children in upstate NY and took them to Mexico. They were captured, and the children recovered.

The Lev Tahor is a extremist Jewish cult, that strictly holds true to the Torah. According to them women are to be covered in black from head to toe, starting at age 3.

They are holding to the Jewish customs that were present in 1st c. Palestine. That's the way women were treat in Jesus' day.

And Jesus, nor Paul, spoke out any clear message against it. Instead women were to shut up, and be silent.

And patriarchy and misogyny continued on for centuries, supported by the Bible.

Children kidnapped by Hasidic cult found safe in Mexico, leaders charged

https://www.timesofisrael.com/childr...aders-charged/

[by ZNP] Are you really so clueless? Both Jesus and Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom to the ends of the earth. That preaching of the truth is what has set people free. That has led to the enlightened age we have today. That has revolutionized the world.

Instead, you would have had this all fizzle out in some pointless "rebellion" 2,000 years ago about what? This from the same guy who applauds Chinese dictators cracking down on all forms of religious expression.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNP

Are you really so clueless? Both Jesus and Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom to the ends of the earth. That preaching of the truth is what has set people free. That has led to the enlightened age we have today. That has revolutionized the world.

You should have said set "men" free. Cuz that's what happened from all that kingdom preaching. Women remained unequal. Even up to your so called enlightened age ; exemplified by : "all men are created equal," so Jefferson wrote in the D of I ; women couldn't even vote.

And let's talk about the kingdom preaching. Are women unequal in the 'earthly kingdom?' That's what happened.

First Timothy exemplifies. No matter who wrote 1st Timothy, Galatians was written before it. If Paul wrote it it was written in the 50's or 60's. If a devotee of Paul wrote it, it was written in the late 1st c.. If Paul wrote it, did he backslide from is position of "no male or female in Christ," to the same old patriarchal ways? If someone else wrote it, regardless of all the kingdom preaching by Jesus and Paul, patriarchy was present early on in the church. Is that the kingdom Jesus and Paul preached to the whole earth? Answer that bro ZNP. It's important.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Instead, you would have had this all fizzle out in some pointless "rebellion" 2,000 years ago about what? This from the same guy who applauds Chinese dictators cracking down on all forms of religious expression.

Great. A personal attack. That means I'm getting to you. It disturbs you that you can't refute that neither Jesus or Paul stood for equality of the sexes. I know it's shameful, and that's why you keep offering rationales, unsuccessfully attempting to refute it.

Just face it. Patriarchy was the norm back then, for everyone, including Jesus and Paul.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You should have said set "men" free. Cuz that's what happened from all that kingdom preaching. Women remained unequal. Even up to your so called enlightened age ; exemplified by : "all men are created equal," so Jefferson wrote in the D of I ; women couldn't even vote.

And let's talk about the kingdom preaching. Are women unequal in the 'earthly kingdom?' That's what happened.

First Timothy exemplifies. No matter who wrote 1st Timothy, Galatians was written before it. If Paul wrote it it was written in the 50's or 60's. If a devotee of Paul wrote it, it was written in the late 1st c.. If Paul wrote it, did he backslide from is position of "no male or female in Christ," to the same old patriarchal ways? If someone else wrote it, regardless of all the kingdom preaching by Jesus and Paul, patriarchy was present early on in the church. Is that the kingdom Jesus and Paul preached to the whole earth? Answer that bro ZNP. It's important.


Great. A personal attack. That means I'm getting to you. It disturbs you that you can't refute that neither Jesus or Paul stood for equality of the sexes. I know it's shameful, and that's why you keep offering rationales, unsuccessfully attempting to refute it.

Just face it. Patriarchy was the norm back then, for everyone, including Jesus and Paul.

Tired of repeating this over and over

1. There is the practical reality of the age we live in and there is the Kingdom age that we enter in our spirit and where we will ultimately arrive. In that coming age there is no male or female. Both Jesus and Paul said this. However, in this age there is. In the societies in which the church is this is the case (acting like an embassy from the Kingdom -- we are representatives of that kingdom but inhabit a strange land and must respect that). This is why it is called "the gospel". We are preaching good news to those in darkness.

2. The term patriarchy only means that men have a position in the society as well as women. Yes, both the OT and NT are patriarchal, they protect the position of men. From my understanding matriarchal societies are not in any way examples of some kind of utopia.

3. Why is repeating your positions on relevant issues viewed by you as "a personal attack"? That is a bizarre statement.

4. I have stated from the get go, in fact this is where I entered this conversation, that Timothy should be the focus. I pointed out there are two issues -- the direction to women to dress modestly and the direction to not teach men. The first is an absurd complaint since we, today, in our enlightened state, give the same instructions to those going to the middle east. As for the second I understand that instruction in light of the entire NT which includes Galatians, but more importantly includes the instruction that women are to have their heads covered when they pray and that the elder women are to teach the younger women, and that an elder must be the husband of one wife. These three instructions make it clear that women do speak in the church, they do teach and they do hold positions of authority. Nor can some pathetic attempt to claim that Timothy was not written by Paul solve any of these issues. Therefore the context of that particular chapter is dealing with kings and political rulers in the town in which the church is located. The instructions by Paul are equivalent to the instructions virtually everyone today in any large corporation is given -- you don't speak for the organization unless you have that position. You don't speak to the press, you don't speak in any way shape or form implying that you are doing so on behalf of the corporation unless you have been instructed to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Tired of repeating this over and over

Me too. But I think we're getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by ZNP

1. There is the practical reality of the age we live in and there is the Kingdom age that we enter in our spirit and where we will ultimately arrive. In that coming age there is no male or female. Both Jesus and Paul said this. However, in this age there is. In the societies in which the church is this is the case (acting like an embassy from the Kingdom -- we are representatives of that kingdom but inhabit a strange land and must respect that). This is why it is called "the gospel". We are preaching good news to those in darkness.

And that good news, that the church has been bringing ever since, includes equality of the sexes? That hasn't been demonstrated. Even in the local church. Not the one I was in. There were no official women elders, ever, nor co-workers, nor -- I guess it's still the same -- no women Blended Brothers. Can't sisters be blended? I guess not. I guess they're still blended with that poison fruit. Christianity will never let them forget that. Those women are to blame for us being born into original sin.

