I no longer belief in soul sleep. I think the positions of this Faith are positions against the majorities around them. e.g. Abraham took a position against the many-gods beliefs all around him in the fertile crest of Iraq.
What about what Free2Love seems to be saying here? What about "forget Faith and walk in Love"?
Greetings Mark, I'm an exwaybe. Most of my adult life I accepted without question "soul sleep." No longer. I wish I had a couple more life-times to study this. I mean anthropologically. (is that a word?). I skimmed this thread. My response to Mark, I think, is but I'm jumping in. God Bless & "Isn't that special?"
What Free2Love posted on "Patterns of Fellowship" is POTENT, to say the least. In fact, I'd gladly sandblast off all holy scripture save the Church Epistles. The unquestioned uncontested core would be: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon.
Welcome, Carl!
Unfortunately, I have no idea what post you are talking about here. If you can put a hyperlink in to show me what post you're referring to, that would be helpful.
I'm afraid that I couldn't agree with you, though, on "sandblasting" off all of scripture except for the Church Epistles. There is a HUGE amount of tremendous wisdom in ALL of God's revelation to man. Not just the Pauline writings and certainly not just his letters written to some of the particular churches.
It took some time for the "Pattern" to sink in. In fact mostly now it may be more what it is NOT. But I recognize the "leadership" epistles as something added that cannot be ignored. The winners (orthodox) said this is canon and this is leadership. The Apostle-to-the-Gentiles mentions leaders but in I Corinthians 14 he doesn't tell them to get leaders, he says seek that you may excel to edify.
respectfully,
Carl
Again, without reading the post to which you are talking about, I'm not really able to respond to the rest of your comments. I am, however, looking forward to being able to do so.
Look at post #14 on this thread. There Free2Love posted and here is part of it:
Very well put. Certainly there are leaders and ministries in the body of Christ. But just look at the word itself: It’s *leaders*, not bossers. It’s so obvious yet we don’t see it and we get bamboozled. A leader is one who goes ahead, leading the way. Then he/she comes back and serves what they have found to the others. As you point out, the role of a Christian leader is to serve. That is because what he is leading in happens to be love. God is love and the knowledge of Him is love. When Jesus washed the feet of the apostles what was He teaching them but the humble service of love?
As far as this all applies to Christians and the aspect of hierarchy, I can think of no better example than I saw in a very early “Sower” article from CES I read called “Pattern for Fellowship” which was, in part, a study of 1 Cor 14. In it they pointed out that after all the reproof regarding the improper conduct in their fellowship meetings, in verse 26, couched as an almost minor, deceptively simple statement is God’s solution to the whole mess. He doesn’t say “Well, what you need to do is get some strong, charismatic men and women to take charge” or “You need to believe for some gift-ministries in your area”. (sound familiar?) What He said was: “26How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” the context of this wonderful truth is not a leadership epistle, in fact this is set smack in the middle of what is considered the “milk” or basic principles to the believer. Stated another way, this is not addressed to leaders but to every believer in the body! I remember when I used to teach fellowship in my apartment and I would spend hours praying for God to help me by showing me what to teach, what to sing, who to call on, mostly, just focusing on how I could best bless God’s people, (and of course He always did) studying, doing word studies, etc. and When I read that article, years later, He brought those times back to my mind. Of course when all this was happening my understanding was firmly entrenched in the attitude of twi’s hierarchy. Reading that study was like taking off blinders. God’s instruction to “Let all things be done unto edifying” (love) is not to leaders.but to everyone. All the believers praying to know how to bless God’s people, preparing their minds in the word, looking to the needs of each other. That is what was wrong at their meetings. Their hearts were filled with one kind of self concern or another rather than looking to how to edify one another and all this probably confused by a super-imposed hierarchy. There is no need for a tiered hierarchy because if all set their hearts in love to edify one another, God will work in them and the one who has something to teach will teach and the one who has something to sing or to prophesy or minister, they will do so and all will be decent and in order as God is not the author of confusion.
We all have a leader, the best leader who is able to speak to us and work in us to love. His name is Jesus Christ.
I hope that helps. I'd have to go read over it again to give you context. I was responding to my memory of trying to apply the reproof of I Corinthians 14 from that old article "Patterns of Fellowship." I remember back in the late 1980's and I was real confused. Coming out of Way-think. That, of course, was almost 20 years ago. I have no idea how exwaybes have hashed out I-Corinthians-14.
I apologize for the "sandblast" remark. Not very clear was I? Of course there is much joy&rejoycing in the Christian canon. Personally I'm a HUGE fan of the book of Job. What it is is, I am interested in the mysticism of Paul the Apostle. The book of that title I studied closely about eight years ago. The author, Albert Schweitzer, only used the church epistles I listed because the Scholars of the NT only consider those letters to be, without question, the writings of Paul the Apostle. And the revolutionary ideas in the old article "Patterns of Fellowship" is using uncontested writings of Paul. I'm a big fan of Paul. It is the revelation that Paul was given that gave the world Christianity. If we think Christianity Today is the same thing as Paul's generation?, well that may be another thread.
