Like military service, the ministry is a profession where the expectation is to perpetuate the plan, teachings, and beliefs of whatever denomination, church, organization, group, or one-man show. This seems much easier when young and naïve as we trust the "knowing" of those older and dedicated to the cause.
Over the years, and it usually is years, with more experience in either field, (all fields right?) one becomes less naïve, less trusting, much more discerning and well versed in the topic, and experienced in its applications for the good or bad. That's how one puts ideas and group expectations to the test. By their fruits, you shall know them and all that.
If we are interested in our field, we study more about it life long and usually get exposed, finally, to other views that either seem more correct and makes more sense or solidify one's life long beliefs. Of course, beliefs are just that and should not be confused with the reality of how any topic actually might be.
I have sat in the offices chatting with any number of very well-trained theologians of most of the mainstream Christian faiths who started their journey as mere kids. We talked openly about all the realities associated with Biblical and Organizational beliefs. When asking direct questions because they actually studied the topic in seminary and had to deal with its implications, I often if not always heard, "Yes, that is correct and I understand that. We addressed that problem with scripture in seminary. But if I teach that, I'd lose my job".
While this might seem hypocritical, it was just about as frequently followed by "The congregation is not going to understand that any good seminarian who studied in any of the credible institutions that exist are 50 years ahead of the times. What would never be accepted today will be much more accepted by the next generation. They will go kicking and screaming into the knowledge they are supposed to grow in".
This makes perfect sense in a world where the man or woman pastor is expected to know everything about the mind, plan, and expectations of God along with what the Bible has to say and to whom, which of course is always going to be an evolving understanding and not fixed. Is any understanding "fixed"? If it is "fixed" then is it genuine understanding? Not really but I can hear the scriptures now that are quoted to uphold sameness as if that was how it works in the slippery slope of beliefs.
In science changing understanding of a topic is interpreted cynically by religionists as "made a mistake", when in fact, they just came to a better understanding as more information presented itself. The difference often is that by nature, they must change. New information in religion can get you dis-membered, marked, scorned, ignored, fired, or killed.
I feel for many of the average pastor and friend who found themselves at a more advanced age in the WCG fiasco and who moved on to one split, splinter, or sliver or another in their pursuit of sameness. I personally do not doubt sincerity for the most part, though a couple well known upper crust WCG non-field ministry types did blatantly say to me that paycheck and security were the issues for them. I can't say that did not shock me a bit but I get it at their age. It's easy to feel that God is doing all this or that so go with it.
It's also known as "Going along to get along".
My nephews feel their own ministerial father died rather young more of a broken heart in the WCG debacle than the disease that took him unexpectedly. He was too invested not to follow at least some security late in life as he also had fallen for the WCG trick of having him sign off on his SS in his youth with the promise of "We will take care of you" Actually they did as the reward for following those who demanded he flip beliefs from what he grew up with, to what WCG taught and back again to what he grew up with. In my own case, I have used the analogy of coming to Hockey only to have the ice melted and hoops put up with the demand now I play basketball and not only that but coach it. Not going to happen and didn't.
That to say that many men and women in ministry and in all denominational settings, as they grow older, face this very real and practical dilemma.
It is inevitable with anyone who actually "grows in grace and especially knowledge" in their chosen field. Personally, I find all churches, well except Dave, Gerald, Ron, and Bob, expect one to grow in grace. Knowledge? Not so much. Too dangerous to the group.
The only choice is to see it through or pay the price and start over at a very difficult time in life to do. The price is high and one usually ends up going it alone with many regrets to be put in their place if one is to do it successfully and have a decent life for the rest of their lives.
In WCG it never paid to speak up if you weren't the one in charge. And so it still is with her daughters.
Young people should NOT go into ministry. It should be reserved for those who are 60+ and have been around religious nonsense for a long time, and have suffered thru boring sermons, church politics and all other manner of church culture idiocy.
ReplyDeletePresbuteros (πρεσβύτερος, Greek word #4245 in Strong's Concordance) is the most commonly used term for elder in the New Testament, stemming from presbus, ELDERLY.