Originally Posted by ZNP

2. The term patriarchy only means that men have a position in the society as well as women. Yes, both the OT and NT are patriarchal, they protect the position of men. From my understanding matriarchal societies are not in any way examples of some kind of utopia.

Patriarchal, matriarchal? Why not Eqalitarianism?

Originally Posted by ZNP

4. I have stated from the get go, in fact this is where I entered this conversation, that Timothy should be the focus. I pointed out there are two issues -- the direction to women to dress modestly and the direction to not teach men.

So Paul, a man, tells Timothy, a man, to tell women how they should act ... how they adorn themselves, and not braid their hair, or wear gold, or pearls, or costly array ; and for them to learn in silence and SUBJECTION.

This in no way speaks to the equality of the sexes ... this is nothing short of male dominance.

Originally Posted by ZNP

These three instructions make it clear that women do speak in the church, they do teach and they do hold positions of authority.

NOT!

Originally Posted by ZNP

Nor can some pathetic attempt to claim that Timothy was not written by Paul solve any of these issues. Therefore the context of that particular chapter is dealing with kings and political rulers in the town in which the church is located. The instructions by Paul are equivalent to the instructions virtually everyone today in any large corporation is given -- you don't speak for the organization unless you have that position. You don't speak to the press, you don't speak in any way shape or form implying that you are doing so on behalf of the corporation unless you have been instructed to.

Not the same at all.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Me too. But I think we're getting somewhere.


And that good news, that the church has been bringing ever since, includes equality of the sexes? That hasn't been demonstrated. Even in the local church. Not the one I was in. There were no official women elders, ever, nor co-workers, nor -- I guess it's still the same -- no women Blended Brothers. Can't sisters be blended? I guess not. I guess they're still blended with that poison fruit. Christianity will never let them forget that. Those women are to blame for us being born into original sin.

A group of 10,000 Christians out of a billion worldwide does not define who or what Christians (.001%) are anymore than the guy who ran over protestors in his car defines Americans. The NT and the fellowship of the apostles, that defines who we are.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

A group of 10,000 Christians out of a billion worldwide does not define who or what Christians (.001%) are anymore than the guy who ran over protestors in his car defines Americans. The NT and the fellowship of the apostles, that defines who we are.

But 1.2 billion Catholics might agree, with all their male priests.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that good news, that the church has been bringing ever since, includes equality of the sexes? That hasn't been demonstrated. Even in the local church. Not the one I was in. There were no official women elders, ever, nor co-workers, nor -- I guess it's still the same -- no women Blended Brothers. Can't sisters be blended? I guess not. I guess they're still blended with that poison fruit. Christianity will never let them forget that. Those women are to blame for us being born into original sin.


Patriarchal, matriarchal? Why not Eqalitarianism?

We are all things to all people. What society is egalitarian? The church could operate in that society far better than any other religion could.

In the 70s I remember some of the most shrill claims made by Shafly and the anti feminists. They seemed over the top at the time: women will serve in combat and we'll have unisex bathrooms.

I also see numerous studies on women in executive positions and women's pay. In my opinion they should factor in the fact that some women adjust their career goals when they are pregnant and have children. If a woman drops out of her job for three years or longer to raise her kids one would expect that to be reflected in her pay and her career. That should not be viewed as bias or a glass ceiling.

Likewise I see laws being passed that allow men to take time off when a baby is born, that is a recent development which is moving towards egalitarian society. I have not heard a single peep out of Christians or churches complaining about women getting equal pay, women getting positions of authority in society, women running for president, or men taking time off at the time a baby is born. If Christians did have the bias you ascribe why are they so silent or even supportive of legislation that is moving towards an egalitarian society? The US is described as a "Christian" country and that is definitely a fair assessment when the US is weighed against other nations. Our laws, our thoughts and our population is certainly strongly influenced by both the NT and OT. Why then is the US moving dramatically towards an egalitarian society? The changes we have made in just the last 100 years when compared to 10,000 years of human history have been dramatic and rapid. If the Bible was truly biased against women that should not happen here.

Finally, why are you using the Catholic church to support your argument. The Catholic church has left the fellowship of the apostles in numerous and critical areas. What the Catholic church demonstrates is the fallen man, not the teaching of the Bible. Every complaint you have about Lee and Nee as leading a cult can be ascribed to the Catholic church on a much greater scale. Authoritarian leadership, yes. Mind control, yes. Bias against women, yes. Corrupt and lascivious men in positions of power, yes. Making merchandise of the saints, yes. Hypocritical leaders, yes. Setting up their Pope as a mediator between God and man, yes. And idolatry. They do not define Christians. A Christian is defined by our covenant with God, not by an abomination to God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We are all things to all people. What society is egalitarian? The church could operate in that society far better than any other religion could.

In the 70s I remember some of the most shrill claims made by Shafly and the anti feminists. They seemed over the top at the time: women will serve in combat and we'll have unisex bathrooms.

I also see numerous studies on women in executive positions and women's pay. In my opinion they should factor in the fact that some women adjust their career goals when they are pregnant and have children. If a woman drops out of her job for three years or longer to raise her kids one would expect that to be reflected in her pay and her career. That should not be viewed as bias or a glass ceiling.

Likewise I see laws being passed that allow men to take time off when a baby is born, that is a recent development which is moving towards egalitarian society. I have not heard a single peep out of Christians or churches complaining about women getting equal pay, women getting positions of authority in society, women running for president, or men taking time off at the time a baby is born. If Christians did have the bias you ascribe why are they so silent or even supportive of legislation that is moving towards an egalitarian society? The US is described as a "Christian" country and that is definitely a fair assessment when the US is weighed against other nations. Our laws, our thoughts and our population is certainly strongly influenced by both the NT and OT. Why then is the US moving dramatically towards an egalitarian society? The changes we have made in just the last 100 years when compared to 10,000 years of human history have been dramatic and rapid. If the Bible was truly biased against women that should not happen here.