It's interesting that you almost verbatim quoted a teaching promulgated by Wierwille in your argument.
I’m not sure if I ever saw or heard a twi teaching about this.
Then you quoted me:
“As far as that goes, I know that religion, at its best, is still man-made. The word in the bible chosen by God for religion in Greek is threskeia which means “the outward show of piety” as opposed to the Greek word eusebeia, translated godliness and defined as “a real, true, vital, spiritual relation(ship) with God”
That was a false dichotomy put forth by Wierwille and company: that threskeia and eusebeia were opposed one to another. In addition, developing paragraphs long definitions for words that hardly require them...and putting definite spin into them...
Threskeia means ceremonial worship. Eusebeia means piety. Threskeia is definitely external: it speaks about the practices used in worship. Eusebeia is definitely internal. It refers to an attitude...
Actually, what I said about these two words is pretty much ‘verbatim’ from Bullinger’s “Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament” including the statement that they are opposites. I found this info when I did a study on religion many years ago. As I understand it the oppositional relationship between these two words existed in the Greek language prior to their being used in the bible. This means the “dichotomy” is true. If you have one available, look it up.
The one place this word is not translated ‘religion’ in the NT is particularly interesting in regard to this discussion. In Colossians, the book of correction addressed to “the faithful” (i.e.: consistent, mature) in Christ and, as I’m sure you know, the purpose of which is to correct doctrinal error; Here we find:
Col 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are (were?) a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and *worshipping* (THRESKEIA) of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.”
God most definitely prescribed a religious form for the spiritless OT Jews which dictated everything right on down to their clothing and what they ate but, lest we forget, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned” (NIV); Whereas now, in this time, it is saying to spirit-filled Christians: ‘instead of religion, with men dictating to you how to act, what to eat, drink, etc., instead of all that we have *the body is of Christ* and Christ is the head; Christ is the one who judges you and anyone who is not seeing it this way is *not holding the head*.’ That was the thing I realized after leaving twi; that we were ‘beguiled’ into relegating Jesus Christ into this passive, almost non-existent role by Wierwille’s doctrines and, therefore, “not holding the head”
The implication given was that they are mutually exclusive. But I would submit that one would have a very difficult time with authentic threskeia without having eusebeia inside.
“Authentic threskeia”?!? Clever idea, but entirely your own, right? From what you say you are seeing something in scripture that isn’t there. It seems you have the concept “true religion” (“authentic threskeia”?) set in your mind and you’re seeing scripture as supporting that belief but I’m afraid it’s just not at all biblical. There is no such thing as “authentic threskeia”, in fact, I believe that would qualify as an oxymoron. Think about it… People can be very religious with no eusebeia inside at all. It happens all the time. Jesus was always going off about it. “This people draw nigh unto me with their lips but their heart is far from me”! They draw near in their many ceremonies but there is no love, no mercy, no compassion... How can you even make such statements in the face of these scriptures?
The ‘mutual exclusivity’ of these two words is way more than an implication. They truly are at opposite ends of the spectrum and I don’t know how you can be looking at the same bible I am and not seeing that. I think lcm is a perfect example of someone with lots of threskeia and almost no eusebeia. That boy could tear up the scriptures but I think many of us knew from the start, as soon as he started yelling, that he was one who was “intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,”
The epistle of James speaks extensively about genuine religion versus false religion in this regard. The word "threskeia" is used but twice, but...reading the entire epistle for what it is (not like it's horribly long)...we can see that true religion performs acts of mercy. "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."
OK, let’s take a look at James.
“26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, (Note the negative connotation) this man’s religion is vain.” (Bullinger equates this with "a careful follower of the observances connected with his belief"-CB)
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
“Pure religion” here is, as defined by its context, in the sense of ‘as if there actually were such a thing’. In other words: “REAL service to God (as you rightly stated) is to show mercy, not the ceremonial observance, etc… i.e.: NOT religion”. The only way you can come away with the idea that this speaks of a “true religion” i.e.: “the true church” is if you superimpose it yourself.
All through the OT the “fatherless, widows and strangers” are spoken of as those needing mercy and help. Just do a KJV word study of ‘fatherless’ and/or ‘widows and you’ll see what I mean. It is relevant, I think, to see that the Jews had to be commanded by God to care for the orphans and widows among them because had they not been required to they wouldn’t have done so. Why? No spirit, that’s why. No spirit, no love. No love, no mercy; Thus the depth of James’ statement: The one who ‘seems to be religious and bridles not his tongue, deceiving his own heart whose religion is vain’.