Being at that place in life, likely means you have had children and grandchildren that have worn you out and tried you, and also a diminishing of sexual desires , which helps to avoid or at least minimize adulteries and other potential moral problems.
Rubbish Tonto. Only elderly ministry controlling a church is DEATH to any vision. It would be a cronies ruled cosy retirement boring sludge into nothingness.
DeleteThe levites served between the ages of 30-60.
Excellent post Dennis. But even the denominations that tolerate members growing in grace and knowledge, only allow this along narrow corridors. Maintaining the church beliefs and power over members always comes first. It's universal. Which is why members who wish to remain in a church must master double-think, ie, believe one thing but speak some thing different. All citizens in totalitarian societies learn this, or off to the gulag or concentration camp/torture chamber one goes.
ReplyDeleteThe Pauline admonishment "That we all speak the same thing that there be no divisions among you" is the formula for compliance not growth. But organizationally understandable. Ultimately I could not personally see the sense in that if one was a lifetime seeker knowing there is always more than what the leader knows that would be helpful to know.
ReplyDeleteTonto is correct, and this has a lot to do with why most serious religious traditions select older people for positions of greater responsible oversight.
ReplyDeleteHerbert Armstrong, fearful of losing control, chose to ordain YOUNGERS, even though he called them elders. It is no surprise that once they aged and were no longer under HWA's thumb, they wouldn't be willing or able to hold HWA's edifice together.
PS Like my dad. taking things "under advisement" was more the rule than"trust and obey for there's no other way to be happy in Jesus" than undying loyalty to someone else's faith or limited experience or less than up to date views. It, can be a tight rope walk joining someone else's circus with lots of opportunities to say or think "Huh? I don't think so".
ReplyDeletePardon multiple comments. Sitting on a rock along the Willamette musing on it all and concluding I could have mussed the pain nut I'd of had to miss the dance☺👍
ReplyDelete"Missed" and "but" Small keys...
ReplyDeleteTonto is right. The notion that young men with a few years of Ambassador College (or a seminary) under their belts would be good candidates for pastors/ministers/priests is entirely human in origin. The New Testament makes clear that young Timothy was an exception to the general rule (older, stable, more mature individuals as ministerial candidates).
ReplyDeleteMiller Jones said...
ReplyDeleteTonto is right. The notion that young men with a few years of Ambassador College (or a seminary) under their belts would be good candidates for pastors/ministers/priests is entirely human in origin.
============================
I wouldn't see that as generally so. Every really well trained theologian, who knew their stuff, aside from their denominational loyalties, started young. They gained their experience in churches that held them to high standards and congregational approval. They invested the time in studies that older men/women, while they have life experience etc, DO NOT have the training unless they then start rigorous seminarian training as anyone must do no matter the age. I get both but the ones that know what the Bible is and isn't are not the business types going in to ministry in later years.
WCG, their transition and reinvention of the wheel of evangelical Christianity took their , we don't have to bother paying them either, "ministry" from the older, deacon, elder types to their loss. It was bad enough to take the experienced at least somewhat but badly trained ministry and put in the not much experience and opinionated in religious fluff types. Those after me in my last congregation took it from 450 to 100 when I was out of it , to 16 to zero pretty quick. No real church would just take folk out of the congregation without denominational training, and I mean good training over years as well, and say "Here! Give it you best shot" That's a fools game.
Perhaps the way and it is common with those who did their time properly when young to gain in house experience. Work for those proven good at what they do and how they administer it and "rise" through the position in later years but not only trained but in denominational experience.
I just found out this year that in the manpower meetings I came close to getting ordained before graduation! LOL...LOL. It came shortly after to LE then a few months to Preaching Elder and then, never figured this out, never again to Pastor even though I had pastored 14 congregations and grew them. I guess they caught on to me. At any rate, all that aside, being ordained that young , the youngest Elder in WCG for a couple of years, was stupid and most of what I learned about pastoring was in the heat of the 1970's of which there was way too much for this boy. Of course, then came the 80's the 90's and what the hell am I still doing here?