Finally, why are you using the Catholic church to support your argument. The Catholic church has left the fellowship of the apostles in numerous and critical areas. What the Catholic church demonstrates is the fallen man, not the teaching of the Bible. Every complaint you have about Lee and Nee as leading a cult can be ascribed to the Catholic church on a much greater scale. Authoritarian leadership, yes. Mind control, yes. Bias against women, yes. Corrupt and lascivious men in positions of power, yes. Making merchandise of the saints, yes. Hypocritical leaders, yes. Setting up their Pope as a mediator between God and man, yes. And idolatry. They do not define Christians. A Christian is defined by our covenant with God, not by an abomination to God.

That's some pretty snazzy evangelical apologetic footwork.

But there's plenty of influences on the evolution of egalitarianism besides the OT and NT? Just like they didn't influence the Greeks, who founded science, and other intellectual breakthroughs, there are secular influences that are shaping our modern societies. I think we stopped referencing the Bible to end slavery and inequality of women.

To be honest. If I were a non-religious book worm, and picked up the Bible, and read it objectively, with no particular religious bias, I wouldn't be able to help concluding that the God of the Bible is a racist (the chosen race) and a misogynous (inequality and oppression of women in the book). That would be discovered in the first 3 chapters of the Bible, where the man gives birth to the women, and the woman is blamed for angering God, and getting them kicked out of paradise ; obviously the serpent was male.

And so was/is God (the Father). Where's the goddess in the Bible? The early Israelite's, before 600BC, were polytheists, and Yahweh back then had a consort. Her name was Asherah. She was also part of the Canaanite pantheon. So why don't we have Mother God in the Bible?

Than we could concluded that the Bible stands for equality of the sexes. But we can't. There's no Mother God in the Bible, anywhere, old or new.

And neither Jesus or Paul addressed it. Patriarchy carried the day ; until secularism had to address it within the last 100 years or so. The Bible had 1900 yrs circa to address equality of the sexes, but failed to produce it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's some pretty snazzy evangelical apologetic footwork.

But there's plenty of influences on the evolution of egalitarianism besides the OT and NT? Just like they didn't influence the Greeks, who founded science, and other intellectual breakthroughs, there are secular influences that are shaping our modern societies. I think we stopped referencing the Bible to end slavery and inequality of women.

That's funny. Lets see, according to the Bible an adult sells himself as a slave to pay off a debt, it is a legal contract that is for a certain amount of years agreed on between the two. If the slave dies in the carrying out of his duties the owner can be sued, but if he is injured the owner is not guilty, comes with the territory.

How is that any different from an NFL contract? So then, your idea that we have "ended slavery" is ridiculous if you are referencing Biblical slavery.

Originally Posted by awareness

To be honest. If I were a non-religious book worm, and picked up the Bible, and read it objectively, with no particular religious bias, I wouldn't be able to help concluding that the God of the Bible is a racist (the chosen race) and a misogynous (inequality and oppression of women in the book). That would be discovered in the first 3 chapters of the Bible, where the man gives birth to the women, and the woman is blamed for angering God, and getting them kicked out of paradise ; obviously the serpent was male.

Yes, probably how many who come to these conclusions read the Bible. They read 3 chapters, less than 1% of the Bible and then make their conclusions. Concluding that God favors one race over another is a valid conclusion until you come to the NT. Likewise concluding that God's attitude towards women is not "equal" to his attitude towards men is also a valid conclusion until you come to the NT. However, I cannot see any valid reason to say that God "oppressed" women. If you read Job you could make that conclusion about Job. Genesis you could make that conclusion about Joseph. Daniel you could make that conclusion about Daniel, Meshach, Abednego, etc. But Esther and Ruth and Song of Songs, the only three books where women are front and center as the focal point there is no "oppression" at all.

Originally Posted by awareness

And so was/is God (the Father). Where's the goddess in the Bible? The early Israelite's, before 600BC, were polytheists, and Yahweh back then had a consort. Her name was Asherah. She was also part of the Canaanite pantheon. So why don't we have Mother God in the Bible?

We have a daughter of God, an adopted daughter of God, a wife of God and a Bride of Christ and "the mother of us all". Once again, your approach to read 3 chapters and then interpret the entire Bible based on that is showing some deficiencies.

Originally Posted by awareness

Than we could concluded that the Bible stands for equality of the sexes. But we can't. There's no Mother God in the Bible, anywhere, old or new.

Nor is there a "Father of God". Wonderful logic you are employing here.

Originally Posted by awareness

And neither Jesus or Paul addressed it. Patriarchy carried the day ; until secularism had to address it within the last 100 years or so. The Bible had 1900 yrs circa to address equality of the sexes, but failed to produce it.

Jesus and Paul addressed adultery (one way in which women are abused in a relationship). Jesus addressed the unequal treatment of women caught in adultery with that of men. Another example of dealing with this abuse. Paul dealt with the education of women (another way in which women were held down). Paul and Jesus both encouraged women to remain unwed, another way in which women were held down (the old barefoot and pregnant). Paul made it a rule that monogamous relationships had to be the example in the church. Ruling out mistresses, and harems among those in leadership positions. Paul required that the leadership of the church be a married couple and he taught that Male and Female is viewed as one person. In this way he made sure that women were in leadership positions in every church. He taught that the younger women were to be taught by elder women. Also requiring that women be made teachers in the church. Since churches are composed primarily of women and children this made women the primary functioning members and the regulations concerning men did more to make sure men were not pushed out and made irrelevant.

Finally, the fundamental definition of "secularism" is the separation of church and state. Jesus taught this when He said that my kingdom is not of this world. Gospels taught this when you read of Satan promising Jesus to give him all these kingdoms if He will worship me. This fundamental teaching is continued in the epistles in numerous places. So if you are giving "secularism" credit for these changes you are agreeing with me that it was the NT and the influence of the apostles. Glad to see you are open to changing your opinion through dialogue. That is big of you.

Jewish, Moslem, Shinto, Seikism and Catholic religions are not secular, they believe that the religion is entwined with the govt. Even Buddhism with the dalai lama is intertwined with government.

[zeek]

ZNP you evaded awareness's argument. The New Testament refers to God the Father. Why not God the Mother? Face the fact. The symbolism is inescapably patriarchal. The honest conservative response is to embrace patriarchy. But you can't do that and embrace equality of the sexes at the same time.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

ZNP you evaded awareness's argument. The New Testament refers to God the Father. Why not God the Mother? Face the fact. The symbolism is inescapably patriarchal. The honest conservative response is to embrace patriarchy. But you can't do that and embrace equality of the sexes at the same time.