Truly, this section of scripture does more to support what I’ve stated than not. Another point of interest is that threskeia’s Hebrew counterpart originally referred to the idolatry of Egypt, but even more, it is *always* viewed in a negative connotation. In actual truth, religion is *always* man’s attempt to approach God which, by its very nature, is *always* inadequate because man doesn’t know what the heck he’s dealing with. (Remember? “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”) i.e.: We don’t understand God because we are so smart or because we study so hard. If we do understand God at all it is because God has revealed Himself to us. If we don’t it’s because He hasn’t.
You are absolutely correct that Our Lord said to the Pharisees, Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15).
Of course, we need to understand the context of this statement… The key verses that you need to focus on are verses 4 and 5… To really understand this, though, you should look at the parallel in Mark 7…
Now see, I see just the opposite. I feel the focus should not be on v.4,5 as they are only the example, not the main point of what is being said. Again, Mark 7:10 & 11 are only the example. Grammatically, an example is somewhat like a parenthesis in that it could, temporarily, even be left out to facilitate communication. The readers mind should be convinced by the example of what is being stated, namely the hypocrisy of teaching doctrines and traditions of men as God’s word. Instead, why don’t we take a look at these two passages minus the examples?
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying… But ye say… Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, ‘This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; (o yeah, very religious; lots of ritual) but their heart is far from me.’ But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
“Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, for laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, ...many other such like things ye do. Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.”
Thus, in the manner just described, the covetous, ungrateful Jews callously neglected parental responsibility by an appeal to this perverted human tradition. In so doing, they flouted the law of God and yet, on this occasion, they had the unconscionable nerve to accuse the Lord and his disciples of a breach of spirituality because they ignored uninspired rabbinical tradition. This was the epitome of inconsistency. Understanding the context, it is pretty clear (to me, at least) that a blanket condemnation of tradition is not being made. Rather a condemnation of traditions that ends up making void the Word of God.
You'll note that St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to live in accord with the tradition they received from them (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy). Again, words that are basically neutral in nature have been shown to be in opposition to other words. Tradition=bad. God's Word=Good.
I see your point. Notice that they are always referred to as “traditions of men” i.e.: traditions and doctrines originating from men vs. traditions and doctrines originating from God. Obviously there is a difference and the bible is pretty clear on which is which. I think it’s more like: Traditions of men=bad, God's Word=Good.
Your statement, though,
“That’s pretty much how I feel now about Christian religions. Christ is preached; Far out. …but I also know that the doctrines and traditions of men make God’s word “of none effect”.”
has a lot of truth in it. When ecclesiastical communities go off in their own direction without regard for God's Word, they mess up and do much to hurt the people that choose to follow them. I won't say all are that way. I won't say that ANY of them are perfect. But I think that many of them have much to offer...some more than others...
I’m not sure your mind is really grasping the enormity of this. The reason this word represents such devastating evil is because when a person comes to that religious teacher, opening up their heart to what they believe is truly the word and mind and heart of God and receive, instead, some tradition or doctrine of man’s authoring, because they already think they know truth, they are unable to see or receive the blessing of God’s truth. Receiving the lie thus prevents them from receiving the results and God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge but in this case they have not received the knowledge because they think they already have it.
OK, so let’s take another look at it. As I said, in the NT, religion is always a negative thing. Not neutral. In fact, based on what I’ve stated so far, I would go so far as to say that there is nothing more evil or destructive in this world than religion. Think about it. Is there anything Jesus spoke out against more? Here in Matthew 23 is another place where Jesus really let fly on the subject… words to think on: “23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done,”
Sounds a bit like those verses in James, doesn’t it? Now look at the context and, again, is there anything Jesus ranted against more than religion?
“1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. 16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon. ***23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.*** 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. 25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. 27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. 29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
In Romans 1 we find something else significant in this regard:
“24 Wherefore God also gave them up..: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creat(ion) more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever”. Some references (Companion Bible) state that “a lie” should be “THE lie” corresponding with the words “THE truth” in the same sentence. “…who changed THE truth of God into THE lie.” THE lie is simply this: “It’s a dog-eat-dog world”, “Watch out for #1” and all thoughts, feelings, motives, doctrines and traditions based on THE lie fall into what the bible calls “walking according to the flesh". Doctrines and religions of men come from THE lie. THE truth of God is love.
As to the "Sower" article you cite, I understand the references within 1 Cor 14. I understand that everything should be done for building up (cf v 26). Of course, this is done since He is not the God of disorder, but of Peace (cf v33). I, frankly, am not sure how these verses that you cited have anything to do with any type of hierarchy one way or the other. Of course, I am not able to look at this issue of "the Sower," so there might be something else that I might have missed.