PS I do recall being a called "Wet behind the years" by an angry member in the 80's but was just turning 30. Of course you know what I mentioned... "Well I can't be any older than I am and I'm the age Jesus was when he was killed." That at least ended it for now.
ReplyDeleteSitting on a rock along the Willamette
ReplyDeleteThe Willamette doesn't run past Earthaven. Dennis, did that adventure not work out as expected? Or are you just taking a break? Any stories you might share will be appreciated!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSitting on a rock along the Willamette
The Willamette doesn't run past Earthaven. Dennis, did that adventure not work out as expected? Or are you just taking a break? Any stories you might share will be appreciated!
=================================
Sure. I returned to Portland about six weeks ago and live in Milwaukie just south of Downtown. I meant well in the return to NC and it was a unique opportunity to do the "off grid" thing. I did go with my Portland Land lordess, platonically, to live with her and son while she decided to buy the place we were in. She changed her mind and will stay but build over the next year or so.
Meanwhile, the hot water and heat system, wood driven, blew up. Long story. For the last three weeks there was no heat or hot water. We had to be out and into something else on the property for not buying it which was something I suggested she not do either. Good thing. Because of all that, we would have to be broken up in our accommodations for the next year or more as there was no place for three. She was willing to tough it out to fulfill her dream but I would have to make due in some place on the property and I did not go there to be alone . Actually it was her dream not mine though I felt maybe I needed to be near my kids and grandies in SC etc to begin with. The experience was boring unless I wanted to reenact being the Walton's or the Beverly Hillbillies without the Beverly. I did not. My boys asked me what would I do the other 29 days I didn't see the kids etc in Columbia. Answer...hmmm. There is nothing to do. Too hot and I'd go nuts. Exactly they said and noted they didn't like it any more there than I did and don't feel obligated. They knew Oregon was where my heart was if I have to be somewhere so I returned.
More to do here for sure and see. My kind of folk as opposed to the South and I like the weather much better and always did. I rent a room in a fairly nice home in a safe neighborhood with nice view of the area. I may upgrade a bit this fall. Works for me as I live rather simply. I have found some incredible stone tools in the river since my return. I mean really incredible which is cool to me of course with my interests in archaeology and paleontology etc. I do have a knack for seeing what others seem to miss right under their feet. Knowing the history of the area helps and I know what to look for even if it is only a hint of something that needs a second or third look.
Any genuine friendships and contacts of any here in the Portland area here on Banned would be really nice. I realize I'm not everyone's cup of tea on banned but that may not hold true in real life! :)
That's the short version. Thanks for asking
Anyway, after talking with the boys, who know
con't
ReplyDeleteme well, basically it was boring at Earthaven for me save for clear winter nights for astronomy. Also not really my kind of folk and it was not practical or necessary to return to SC. Too much damn Yankee in me.
Any Portland contacts drop me a email at DennisCDiehl@aol.com if you wish
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteAs you know, the New Testament portrays Christ as personally training his disciples and then sending them out to do the same. The world of the First Century was very different from what Christians of the Western World have had access to for the last one hundred years or so. In short, only the wealthy elite of that time had access to any kind of formal education or intellectually nurturing environments (libraries and schools were rare). The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment belong to later ages.
I am confident that you are also aware of the fact that the elaborate philosophies and theological systems extant in modern Christianity are the developments of almost two thousand years now of thinking and writing. If we could somehow resurrect Christ's apostles, we would have to explain to them the different Christian conceptions of the nature of God, church governance and concepts like transubstantiation. If we started soliciting their thoughts on the trinity, we'd have to first explain to them what we were talking about (otherwise, we'd most probably elicit a blank stare). Remember too, there was no such thing as a New Testament in the First Century - the ONLY Scriptures which they had access to were the writings we call the Old Testament (and folks didn't have their own copies of them lying around the house - the few copies which existed at the time were kept in synagogues and libraries).