What exactly is the status of the church after the marriage of the lamb?

I have not evaded his argument. Read all my posts. I have embraced the fact that the Bible is patriarchal. I deny that this equates to misogyny. His argument was lame and full of holes. The Bible does talk of the daughter of God, the wife of God, the mother of us all, the Bride of Christ, and the marriage of the lamb. Tell Awareness to go and correct all the inaccuracies of his argument and then I'll look at it again.

[ZNPaaneah]

10 [b]A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.
12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.
13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.
14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.
15 She gets up while it is still night;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her female servants.
16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.
18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.
19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.
21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.
22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.
25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.
26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:
29 “Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all.”
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
31 Honor her for all that her hands have done,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

[ZNPaaneah]

As a young man marries a young woman, so will your Builder marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you.


14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[d] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.

16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[e] says the Lord Almighty.

So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.


However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


“Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What exactly is the status of the church after the marriage of the lamb?

I have not evaded his argument. Read all my posts. I have embraced the fact that the Bible is patriarchal. I deny that this equates to misogyny. His argument was lame and full of holes. The Bible does talk of the daughter of God, the wife of God, the mother of us all, the Bride of Christ, and the marriage of the lamb. Tell Awareness to go and correct all the inaccuracies of his argument and then I'll look at it again.

Oh you agree the Bible is patriarchal. I couldn't tell that from your posts which seem to argue the opposite. I never accused the biblical authors of misogyny. However the teaching in 1st Timothy has often been used for misogynist ends by church people. Where is the verse that instructs women and children to speak loudly when they're being sexually abused by pastors, elders, bishops, so-called apostles or their privileged sons?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What exactly is the status of the church after the marriage of the lamb?

How can anyone know? Speaking of the marriage of the Lamb, maybe we're provided a sneak-peek in the parable of the 10 virgins : Mathew 25.

First. When the bridegroom comes, there still remains male and female. Paul must have been speaking metaphorically when he said no male or female, not literally. Which explains all the ambiguity concerning male and female in his writings.

Second. Putting aside the implication of polygamy, look at how even that parable is chock-full of patriarchy : Five virgins and one groom. The man had five young women taking care of him and his needs (every mans' dream ... even Jesus, apparently (prolly not Paul, he was a misogynous - "best not to touch a women" -- they're below him)).

Third. "The 'son' of 'man.'" That's absurd, considering that every one, including sons and daughters, are the 'sons' of women, not men ; again, male dominance in the NT -- women, the only ones bringing life into the world, get less credit than men.

In the end, it would make more sense if there were a Mother God in the Bible, and not just a Father God.

What happened to Mother God?

Maybe she was like Lilith -- Adams first wife, that was created with him (see Gen. 1:27), who refused to be subservient, and left Adam, and the garden --

So, after giving birth to Jesus in heaven, she must have refused to be subservient, so God buried her in the back yard. So, no Mother God. And Jesus didn't honor his heavenly mother, any more than his earthly mother ; he never mentions his heavenly mother.

Who knows? We can't know, any more than we can know, "the status of the church after the marriage of the lamb."

[zeek]

While we await ZNP's answers, I will introduce another proposition where Christianity may have become poor for the consideration of our readers. That is: Christianity became "poor poor" when it began to teach the doctrine of eternal perdition.

There is no documentation that the church councils of the first four centuries embraced the doctrine of "eternal punishment." The church councils at Nice in A.D. 325, at Constantinople in A.D.381, at Ephesus in A.D.431 and at Chalcedon in A.D.451 never embraced this doctrine. In contrast, there is documented evidence that many church leaders and teachers of the first centuries A.D. wrote acclaiming the doctrine of "universal salvation" or "ultimate reconciliation", none of whom were censored. It was not until 553 A.D. that the Roman Catholic Church denounced the teaching of ultimate reconciliation as heresy. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/etpunish.html

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

How can anyone know?

You should have stuck to this rather than running off with the polygamy, misogyny, etc.

Originally Posted by awareness

What happened to Mother God?

Male and female, together they make up "Man".

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Oh you agree the Bible is patriarchal. I couldn't tell that from your posts which seem to argue the opposite. I never accused the biblical authors of misogyny. However the teaching in 1st Timothy has often been used for misogynist ends by church people. Where is the verse that instructs women and children to speak loudly when they're being sexually abused by pastors, elders, bishops, so-called apostles or their privileged sons?

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Clearly women are instructed to "scream for help" in such situations. Your question neglected the other not uncommon crime of a woman found in fornication who cries rape. This verse covers both possibilities.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

Clearly women are instructed to "scream for help" in such situations. Your question neglected the other not uncommon crime of a woman found in fornication who cries rape. This verse covers both possibilities.

Look at my question again and perhaps you'll see how inappropriate your answer is. Your answer is that when a woman is abused she's supposed to get stoned to death if she doesn't scream. Are you serious? Is that what you're really advising? And of course you don't seem to understand that I was talking about 1st Timothy which is in the New Testament. are Christians really supposed to be following Old Testament law? What's more, your response does begin to look like misogyny. What if no one hears our screams? Stone her? Does she get to break the rule of silence and speak out in a meeting to save her life? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You're just scrambling around because you've lost the argument. Apparently the New Testament doesn't advise a woman what to do if she's being abused by the male church leaders. Apparently the New Testament writers thought that their leadership would be above that sort of thing. If I'm wrong produce a verse that proves it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Look at my question again and perhaps you'll see how inappropriate your answer is. Your answer is that when a woman is abused she's supposed to get stoned to death if she doesn't scream. Are you serious? Is that what you're really advising? And of course you don't seem to understand that I was talking about 1st Timothy which is in the New Testament. are Christians really supposed to be following Old Testament law? What's more, your response does begin to look like misogyny. What if no one hears our screams? Stone her? Does she get to break the rule of silence and speak out in a meeting to save her life? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You're just scrambling around because you've lost the argument. Apparently the New Testament doesn't advise a woman what to do if she's being abused by the male church leaders. Apparently the New Testament writers thought that their leadership would be above that sort of thing. If I'm wrong produce a verse that proves it.