It is simple. If love is the motivation of each member, Jesus is running the fellowship so no man-made hierarchy is necessary. Each member will perfectly function within the fellowship with no one telling them what to do because Jesus will guide them. If not, if they are all wrapped up in their worries and their angers and their greeds, etc, etc, i.e., if their self concern is overwhelming them, there will be confusion. That was the problem with the fellowship meetings in Corinth and that’s what God was addressing. Understand?
I still go back to the fact that had bishops, priests, and deacons not been needed, their offices wouldn't have had been established in the New Testament.
The same thing applies as in my last statement above. If love is motivating everyone, bishops, priests and deacons will be all led by that same spirit. No man-made hierarchy need exist. No head “honcho” because Jesus Christ Himself now fills that role.
Heb8:10 "...I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know (ginosko = to know (by experience, or effort) the Lord: for all shall know (oida = to know (intuitively) without effort, to understand) me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more."
I hope it’s clear now because that’s what the bible says.
Look at post #14 on this thread. There Free2Love posted and here is part of it: I hope that helps. I'd have to go read over it again to give you context. I was responding to my memory of trying to apply the reproof of I Corinthians 14 from that old article "Patterns of Fellowship." I remember back in the late 1980's and I was real confused. Coming out of Way-think. That, of course, was almost 20 years ago. I have no idea how exwaybes have hashed out I-Corinthians-14.
I apologize for the "sandblast" remark. Not very clear was I? Of course there is much joy&rejoycing in the Christian canon. Personally I'm a HUGE fan of the book of Job. What it is is, I am interested in the mysticism of Paul the Apostle. The book of that title I studied closely about eight years ago. The author, Albert Schweitzer, only used the church epistles I listed because the Scholars of the NT only consider those letters to be, without question, the writings of Paul the Apostle. And the revolutionary ideas in the old article "Patterns of Fellowship" is using uncontested writings of Paul. I'm a big fan of Paul. It is the revelation that Paul was given that gave the world Christianity. If we think Christianity Today is the same thing as Paul's generation?, well that may be another thread.
respectfully,
Carl
Well, again, we must remember that 1 Corinthians was a letter written by the Apostle to the Church at Corinth. In that church, there were a tremendous amount of abuses both in how they conducted themselves and in the liturgy they celebrated. One thing that I see a lot of groups misunderstand is that not just 1 Cor 12 through 14 need to be read as a group to understand context, but that the context goes back to 1 Cor 10. TWI (and offshoots) don't ever seem to do that and so they miss the key point: that the believers should stay with the faith that was delivered to them by the apostles.
An interesting document for you to consider is a document called "The Didache" -- it is, in all likelihood, the most ancient non-canoncial Christian document in existence. You can look at it along with a lot of information pertaining to it here.
I can appreciate being a big fan of St. Paul. He was a very prolific and profound writer. But, again, I would submit that ALL of the apostles carried forth the message of Christ. And it is God who protects and nurtures His church...therefore, had St. Paul not been the author of so many writings that were later codified into the Canon of the New Testament, somebody else's writings would have. The key is the message of God's love story to man. And that message cannot fail one way or the other. IMHO
Mark, I tried to find my own copy of the Diadeche but could not. Bummer. So I read your text in your link. It is nice to see it again. Great value and beautiful. The book I cannot find was a little paperback of Early Church Writers. Lots of fun there. Letters from church leaders after the first generation of leaders. Early sermons and other things. Not the least of which is your Didache.
Why don't we ever see anyone else from the primitive Christians write about the things that Paul wrote about? The closest is probably John's Gospel and letters. But no where in the Didache do we find anything about the manifestations or walking-by-the-spirit. This ancient holy writ speaks of behaviour. Ethics. A laundry list of "O Behave" so to speak. Do you know what I mean?
The Church Epistles speak of Fruit-of-the-Spirit. Manifestation-of-the-Spirit. Christ-In mysticism. The Great Dying-and-Rising with Christ. Why are these things we only find in Paul's letters?
Paul was a Pharasee. Like Jesus, he was well versed in not only the Torah, but the oral traditions and Kabbalah as well. It is quite likely most of the other apostles were not so well versed, being fishermen, etc. They certainly knew the laws of the Torah, but very likely they knew little beyond that. Similarly, your early Christian writers, who were gentiles before conversion, or those who did not come from Jewish backgrounds, or those whose family had converted so long ago that the Jewish teachings were forgotten would not have been educated in the oral traditions and kabbalah.
The mystical writings of Paul echo the mystical teachings of the Jewish oral traditions and Kabbalah, as do many of the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps that is why you mainly only find the mystical side of Christianity within Paul's writings.
Albert Schweitzer thought that Paul's mysticism was unique. Why do you think it is Jewish? Well, now that I think about it. Paul's whole eschatology was fully in the context of Jewish eschatology. But Schweitzer went to great lengths to articulate how Paul's was different from the mysticism of his day.