In other words, Christianity as originally envisioned and taught was a spiritual exercise - NOT an intellectual one! And, life in the First Century was not as compartmentalized as it is today - religion was an integral part of everyday life (it was a way of life). As such, it was critical to have folks with life experience in leadership positions. Moreover, they had this notion that more mature individuals would be less susceptible to getting the big head when given the responsibility of leading, influencing and advising other folks. For them, experience meant wisdom, and I don't think that I'm being outlandish when I suggest that their notions about growing in grace and knowledge were very different from ours.
In today's world, a good education is a very desirable and even needful thing. And, if we're going to debate philosophical and theological notions, one would hope that the folks engaged in that discussion would have some grounding in those subjects. Likewise, one would hope that folks would have a good grounding in science, history and language arts before choosing to discourse on these topics. And I know that Herbie didn't think so, but Christianity should remain a personal and spiritual experience for the average Christian. We have added a lot of layers to our understanding of the topic, but we should never forget that Christianity was originally envisioned as a visceral experience - NOT an intellectual one.
Dennis, I'm glad that you know yourself well enough to be comfortable stepping out on an adventure... but also comfortable enough not to make yourself miserable wasting your time on something unfulfilling. You already did the "hang on instead of stepping out" thing waiting get out of WCG, I suppose. I wish you well as you resettle into your Oregon routines!
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that HWA had the top evangelists in golden handcuffs. Homes on Waverly, titles, prestige, nice office on the fourth floor, adoration of members, etc. They were bought and paid for by HWA. I don't think that the salary was what kept the evangelists in line. It was probably all the other goodies and the intangibles. Also, most had few options outside the WCG. Plus, one must keep the wife and kids happy. In return, he wanted personal loyalty. I'm surprised that when an evangelist is ordained he doesn't have to take an oath of personal loyalty to HWA like the SS did to Hitler. In a healthy group one can disagree without being divisive, but WCG was not healthy. If the top man is God ordained, to whom God revealed lost truths, you couldn't disagree with him, even if you weren't divisive about it. Tonto is correct, 25 year old are not credible pastors/elders. But the WCGT never considered the qualification of I Tim 3 to be that useful. Imagine if RCM and GTA had to appear before an objective elder ordination board. How would they be rated with regards to maturity and fruit of the spirit. Gentleness, kindness, patience, self-control aren't the first things I think about when these guys come to mind. My hope is after this COVID issue is behind us, many church members will not return to their churches and we will start to see more church property up for sale. Good riddance to many of them.
ReplyDeleteDennis - I am surprised that you would live in Oregon now that the prayer rock is in Edmond, OK.
ReplyDeleteWhat will you ever do for inspiration? LOL
MJ noted: We have added a lot of layers to our understanding of the topic, but we should never forget that Christianity was originally envisioned as a visceral experience - NOT an intellectual one.
ReplyDelete=================================
That is the bottom line problem in my view. The layers of scripture are many. Their origins not always what is supposed and the reasons they exist and who brought them to pass and way disturbing. Personally I think , at the moment, Christianity was a pacifistic construct to take the sting out of Jewish and Christian Zealotry which annoyed the Romans beyond measure and the reason they finally had enough of it and scrapped Jerusalem and the surrounding cities off the face of the earth.
Thanks 153. This son of man i.e. human, does need to stay put. WCG taught me to wander all over the East Coast for the benefit of them and others but , in hindsight, no me or mine for sure.
Tonto, I know right!? Well I still have Hinson Baptist Church, up the street, where HWA was baptized and started WCG, so if I hurry, and I do mean hurry, I might start a "alleged atheist" cult and make some money. That would fly in Portland I am sure! lol. I was labeled an "alleged atheist" the other day and still have yet to figure out what that means. No really....I am not alleged to be one! Trust me! :)
In my view, the problem is all of the layers that have been added. It's the inerrancy of Scripture (a relatively modern invention). It's the elaborate theology surrounding the nature of God, the afterlife, eschatology, etc. And, yes, the widespread ignorance of science and history has created many problems and exacerbated others. Nevertheless, things like kindness, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, tolerance, humility, patience, peacefulness and love NEVER go out of style. Moreover, those other emotions which are generated as a consequence of all of those layers of theological complexity (anger, vindictiveness, reproachfulness, dissension, depression, hate, etc.) are NOT Christian. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks out there (theist and atheist) who are vain and love to project an image of superiority over others (and this is offered as a general observation - not to throw shade or be catty).