This is why it is a waste of time trying to talk to either you or Awareness, and why Ohio and everyone else has ditched this site.

The verse is very clear -- a woman should scream if she is being raped. That answers your question of "where the Bible tells her to scream". Ignoring that is willful disregard for what is obvious.

What you are ignoring is the very real possibility that when the woman is caught in the fornication she claims the man forced her. Why do you ignore this, it is proven and is undeniably one possibility.

Also, the context and the verse clearly would be understood that had she screamed someone would have heard her. If that would not have been the case then any reasonable person could judge it that way.

This whole attack on man being the ultimate culprit, the ultimate evil and even if the woman sins well it isn't her fault because man has created a system in which she has to sin is simply the typical response of all sinners who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Finally, your ridiculous conclusion that "Apparently the New Testament doesn't advise a woman what to do if she's being abused by the male church leaders. Apparently the New Testament writers thought that their leadership would be above that sort of thing." Is just abhorrent. Paul said not to take an accusation against an elder except by the hand of two witnesses. How could anyone conclude that Paul thought the leadership "would be above that sort of thing"? Idiotic. Galatians, James, the epistles of Peter and Jude all discuss evil leaders, again what an idiotic and unfounded accusation from you. The only conclusion I can make is that you will say anything at all to slander the Apostles and the NT. Corinthians (both of them) deal with this very thing and the man is excommunicated and disciplined for his sexual abuses. Again, completely unfounded and willfully biased slander. Several books of Paul rebuke the works of the flesh which include many sexual sins. Jesus raised the stakes for this sin saying that committing it in your heart was on par with doing it in the flesh. Jesus rebuked the hypocritical leaders of the time for many sins, describing them as whitewashed sepulchres filled with dead man's bones. Your assertion that the writers of the NT couldn't forsee evil leaders is so absurdly ridiculous as to conclude you have no idea at all what the Bible says. The book of Revelation is filled with the judgement on the great, the leaders, the rulers of nations. Have you even read the NT?

As for the standard for "two witnesses" we have since learned in Forensic science that one witness is less than 50% accurate. If you only have a single witness chances are the person is innocent. But once you have two witnesses that agree the chances are better than 50% you have a guilty person. In addition the OT makes it very clear that "blood" can be a witness. Physical evidence can be a witness. It does not have to simply be two people who are eyewitnesses.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is why it is a waste of time trying to talk to either you or Awareness, and why Ohio and everyone else has ditched this site.

The verse is very clear -- a woman should scream if she is being raped. That answers your question of "where the Bible tells her to scream". Ignoring that is willful disregard for what is obvious.

What you are ignoring is the very real possibility that when the woman is caught in the fornication she claims the man forced her. Why do you ignore this, it is proven and is undeniably one possibility.

Also, the context and the verse clearly would be understood that had she screamed someone would have heard her. If that would not have been the case then any reasonable person could judge it that way.

This whole attack on man being the ultimate culprit, the ultimate evil and even if the woman sins well it isn't her fault because man has created a system in which she has to sin is simply the typical response of all sinners who don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Finally, your ridiculous conclusion that "Apparently the New Testament doesn't advise a woman what to do if she's being abused by the male church leaders. Apparently the New Testament writers thought that their leadership would be above that sort of thing." Is just abhorrent. Paul said not to take an accusation against an elder except by the hand of two witnesses. How could anyone conclude that Paul thought the leadership "would be above that sort of thing"? Idiotic. Galatians, James, the epistles of Peter and Jude all discuss evil leaders, again what an idiotic and unfounded accusation from you. The only conclusion I can make is that you will say anything at all to slander the Apostles and the NT. Corinthians (both of them) deal with this very thing and the man is excommunicated and disciplined for his sexual abuses. Again, completely unfounded and willfully biased slander. Several books of Paul rebuke the works of the flesh which include many sexual sins. Jesus raised the stakes for this sin saying that committing it in your heart was on par with doing it in the flesh. Jesus rebuked the hypocritical leaders of the time for many sins, describing them as whitewashed sepulchres filled with dead man's bones. Your assertion that the writers of the NT couldn't forsee evil leaders is so absurdly ridiculous as to conclude you have no idea at all what the Bible says. The book of Revelation is filled with the judgement on the great, the leaders, the rulers of nations. Have you even read the NT?

As for the standard for "two witnesses" we have since learned in Forensic science that one witness is less than 50% accurate. If you only have a single witness chances are the person is innocent. But once you have two witnesses that agree the chances are better than 50% you have a guilty person. In addition the OT makes it very clear that "blood" can be a witness. Physical evidence can be a witness. It does not have to simply be two people who are eyewitnesses.

Your task is simple. Just produce a verse in the New Testament which says that women are allowed to break the silence imposed upon them in 1st Timothy to speak up and report sexual abuse.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is why it is a waste of time trying to talk to either you or Awareness, and why Ohio and everyone else has ditched this site.

"the things which are despised God has chosen..." 1 Corinthians 1:28

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is why it is a waste of time trying to talk to either you or Awareness, and why Ohio and everyone else has ditched this site.

The only conclusion I can make is that you will say anything at all to slander the Apostles and the NT.

Your assertion that the writers of the NT couldn't foresee evil leaders is so absurdly ridiculous as to conclude you have no idea at all what the Bible says.

3 accurate conclusions confirmed by a second eyewitness.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You should have stuck to this rather than running off with the polygamy, misogyny, etc.

The runoff master can recognize the running off of others but not of himself.

My little ditty wasn't much different than your little ditty, that, the Bible has the way of good slavery ; like MBL players, that are making millions, while in their chains.

Originally Posted by ZNP

Male and female, together they make up "Man".

I realize "man" has been used to mean all of "man"kind. Why? Because if we used "woman" for all humankind it sounds silly?

No. It's merely a product of patriarchy ; which we all -- the trinity of AltV's - or the Three Amigos -- all agree existed back then. Otherwise gender neutral terms could be used, like "people" or "humans."

But back to "the son of "humankind," er, I mean "man."" Setting aside that it's hard to determine just who the son of man is (why not son of God), lets talk about the word man. In Greek it's "anthrōpos," which is gender neutral, some what, depending on the context. It's used 560 times in the NT.