Because I am studying the oral traditions and Kabbalitic teachings of Judaism and I see a lot of parallels between what I am learning and what is written by Paul and what was taught by Jesus.
Somewhat different words and parables, but the same meanings.
Yes the parallels are there Carl, though the words are different. Christians refer to Christ, Jews refer to Shechina. Christians refer to "walking by the spirit", Jews often call it intuition. Even the dying and rising is there, but again, the words are different.
I have been covering quite a bit of this in my thread about Eve, if you care to check it out. I There are also a lot of links in there, which you may or may not find interesting - depending on how interested you are in seeing the comparison and how willing and able you are to put aside the "language barriers" and see the concepts instead of the specific terminology. You may also find some of the stuff in the "in light of Interfaith Dialogue" thread interesting.
I would add, for your consideration . . .
When you were a child you viewed the world from the perspective of a child. When you were in TWI, you viewed the world through the eyes of their doctrine - at least to some degree. The person you are now, views the world through the lense of your current belief system.
So it would have been with Paul and Jesus, both of whom were Jews. They would have seen the world through that lense and even after converting, Paul still would likely have retained and applied much of the knowledge he gained through his studies of Judaism. The mystical side of Judaism would have fit well with the mystical side of Christianity, just as the moral side of Judaism does.
People think of Judaism as simply being about living under Old Testament laws - there is so much more to it than that.
Abigail, I'll make the effor to look at the Eve and the Interfaith threads. So this thread can get on with its own topic. I apologize for posting off-topic. Mea Culpa.
Dancing, separating Christ from God is as easy as separating the Tao from Taoism, the Brahman from Hinduism, the Ayin from Kabbalah, or the Jehovah ("I am") from the Old Testament.
Mark, I tried to find my own copy of the Diadeche but could not. Bummer. So I read your text in your link. It is nice to see it again. Great value and beautiful. The book I cannot find was a little paperback of Early Church Writers. Lots of fun there. Letters from church leaders after the first generation of leaders. Early sermons and other things. Not the least of which is your Didache.
Why don't we ever see anyone else from the primitive Christians write about the things that Paul wrote about? The closest is probably John's Gospel and letters. But no where in the Didache do we find anything about the manifestations or walking-by-the-spirit. This ancient holy writ speaks of behaviour. Ethics. A laundry list of "O Behave" so to speak. Do you know what I mean?
The Church Epistles speak of Fruit-of-the-Spirit. Manifestation-of-the-Spirit. Christ-In mysticism. The Great Dying-and-Rising with Christ. Why are these things we only find in Paul's letters?
St. Paul had a unique perspective on things. Possibly his role as a member of the Sanhedrin had something to do with it. His explanation, as you say, explaining the new covenant in terms of the old, is tremendously valuable as it shows how, in painful detail, Christ was the fulfilment of the old covenant.
However, in the light of the new testament, many of the writings of the prophets become abundantly clear as to their meaning. That is why I personally scoff at ultra-dispensationalists (not in a mean way) and am so disappointed that I, as a former TWI member, was once one of them.
As to the writings of the Church Fathers, have you read Irenaeus, Against Heresies, or Clement (Alexandria), Stromata? They repeat many of the Pauline themes you discussed.
Mark, that's why I was searching for my "Early Church Writers" book this morning. I've read chunks of that. Was it Ignatius's letters that talk about his route to being put-to-death in Rome? Was Clement one of the early sermons? I cannot remember. I hope the book surfaces in my messy house. Married-with-Children. what's a man to do?
I had fun taking Dispensationalism apart. After that I went Premillennialism. so much fun. "chilism." heard the word? I was so much in love with all things concerning the Kingdom of God. A literal millennial kingdom. so much fun reading about this Original context of original Christian endtime beliefs. Ahhh the Messianic Kingdom. For years it meant everything to me.
then I switched to Postmillennialism. Now I don't even believe that Lord Jesus is coming back. So this Exwaybe ends up waltzing with hinduism. Sorry. the only thing left of Christianity that interests me is the mysticism of Paul the Apostle.
do you think Free2Love is gonna come back and get this thread back on track?
Mark, that's why I was searching for my "Early Church Writers" book this morning. I've read chunks of that. Was it Ignatius's letters that talk about his route to being put-to-death in Rome? Was Clement one of the early sermons? I cannot remember. I hope the book surfaces in my messy house. Married-with-Children. what's a man to do?
I had fun taking Dispensationalism apart. After that I went Premillennialism. so much fun. "chilism." heard the word? I was so much in love with all things concerning the Kingdom of God. A literal millennial kingdom. so much fun reading about this Original context of original Christian endtime beliefs. Ahhh the Messianic Kingdom. For years it meant everything to me.
then I switched to Postmillennialism. Now I don't even believe that Lord Jesus is coming back. So this Exwaybe ends up waltzing with hinduism. Sorry. the only thing left of Christianity that interests me is the mysticism of Paul the Apostle.
do you think Free2Love is gonna come back and get this thread back on track?