ReplyDeleteDennis:
ReplyDeleteI think your return to the Northwest is a good idea. Anywhere there are real mountains is better than where there are not, in my opinion. I would like to see the stone tools you found - I have a collection of my own.
You wrote: "The layers of scripture are many. Their origins not always what is supposed and the reasons they exist and who brought them to pass and way disturbing."
Many Christians believe there was an original OT from back in the Bronze Age and there was not. Whereas the oldest, complete OT manuscript actually dates to only 1008 AD. To make a long story short, since you likely already know it, before that time there were just incomplete copies and fragments. And all these pieces frequently differed. So there is really no original autograph to go back to. I used to believe that there was.
I used to believe that the Bible was inerrant in its original autographs. I envisioned this collection, because it had to be accumulated over time, as pieces. But I did not realize how many pieces written by different unknown authors there actually were. When the Jews first drew these pieces together in a single canon is hard to say. But they had lots of fragments to draw on with differences among them. Some one or some group had to make a creative decision.
I am a Christian and I do not find this history of the OT "way disturbing." The OT is useful but I acknowledge its incarnational nature - it was passed through the hands of flawed humans. We could collide, for instance, with the question of who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? - and crash in a frenzy and miss the value of the OT for reproof. When Christ was on earth, he did not make a big issue of the inaccuracies of scripture. It was good enough for the purpose. Besides he was the Word of God in action if there were any doubts about anything.
Some might consider the creation and curation of the OT inelegant. But I believe it is quite elegant. In spite of its checkered history, it retains both majesty and utility.
It is just not for the legalist or perfectionist. This in itself tells us something about God's grace and our own misapprehensions.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Hi Neo
ReplyDeleteWe're on lots of same pages
Just last week if found three more large net sinkers or perhaps they are mauls in the Willamette. The fish here are huge and would need very heavy weights (Sturgeon and salmon)
I found a another pestle along with the best find, a sea lion effigy embedded on its side in the hard pack of the river at low tide. Very rare and no question about what it is. I like the quiet walks looking and seem to have an eye for that which needs a closer look.
12:37 DDiehl
ReplyDeleteSomething in that story reminds me of "unconverted mates" going along to Petra.
All in all I hope its just another good chapter in a well written book.
Nck
I remember a jerk minister in Worldwide(Lawson Tuck) screaming that going to college and getting a degree was worthless unless it came from Ambassador College. I also remember he screaming at the women in the church to go to the bathroom and wash off their "harlot's paint" after HWA re instituted the no make doctrine. He was & still is a worthless turd.
ReplyDeleteChrist quoted from the OT on several occasions, so I find the accusation that the OT is significantly flawed hard to believe.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteChrist quoted from the OT on several occasions, so I find the accusation that the OT is significantly flawed hard to believe.
=====================================
It was the author of the Gospel that actually said whatever Jesus is said to have said quoting the OT. Gospel authors were originally anonymous and were not eyewitnesses to the stories and events that they wrote about Jesus. They used the OT to flesh out a story of Jesus as the "New Moses" etc. This is why so many things in Gospel Jesus' life seem "prophetic". The OT story is the template for newer updated version. The Gospels are prophecy historized and not history prophesied. The literary practice is known as "typology" and Midrash.
Anonymous (3:27) "Christ quoted from the OT on several occasions, so I find the accusation that the OT is significantly flawed hard to believe."