An interesting conundrum for modern translators, that tend to translate in more gender neutral terms, of the word anthrōpos, is in John 2:24-25 and 3:1 :

Joh 2:24* But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,*
Joh 2:25* And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.*
Joh 3:1* There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:*

All are anthrōpos. So how do you translate them?

Still, we've already settled that those were patriarchal times, when women were subservient to men (and be silent).

I understand why most Jesus believers would get their 10 foot poles out - like bro Ohio - that, Jesus and Paul didn't speak out clearly that the inequality of the sexes is wrong.

Jesus and Paul are the founders and leaders of the Christian faith. They're the ones we look up to for moral guidance. They could have settled the matter early on. But they didn't.

This is important. Because the Christian leaders and founders never made it clear that, women shouldn't be subservient to men, it's caused grievous harm to women for centuries.

I know admitting that is a hard pill to swallow. These days it doesn't make Jesus/Paul/Christianity very attractive concerning the status women. And these days women are clawing out from under that kind of treatment and inequality.

Soooo ... When it comes to women, shame on Jesus and Paul.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

3 accurate conclusions confirmed by a second eyewitness.

And an unbiased one at that!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

The runoff master can recognize the running off of others but not of himself.

My little ditty wasn't much different than your little ditty, that, the Bible has the way of good slavery ; like MBL players, that are making millions, while in their chains.


I realize "man" has been used to mean all of "man"kind. Why? Because if we used "woman" for all humankind it sounds silly?

No. It's merely a product of patriarchy ; which we all -- the trinity of AltV's - or the Three Amigos -- all agree existed back then. Otherwise gender neutral terms could be used, like "people" or "humans."

But back to "the son of "humankind," er, I mean "man."" Setting aside that it's hard to determine just who the son of man is (why not son of God), lets talk about the word man. In Greek it's "anthrōpos," which is gender neutral, some what, depending on the context. It's used 560 times in the NT.

An interesting conundrum for modern translators, that tend to translate in more gender neutral terms, of the word anthrōpos, is in John 2:24-25 and 3:1 :

Joh 2:24* But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,*
Joh 2:25* And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.*
Joh 3:1* There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:*

All are anthrōpos. So how do you translate them?

Still, we've already settled that those were patriarchal times, when women were subservient to men (and be silent).

I understand why most Jesus believers would get their 10 foot poles out - like bro Ohio - that, Jesus and Paul didn't speak out clearly that the inequality of the sexes is wrong.

Jesus and Paul are the founders and leaders of the Christian faith. They're the ones we look up to for moral guidance. They could have settled the matter early on. But they didn't.

This is important. Because the Christian leaders and founders never made it clear that, women shouldn't be subservient to men, it's caused grievous harm to women for centuries.

I know admitting that is a hard pill to swallow. These days it doesn't make Jesus/Paul/Christianity very attractive concerning the status women. And these days women are clawing out from under that kind of treatment and inequality.

Soooo ... When it comes to women, shame on Jesus and Paul.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 11:3

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

So we all agree! In the New Testament, not unlike in the Old, and, as in the Koran as well, women are not equal with men, but are, rather, subordinate, by which we mean lower in rank or position.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 11:3

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

So we all agree! In the New Testament, not unlike in the Old, and, as in the Koran as well, women are not equal with men, but are, rather, subordinate, by which we mean lower in rank or position.

I know I've been accused of attacking the apostles, but why go after the middleman? I think that women need to be held down and subordinate may very well be because of God's doing.

Not because God made man over woman because he made woman out of man, but because he made woman so seductive and irresistible to man.

Adam couldn't help himself. Eve had no problem seducing Adam to eat the forbidden fruit. But it's not considered to be Adam's fault, it was the irresistibleness of woman, it was Eve's fault.

But she couldn't help it. She didn't even have to try. God made her that way. Perhaps that's why Paul said it's best too not even touch a woman. She's too seductive. God made her so seductive that she had to be controlled by men. Cuz men were too weak to resist them, they had to be covered from head to toe, from 3 yrs old, cuz men want even very young virgins. If the sons of God in Gen. 6 couldn't resist them, human men don't have a chance.

Islam didn't invent covering women from head to toe, they copied it from the Old Testament. I read that in countries where women wear burka's, women have such power of sexual attraction that men are titillated just by catching a glimpse of a bare ankle. That's how seductive God made women to men.

So women have to be subjugated by men -- silent and obedient -- because men can't help themselves ... especially 'other' men ... men can't allow women to adorn themselves, cuz other men will want them.

Kudos to Christianity for replacing the burka with just a head covering.

And it seems to me God made man man, and women women, and they are the way they are. So, if true, it's God that wants women to live like they suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, in church and in marriage.

The truth is, I don't know what God wants, if He ordained that women are to be below men or not. But if it is ordained by God then, our present day secular society is rebelling against God's ordained way ... as to be expected from the heathens.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by zeek

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.1 Corinthians 11:3

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

So we all agree! In the preponderance of New Testament teachings, not unlike in the Old, and, as in the Koran as well, women are not equal with men, but are, rather, subordinate, by which we mean lower in rank or position.

That said we still have Galatians 3:28 which reads:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The context here is Galatians chapter three where Paul has shown that Christ redeemed us from the law by being made a curse for us...that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. So what Paul asserts here is that ethnic distinctions, class distinctions, and gender distinctions have been crucified on the cross and therefore don't exist in Christ before God. We "are all one in Christ Jesus."

Anybody have a problem with that?

[zeek]

According to Roman Catholic historian Garry Wills, in Galatians 3:26 - 28 Paul is quoting a baptismal formula that he learned in the diaspora churches. So egalitarianism was already being practiced in the earliest Christian gatherings when Paul joined. Or, t seems to me, at least it was the ideal they sought, as opposed to general norm of male superiority that predominated in first century Mediterranean culture.

Wills notes that the "hymn" does not keep perfect symmetry by saying "man or woman" since it is a quotation from Genesis "man and woman he created them" (1:27). "There is no more man and woman as originally divided since they are now united in Messiah."