Sounds sort of familiar.
Have you checked into Eastern Christianity...Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean or the like? Their traditional liturgies are still celebrated in Aramaic and the spirituality you may find appealing.
The other thing I'd check into is the spirituality of Saint Therese of Liseux or Saint Maria Faustina. You may find elements of what both advocated as very, very appealing.
What makes the "early church writers" any different the writers today?
Howdy Dancing. I was interested in the context of primitive Christians. As I left TWI I ended up wanting greater context. (context is king, right?). Eventually I started reading other things besides just the Bible. The early writers are different in that they lived with that generation, not our generation.
Paul was a Pharasee. Like Jesus, he was well versed in not only the Torah, but the oral traditions and Kabbalah as well. It is quite likely most of the other apostles were not so well versed, being fishermen, etc. They certainly knew the laws of the Torah, but very likely they knew little beyond that. Similarly, your early Christian writers, who were gentiles before conversion, or those who did not come from Jewish backgrounds, or those whose family had converted so long ago that the Jewish teachings were forgotten would not have been educated in the oral traditions and kabbalah.
The mystical writings of Paul echo the mystical teachings of the Jewish oral traditions and Kabbalah, as do many of the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps that is why you mainly only find the mystical side of Christianity within Paul's writings.
Great post Abigail,
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, no male and female in Christ,"
does this also mean that we can't be all?
does neither negate being both?
speaking of mystism in writings, there is much of in the old and new testaments,
and in the writings today.
depends on the way in which it is perceived
Peter and John and Luke come to mind quite readily.
As well as Genesis and Job and the psalms and proverbs.
Especially John with the revelation of Jesus Christ.
A book widely misunderstood and under valued.
But seen in as John saw it in the day that will come and keep coming.
The gospels, when seen spiritualy and not carnally will open the eyes.
Without the torah there is no christianity.
To be a jew in heart is christian, in the venacular.
More precisely, to believe from the heart those things which we have seen and heard.
Is to be a a believer in the things of God that he shows us.
And he certainly will not stop showing us more, that would be quite boreing if he didn't.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
11
12
9
Popular Days
Jul 18
16
Jul 13
6
Jun 12
6
Jun 5
5
Top Posters In This Topic
free2love 9 posts
markomalley 11 posts
Carl Smuda 12 posts
dancing 9 posts
Popular Days
Jul 18 2006
16 posts
Jul 13 2006
6 posts
Jun 12 2006
6 posts
Jun 5 2006
5 posts
Carl Smuda
I do not know what He knew, knows...
I no longer belief in soul sleep. I think the positions of this Faith are positions against the majorities around them. e.g. Abraham took a position against the many-gods beliefs all around him in the fertile crest of Iraq.
What about what Free2Love seems to be saying here? What about "forget Faith and walk in Love"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Faith happens.
So does Love.
A conscious effort to love is honorable.
Picture this-
God's love flowing through you,
He loved us first right?
To bring our minds and hearts to the place of acceptance of this love is a selfless act.
A conscious effort to love is our doing which frees that love that God has.
Out of our mouths shall flow rivers of living water.
The living Word, the Living God.
God is love.
Faith happens when our minds see it.
Not in the physical carnal realm.
Although the physical can be quite tricky.
Which is where the manifestations as a whole work well.
And not only with the physical but nothing is excluded.
As the man wills-so says twi.
The Spirit must will too.
And to line up these wills,
will transform and renew our minds.
By the work of the Lord, not our work.
Some may say this is works.
Is love works or can we just let it flow from us.
Because it's already there.
In every person.
But to let sometimes means to break down the things stopping it.
With God's spirit at work.
Peacefullness comes when we love and let our selves be loved.
And to experience this is love joy faith and the rest, and more.
The manifestations are not singular as in 9 in number.
But to illustate in part the workings of Christ within.
Because Christ is not limited, so neither are we.
We are not limited to what is written in the bible.
Although both the old and new testaments are in play every day.
But rather to hear from God in our inner man.
Limited by how much we can handle at any given moment.
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Are there any spiritual exercises that you would recommend to this end?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Just a few Carl,
Though it's what we do anyway.
And welcome to Greasespot.
Listen, Seek, Ask, Don't be afraid.
Even when it sounds really different.
No one is attacking you...usually :)
And it's not an end.....
It's what was, is and will be.
Reality of the unseen unlimited God,
seen in the mind and more.
Many doctrines stop the seeker usually,
because it is an end. An end of looking.
Know more about what you don't really know in your heart,
faith in that which you can really see and experience.
There is no end of what we can find that we already have.
Awaken the awareness and attention to the pure in heart.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Welcome, Carl!
Unfortunately, I have no idea what post you are talking about here. If you can put a hyperlink in to show me what post you're referring to, that would be helpful.