ReplyDeleteThe OT is not significantly flawed. It serves its purpose elegantly. Notice Paul wrote in 2 Timothy:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Inerrantists might give this passage a cursory glance with the focus on the word "inspiration." And then they surcharge this word with a designer meaning. This passage clearly defines the limits of inspiration. It does not, for instance, portray the Bible as being profitable for science. Or profitable for an accurate reconstruction of the ancient history of Israel. Or profitable for medical practice. It, rather, exemplifies principles we need to heed, a "cloud of witnesses", that we may profit from but within NT Christianity. The human curation of the OT does not compromise this.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Dennis (5:44)
ReplyDeleteThe model you describe does not seem familiar to me. Is this Bart Ehrman? Essentially, you are saying that a group of anonymous first century Jews got together and concocted the NT from whole cloth. I don't think you are going to find much support for this in scholarship.
I will admit that the Biblical authors used Christotelicity. They saw Christ in passages of the OT that in their context do not refer to Christ. Yet, it does not tax the imagination that there would be foreshadows, sometimes subtle, of Jesus in the OT. So Christotelicity does not describe a class of interpretive errors but a class of interpretive insights.
And Christotelicity defines a category of interpretations that could be considered Midrashic. I'm no expert. I am thinking the discussion and debate parts of Midrash are absent in the creation of these references.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Normalized_Eigenvalue_Orthogonal said...
ReplyDeleteDennis (5:44)
The model you describe does not seem familiar to me. Is this Bart Ehrman? Essentially, you are saying that a group of anonymous first century Jews got together and concocted the NT from whole cloth. I don't think you are going to find much support for this in scholarship.
Reply: No, not Ehrman. There is an intriguing viewpoint, with some pretty interesting backup that the Gospels are a Roman construct after the Fall of Jerusalem to create a more pacifistic Orthodox Judaism and Christianity than that which was the final straw for the Romans versus the more militaristic and zealot Jews and Christians that were pushing their luck with the Roman tolerance for those that at least cooperated with them. These two groups were causing too many problems. Long story but when you consider that the Gospels hardly give much hint of a Roman occupation in Judea and that the Romans in the story , as well a tax collectors and prostitutes were would make it into the Kingdom before the religious types in the text, it seems plausible. Especially we have no clue where the Gospels actually came from. Maybe yes, maybe no but the internal evidence is compelling. Long story
NEO:I will admit that the Biblical authors used Christotelicity. They saw Christ in passages of the OT that in their context do not refer to Christ. Yet, it does not tax the imagination that there would be foreshadows, sometimes subtle, of Jesus in the OT. So Christotelicity does not describe a class of interpretive errors but a class of interpretive insights.
Reply: Correct. This is what I have always meant by making the scriptures mean what they never meant to mean. The Gospel use of this approach shows the authors actually knew little about any real Jesus, his birth, or even his death so they reached back into the OT to flesh out the tale. Jesus actual teachings are neither new nor profound as we see in the Sermon on the Mount. Just more pacifistic and relaxed. Also a dash of "render unto Caesar what is Caesars and to God what is God's" This is the Roman view of what cooperative religions should be like and they will be given no trouble from Rome.
NEO : And Christotelicity defines a category of interpretations that could be considered Midrashic. I'm no expert. I am thinking the discussion and debate parts of Midrash are absent in the creation of these references.
REPLY: Matthew uses nothing but Midrash and back writing explain Jesus by cobbling OT scriptures together to tell the story of his birth, life and death. Written by someone who knew Jewish scripture and how to use the technique. Paul wrote before the Gospels of course and claimed Roman citizenship and was very do as Rome, the good guys say. Romans 13. Again, a suspicious kinda guy to define the Jewish Christ which before this time was a Militant Jewish Messiah that would come to conquer Rome not establish its headquarters in Rome based on the Roman political system etc. Anyway, to me, a telling twist of what always seemed obvious to me about the rise of the early Christian , trust and obey the Romans and you get to live perspective. I do like or at least find an interest in "Caesar's Messiah" and the rise of the Flavian Caesars in all this just after the Fall of Jerusalem. Answers a few lurking lifetime questions I have had about the texts in an interesting way and seems somewhat possible.
Dennis (5:44, 9:14)
ReplyDelete> "Gospel authors were originally anonymous and were not eyewitnesses to the stories and events that they wrote about Jesus."