Wills believes that the early gatherings of the churches were the most egalitarian groups of their day and that there has been a concerted effort over the centuries to hide or diminish this fact. This is in the chapter entitled "Paul and Women" in Wills' book What Paul Meant published in 2006.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to Roman Catholic historian Garry Wills, in Galatians 3:26 - 28 Paul is quoting a baptismal formula that he learned in the diaspora churches. So egalitarianism was already being practiced in the earliest Christian gatherings when Paul joined. Or, t seems to me, at least it was the ideal they sought, as opposed to general norm of male superiority that predominated in first century Mediterranean culture.

Wills notes that the "hymn" does not keep perfect symmetry by saying "man or woman" since it is a quotation from Genesis "man and woman he created them" (1:27). "There is no more man and woman as originally divided since they are now united in Messiah."

Wills believes that the early gatherings of the churches were the most egalitarian groups of their day and that there has been a concerted effort over the centuries to hide or diminish this fact. This is in the chapter entitled "Paul and Women" in Wills' book What Paul Meant published in 2006.

Well the 'Meant' dude better bring more than claims and statements.

[awareness]

I can't believe this didn't come to mind but I think I've found the point where Christianity went wrong.

And I think we're all familiar with it. It had to do with the authority of God on the earth.

I ran into this in The Gnostic Gospels by Dr. Elaine Pagels. Never mind the merits of the Gnostics and the proto-orthodox, differences, or lack thereof. This example is the matter of spiritual authority. I think for us LCer's this is an important read :

For when gnostic and orthodox Christians discussed the nature of God, they were at the same time debating the issue of spiritual authority.

This issue dominates one of the earliest writings we have from the church at Rome—a letter attributed to Clement, called Bishop of Rome (c. 90-100). As spokesman for the Roman church, Clement wrote to the Christian community in Corinth at a time of crisis: certain leaders of the Corinthian church had been divested of power. Clement says that "a few rash and self-willed people" drove them out of office: "those of no reputation [rose up] against those with reputation, the fools against the wise, the young against the old."25

Using political language, he calls this "a rebellion"26 and insists that the deposed leaders be restored to their authority: he warns that they must be feared, respected, and obeyed. On what grounds? Clement argues that God, the God of Israel, alone rules all things:27 he is the lord and master whom all must obey; he is the judge who lays down the law, punishing rebels and rewarding the obedient.

But how is God's rule actually administered? Here Clement's theology becomes practical: God, he says, delegates his "authority of reign" to "rulers and leaders on earth."28 Who are these designated rulers? Clement answers that they are bishops, priests, and deacons. Whoever refuses to "bow the neck"29 and obey the church leaders is guilty of insubordination against the divine master himself. Carried away with his argument, Clement warns that whoever disobeys the divinely ordained authorities "receives the death penalty! "30

This letter marks a dramatic moment in the history of Christianity. For the first time, we find here an argument for dividing the Christian community between "the clergy" and "the laity." The church is to be organized in terms of a strict [34] "One God, One Bishop" order of superiors and subordinates. Even within the clergy, Clement insists on ranking each member, whether bishop, priest, or deacon, "in his own order":31 each must observe "the rules and commandments" of his position at all times. Many historians are puzzled by this letter.32 What, they ask, was the basis for the dispute in Corinth? What religious issues were at stake? The letter does not tell us that directly. But this does not mean that the author ignores such issues. I suggest that he makes his own point—his religious point—entirely clear: he intended to establish the Corinthian church on the model of the divine authority. As God reigns in heaven as master, lord, commander, judge, and king, so on earth he delegates his rule to members of the church hierarchy, who serve as generals who command an army of subordinates; kings who rule over "the people"; judges who preside in God's place.
-- Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels (Kindle Locations 1052-1076). Kindle Edition.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't believe this didn't come to mind but I think I've found the point where Christianity went wrong.

And I think we're all familiar with it. It had to do with the authority of God on the earth.

I ran into this in The Gnostic Gospels by Dr. Elaine Pagels. Never mind the merits of the Gnostics and the proto-orthodox, differences, or lack thereof. This example is the matter of spiritual authority. I think for us LCer's this is an important read :

[COLOR="DarkRed"]For when gnostic and orthodox Christians discussed the nature of God, they were at the same time debating the issue of spiritual authority.

This issue dominates one of the earliest writings we have from the church at Rome—a letter attributed to Clement, called Bishop of Rome (c. 90-100). As spokesman for the Roman church, Clement wrote to the Christian community in Corinth at a time of crisis: certain leaders of the Corinthian church had been divested of power. Clement says that "a few rash and self-willed people" drove them out of office: "those of no reputation [rose up] against those with reputation, the fools against the wise, the young against the old."25

Using political language, he calls this "a rebellion"26 and insists that the deposed leaders be restored to their authority: he warns that they must be feared, respected, and obeyed. On what grounds? Clement argues that God, the God of Israel, alone rules all things:27 he is the lord and master whom all must obey; he is the judge who lays down the law, punishing rebels and rewarding the obedient.

I would ask what provoked the rebellion? Did the leaders leave their first love? Were they corrupt? Were they making compromises with the world? Were they playing politics?

I would say those were the things that were the point at which Christianity went wrong.

Considering our experience in the LC, the error began when WL and his sons sinned. This error became codified and established when the elders were forced to sign a loyalty pledge. Think about some of the testimonies on this forum where WL was a huge part of the experience of the saints. If Jesus is not the main experience then that is clearly a problem. Think of all these ones who viewed WL as the "Minister of the Age" that indicates they were following him, that is the error. Think about when they left the fellowship of the apostles to file their lawsuits. That was the beginning of the end.

Comparing the error of Christianity to the error of the Germans in following Hitler, the error wasn't in his election (small percent of the vote). The error was when they agreed to put him in charge and submit to him. There were a number of events that led to that. But that is described in the book of Galatians when Paul marvels that they have left the gospel to follow these nut jobs.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would ask what provoked the rebellion? Did the leaders leave their first love? Were they corrupt? Were they making compromises with the world? Were they playing politics?

I would say those were the things that were the point at which Christianity went wrong.