I'm afraid that I couldn't agree with you, though, on "sandblasting" off all of scripture except for the Church Epistles. There is a HUGE amount of tremendous wisdom in ALL of God's revelation to man. Not just the Pauline writings and certainly not just his letters written to some of the particular churches.
Again, without reading the post to which you are talking about, I'm not really able to respond to the rest of your comments. I am, however, looking forward to being able to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Mark,
Look at post #14 on this thread. There Free2Love posted and here is part of it:
I hope that helps. I'd have to go read over it again to give you context. I was responding to my memory of trying to apply the reproof of I Corinthians 14 from that old article "Patterns of Fellowship." I remember back in the late 1980's and I was real confused. Coming out of Way-think. That, of course, was almost 20 years ago. I have no idea how exwaybes have hashed out I-Corinthians-14.I apologize for the "sandblast" remark. Not very clear was I? Of course there is much joy&rejoycing in the Christian canon. Personally I'm a HUGE fan of the book of Job. What it is is, I am interested in the mysticism of Paul the Apostle. The book of that title I studied closely about eight years ago. The author, Albert Schweitzer, only used the church epistles I listed because the Scholars of the NT only consider those letters to be, without question, the writings of Paul the Apostle. And the revolutionary ideas in the old article "Patterns of Fellowship" is using uncontested writings of Paul. I'm a big fan of Paul. It is the revelation that Paul was given that gave the world Christianity. If we think Christianity Today is the same thing as Paul's generation?, well that may be another thread.
respectfully,
Carl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, again, we must remember that 1 Corinthians was a letter written by the Apostle to the Church at Corinth. In that church, there were a tremendous amount of abuses both in how they conducted themselves and in the liturgy they celebrated. One thing that I see a lot of groups misunderstand is that not just 1 Cor 12 through 14 need to be read as a group to understand context, but that the context goes back to 1 Cor 10. TWI (and offshoots) don't ever seem to do that and so they miss the key point: that the believers should stay with the faith that was delivered to them by the apostles.
An interesting document for you to consider is a document called "The Didache" -- it is, in all likelihood, the most ancient non-canoncial Christian document in existence. You can look at it along with a lot of information pertaining to it here.
I can appreciate being a big fan of St. Paul. He was a very prolific and profound writer. But, again, I would submit that ALL of the apostles carried forth the message of Christ. And it is God who protects and nurtures His church...therefore, had St. Paul not been the author of so many writings that were later codified into the Canon of the New Testament, somebody else's writings would have. The key is the message of God's love story to man. And that message cannot fail one way or the other. IMHO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Mark, I tried to find my own copy of the Diadeche but could not. Bummer. So I read your text in your link. It is nice to see it again. Great value and beautiful. The book I cannot find was a little paperback of Early Church Writers. Lots of fun there. Letters from church leaders after the first generation of leaders. Early sermons and other things. Not the least of which is your Didache.
Why don't we ever see anyone else from the primitive Christians write about the things that Paul wrote about? The closest is probably John's Gospel and letters. But no where in the Didache do we find anything about the manifestations or walking-by-the-spirit. This ancient holy writ speaks of behaviour. Ethics. A laundry list of "O Behave" so to speak. Do you know what I mean?
The Church Epistles speak of Fruit-of-the-Spirit. Manifestation-of-the-Spirit. Christ-In mysticism. The Great Dying-and-Rising with Christ. Why are these things we only find in Paul's letters?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Paul was a Pharasee. Like Jesus, he was well versed in not only the Torah, but the oral traditions and Kabbalah as well. It is quite likely most of the other apostles were not so well versed, being fishermen, etc. They certainly knew the laws of the Torah, but very likely they knew little beyond that. Similarly, your early Christian writers, who were gentiles before conversion, or those who did not come from Jewish backgrounds, or those whose family had converted so long ago that the Jewish teachings were forgotten would not have been educated in the oral traditions and kabbalah.
The mystical writings of Paul echo the mystical teachings of the Jewish oral traditions and Kabbalah, as do many of the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps that is why you mainly only find the mystical side of Christianity within Paul's writings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Albert Schweitzer thought that Paul's mysticism was unique. Why do you think it is Jewish? Well, now that I think about it. Paul's whole eschatology was fully in the context of Jewish eschatology. But Schweitzer went to great lengths to articulate how Paul's was different from the mysticism of his day.
by the way, are we derailing this thread?
Edited by Carl SmudaLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Because I am studying the oral traditions and Kabbalitic teachings of Judaism and I see a lot of parallels between what I am learning and what is written by Paul and what was taught by Jesus.
Somewhat different words and parables, but the same meanings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
In your studies Abigail, please be on the look out for any parallels to the following:
Dying-and-Rising with Christ.
Christ-In mysticism --NOT God-In.