These documents did not come to us neatly packaged with "facts of publication" as library catalogers term it. The Gospel of John does have some attested provenance. Papias (1st century) knew John the Apostle and some others and Eusebius (4th century) cites Papias regarding John.
Two of the synoptics seem to be an amalgam of Mark and a source called "Q". Q is also referred to as the "sayings of Jesus" which I believe was likely compiled by an eyewitness. In any case, the four gospels have resulted in a remarkably consistent theology. They are interpreted by some to be in tension with some of the writing of Paul. This is all from standard current NT scholarship.
So, in summary, we have the credentialing by the early church about the validity of these books even though the facts of publication were not passed down. On the other hand, we have modern scholars who have made reasonable arguments (although some of the arguments I have seen are scant) about how the Gospels were developed. And I think some readers believe that a postulated complex origin rather than a simplistic origin is a renunciation of the validity of the Gospels when this is not automatically the case.
> "This is what I have always meant by making the scriptures mean what they never meant to mean."
I think meaning is a separate issue. The OT passages were applied to circumstances in the NT that are different from the circumstances in the OT where the passages first appeared. The author is saying by using the OT passage in a novel way that there is a recognized common kernel of meaning in the passage that applies to the NT circumstances. I have never read one of these Christotelic statements that seemed inappropriate. They elucidate rather than conflate.
I think it is also important to keep in mind this passage: "Jesus said to them, 'These are the words I spoke to you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.' Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." We would then expect there to be some understanding within the early church concerning the OT foreshadowing of Jesus.
This could go on at length . . . I think I'm pretty much done for my part.
******* Click on icon to view Disclaimer
I finally started reading Josephus which I bought many years ago when I was at A.C.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few differences between the OT scriptures he quotes and what we have today.
Nothing too major, but it does show that the scriptures were still getting changes.
Plus Josephus seemed to use the Septuagint version - just like most of the NT.
I doubt that Jesus would have gone about speaking Greek and quoting the Greek version to his audience of locals.
The Gospels are all centered around Judea, Galilee, plus the occasional trip to Samaria.
This was a local preaching effort.
The Jews had fallen on hard times and were waiting on the Son of Man to return and kick out the Romans and set up a Jewish kingdom.
We are still waiting.
The following excerpt is from an old post of mine:
ReplyDeleteOne final point about the written word is also in order before leaving this topic. While the existence of scholarly and scientific studies can (and should) be employed to greatly enhance our experience of the Bible, those disciplines should never be allowed to exercise a veto over our reception and interpretation of the message. I've heard people say that "you can't make it mean what it was never meant to mean." In other words, the author's original intent should not be allowed to restrict our interpretation of the message. Indeed, the possibility of a multiplicity of interpretations may have been part of the author's intent. I've been fortunate to hear something completely different than what I had intended in the feedback I've received after delivering some sermon or writing some piece - it can be a very enlightening and inspiring experience!
'I've received after delivering some sermon...'
DeleteGiving sermons in CGI?
CGI, COG 7th Day and 7th Day Baptist (Always done at the request of the pastor of note - NEVER had any desire to be a pastor/minister/priest).
ReplyDeleteWhich CGI congregation ?
DeleteFayetteville and Fort Smith, Arkansas regularly, and a couple of times in Springfield, Missouri - roughly between 2007-2013. I don't think that there's any chance though that they'll ever invite me to do so again (besides that, I think that those two Arkansas congregations have largely collapsed in the intervening years, and I no longer live in that region anyway)! The 7th Day Baptist and COG 7th Day congregations were in Alabama. The articles relative to CGI were published in their "International News." Outside of making a couple of hardliners angry, I don't think that anyone ever left or suffered any harm on account of those messages (one message even led to four folks being baptized!). At any rate, hope that satisfies your curiosity.
ReplyDelete5/1 2:59 said: “Rubbish Tonto. Only elderly ministry controlling a church is DEATH to any vision. It would be a cronies ruled cosy retirement boring sludge into nothingness.
ReplyDeleteThe levites served between the ages of 30-60.”
So just like the decrepit men who’ve been voted US president in recent years are a sure sign of the death of the American vision.