Considering our experience in the LC, the error began when WL and his sons sinned. This error became codified and established when the elders were forced to sign a loyalty pledge. Think about some of the testimonies on this forum where WL was a huge part of the experience of the saints. If Jesus is not the main experience then that is clearly a problem. Think of all these ones who viewed WL as the "Minister of the Age" that indicates they were following him, that is the error. Think about when they left the fellowship of the apostles to file their lawsuits. That was the beginning of the end.

Comparing the error of Christianity to the error of the Germans in following Hitler, the error wasn't in his election (small percent of the vote). The error was when they agreed to put him in charge and submit to him. There were a number of events that led to that. But that is described in the book of Galatians when Paul marvels that they have left the gospel to follow these nut jobs.

Thanks for your thoughts and questions.

The slogan "One God, One Bishop" meant the bishop in Rome. This is around the turn of the century, circa when the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written. Clement is writing concerning elders that got kicked to the curb in Corinth. Clement is listed as the bishop, pope, of Rome by Irenaeus and Tertullian holding office from 88 to his death in 99.

He's declaring that the bishop of Rome is the authority of God on the earth, and those that are not obedient or rebel against Rome are/were rebelling against God.

That's what got me kicked to the curb ; me questioning that Lee was the authority of God on the earth. To me, back in circa 1980, that's when Lee fell, long before the Philip scandal, before Ingalls et al.

And from what I've read that's the way Lee thought of himself, and practiced, before coming to America.

That fall of Lee, and likely Nee, was the same as the fall of early Christianity, and it had to do with the authority of God on the earth.

Did Lee know about Clement of Rome? It's touted that he was a big fan of history. Did he get the idea of the authority of God on the earth from there? or did he get it from Nee? Where did Nee get it from? It's touted that he read all the books of Christianity.

Is the authority of God on earth a thing of Christianity? Was Paul the authority of God on the earth? When did this start? Rome was taking power early on, long before Constantine 325ad, at the turn of the century.

I'm positing that that's when Christianity went south. Am I wrong about this?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for your thoughts and questions.

The slogan "One God, One Bishop" meant the bishop in Rome. This is around the turn of the century, circa when the gospel of John and the book of Revelation were written. Clement is writing concerning elders that got kicked to the curb in Corinth. Clement is listed as the bishop, pope, of Rome by Irenaeus and Tertullian holding office from 88 to his death in 99.

He's declaring that the bishop of Rome is the authority of God on the earth, and those that are not obedient or rebel against Rome are/were rebelling against God.

That's what got me kicked to the curb ; me questioning that Lee was the authority of God on the earth. To me, back in circa 1980, that's when Lee fell, long before the Philip scandal, before Ingalls et al.

And from what I've read that's the way Lee thought of himself, and practiced, before coming to America.

That fall of Lee, and likely Nee, was the same as the fall of early Christianity, and it had to do with the authority of God on the earth.

Did Lee know about Clement of Rome? It's touted that he was a big fan of history. Did he get the idea of the authority of God on the earth from there? or did he get it from Nee? Where did Nee get it from? It's touted that he read all the books of Christianity.

Is the authority of God on earth a thing of Christianity? Was Paul the authority of God on the earth? When did this start? Rome was taking power early on, long before Constantine 325ad, at the turn of the century.

I'm positing that that's when Christianity went south. Am I wrong about this?

This is the conclusion I came to long ago, our experiences in the LC were not that strange or unique. Based on the book of James and other NT references WL is not unique, you can see this same error repeatedly throughout church history. WL and WN were false Christ's, they made this the case when they began teaching about MOTA.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is the conclusion I came to long ago, our experiences in the LC were not that strange or unique. Based on the book of James and other NT references WL is not unique, you can see this same error repeatedly throughout church history. WL and WN were false Christ's, they made this the case when they began teaching about MOTA.

Oh! but boy there's more brother, that's not new under the sun, that we LCers can relate to.

Pope Clement was riling about Valentinus, a Gnostic at the turn of the century. Valentinus had no problem agreeing with orthodox teachings and doctrines. He just applied them to the God that is/was higher than the creator law-giver God.

But that's not my point. Clement was pushing the authority of God on the earth, represented by a hierarchy of pope, bishops, priests, and deacons.

This, around the turn of the century, when Revelation was written, was the first known demarcation between the clergy and the laity. Ring a bell?

But there's more. The orthodox only allowed the above to officiate meetings. While the churches of Valentinus had no such officials. Cuz each of them were considered gifted with the Spirit, and gnosis, any one of them could officiate. At each meeting, they drew lots. They were criticized for that practice. But the Gnostics believed that God was in control of everything, and so was also in control of the lots. Lots were cast to select the replacement of Judas, btw.

What I think should be familiar to us LCer's is that, there were no clergy in the LC -- so taught, and bragged about -- just like Valentinus.

Was Lee a Gnostic?

[awareness]

Okay I get it. How could I not? I've heard it pretty much all my life : the worst thing a Christian can be is Gnostic.

So I understand the knee-jerk reflex, and poking it with yer 10 foot pole.

But it was late 1st c. and early 2nd c. reactions against the Gnostics that shaped the orthodoxy. Out of that struggle came the hierarchical church, with Rome the top authority of God on the earth.

And I don't consider that good or true, which I think most out here would easily agree with ... I would hope.

But neither would I advise anyone to become a Gnostic, of any clan -- and there were competing clans of Gnostics. Even they couldn't agree with each other ... like Christians today. In that sense all Christians are Gnostics ... or like human, maybe.

But before we jump into the differences between the orthodox and the Gnostics concerning women -- if we do -- I found this nugget in Pagel's book on The Gnostic Gospels :

Jérôme Carcopino, in a discussion entitled "Feminism and Demoralization," explains that by the second century A.D., upper-class women often insisted upon "living their own life." Male satirists complained of their aggressiveness in discussions of literature, mathematics, and philosophy, and ridiculed their enthusiasm for writing poems, plays, and music.

Under the Empire, women were everywhere involved in business, social life, such as theaters, sports events, concerts, parties, travelling—with or without their husbands. They took part in a whole range of athletics, even bore arms and went to battle, and made major inroads into professional life.

Women of the Jewish communities, on the other hand, were excluded from actively participating in public worship, in education, and in social and political life outside the family.

~~ Elaine Pagels. The Gnostic Gospels (Kindle Locations 1549-1554). Kindle Edition.