Walking by the spirit
manifestations of the spirit
fruit of the spirit.
Being translated with Christ into His kingdom.
If you can see observable parallels to any of these it would be great fun to look upon it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yes the parallels are there Carl, though the words are different. Christians refer to Christ, Jews refer to Shechina. Christians refer to "walking by the spirit", Jews often call it intuition. Even the dying and rising is there, but again, the words are different.
I have been covering quite a bit of this in my thread about Eve, if you care to check it out. I There are also a lot of links in there, which you may or may not find interesting - depending on how interested you are in seeing the comparison and how willing and able you are to put aside the "language barriers" and see the concepts instead of the specific terminology. You may also find some of the stuff in the "in light of Interfaith Dialogue" thread interesting.
I would add, for your consideration . . .
When you were a child you viewed the world from the perspective of a child. When you were in TWI, you viewed the world through the eyes of their doctrine - at least to some degree. The person you are now, views the world through the lense of your current belief system.
So it would have been with Paul and Jesus, both of whom were Jews. They would have seen the world through that lense and even after converting, Paul still would likely have retained and applied much of the knowledge he gained through his studies of Judaism. The mystical side of Judaism would have fit well with the mystical side of Christianity, just as the moral side of Judaism does.
People think of Judaism as simply being about living under Old Testament laws - there is so much more to it than that.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
the understatement of the centuries...
how can one separate Christ from God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Abigail, I'll make the effor to look at the Eve and the Interfaith threads. So this thread can get on with its own topic. I apologize for posting off-topic. Mea Culpa.
Dancing, separating Christ from God is as easy as separating the Tao from Taoism, the Brahman from Hinduism, the Ayin from Kabbalah, or the Jehovah ("I am") from the Old Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
St. Paul had a unique perspective on things. Possibly his role as a member of the Sanhedrin had something to do with it. His explanation, as you say, explaining the new covenant in terms of the old, is tremendously valuable as it shows how, in painful detail, Christ was the fulfilment of the old covenant.
However, in the light of the new testament, many of the writings of the prophets become abundantly clear as to their meaning. That is why I personally scoff at ultra-dispensationalists (not in a mean way) and am so disappointed that I, as a former TWI member, was once one of them.
As to the writings of the Church Fathers, have you read Irenaeus, Against Heresies, or Clement (Alexandria), Stromata? They repeat many of the Pauline themes you discussed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Mark, that's why I was searching for my "Early Church Writers" book this morning. I've read chunks of that. Was it Ignatius's letters that talk about his route to being put-to-death in Rome? Was Clement one of the early sermons? I cannot remember. I hope the book surfaces in my messy house. Married-with-Children. what's a man to do?
I had fun taking Dispensationalism apart. After that I went Premillennialism. so much fun. "chilism." heard the word? I was so much in love with all things concerning the Kingdom of God. A literal millennial kingdom. so much fun reading about this Original context of original Christian endtime beliefs. Ahhh the Messianic Kingdom. For years it meant everything to me.
then I switched to Postmillennialism. Now I don't even believe that Lord Jesus is coming back. So this Exwaybe ends up waltzing with hinduism. Sorry. the only thing left of Christianity that interests me is the mysticism of Paul the Apostle.
do you think Free2Love is gonna come back and get this thread back on track?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Hi Carl,
What makes the "early church writers" any different the writers today?
Edited by dancingLink to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
If one seeks division it will be found.
If one seeks unity it will be found.
What is it you search for Carl?
Christ is not separate from God or our selves.
Do you want to see it or invent vain imaginations.
Which is nothing new, that power is within us also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sounds sort of familiar.
Have you checked into Eastern Christianity...Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean or the like? Their traditional liturgies are still celebrated in Aramaic and the spirituality you may find appealing.
The other thing I'd check into is the spirituality of Saint Therese of Liseux or Saint Maria Faustina. You may find elements of what both advocated as very, very appealing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
the same yesterday today forever
heaven is my throne the earth my footstool
what place will you build me
who can see what was is and will be
who changes?
us or God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dancing
Great post Abigail,
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, no male and female in Christ,"
does this also mean that we can't be all?
does neither negate being both?
speaking of mystism in writings, there is much of in the old and new testaments,
and in the writings today.
depends on the way in which it is perceived
Peter and John and Luke come to mind quite readily.
As well as Genesis and Job and the psalms and proverbs.
Especially John with the revelation of Jesus Christ.
A book widely misunderstood and under valued.
But seen in as John saw it in the day that will come and keep coming.
The gospels, when seen spiritualy and not carnally will open the eyes.
Without the torah there is no christianity.
To be a jew in heart is christian, in the venacular.
More precisely, to believe from the heart those things which we have seen and heard.
Is to be a a believer in the things of God that he shows us.
And he certainly will not stop showing us more, that would be quite boreing if he didn't.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.