Posts by TerryWalstrom

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Stoic and Platonic philosophy were Pagan penetrations into Judaism and early Christianity.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

The most 'disturbing' influence of Greek thought and language is demonstrated by the fact actual words and language of Jesus weren't handled with respectful preservation. The Greek approximations do violence with exactitude of meaning. As the Rabbis taught, "All translations are lies."

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

The Greek influence had penetrated into Jewish theology as to methodology both in pre and post Apostolic times:

13

So, dead members of the 144,000 help direct the preaching work from beyond the grave?

by Zoos in

did i understand that right?

was that a claim rutherford made?.

i don't suppose anyone has that quote..

TerryWalstrom

... though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is managing every feature of the harvest work.

Later that year the Judge wrote in the Watch Tower of November 1, page 325 the following:

"This work is conducted by the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, a corporation organized for that purpose by Pastor Russell years ago, and which, without doubt, was organized under the Lord's direction, and which was managed and directed by Pastor Russell until his death.

"Hence our dear Pastor, now in glory, is without doubt, manifesting a keen interest in the Harvest work, and is permitted by the Lord to exercise some strong influence thereupon. (Revelation 14:17) It is not unreasonable to conclude that he has been privileged to do, in connection with the Harvest work, things which he could not do while with us. Although we recognize that the Lord is the great Master and Director of the Harvest, yet we recognize that He would privilege the saints beyond the veil to have a part in the work on this side; and thus all the saints, both in Heaven and upon earth, are now given the honor of concluding the work on this side, preparatory to the full establishment of the Kingdom of Glory."

Then all of a sudden in 1930, Judge Rutherford writes the following inLight, Book 1, Page 47, 48

"It is a wellknown fact, however, that since the coming of the Lord to his temple in 1918 there have been a goodsized number in the church who have attended eonventions and meetings but who have not been active, and many who have in substance said this: ‘All the light upon God’s Word was published prior to 1917; we have that truth and will continue to feed and meditate upon it; the Lord appointed one man as his “faithful and wise servant”, and even though he has passed from the earth he is still doing God’s work on the earth and is in charge of his church, and since we are of God’s favored ones and have these things we enjoy great riches of feeding and meditating upon what he wrote before 1916; we have developed sweet and beautiful characters; we have a past record for zeal for the Lord and we rely upon our riches gained, and therefore we have need of nothing but will rest upon our laurels and wait to be taken into glory.

"There is no reason why we should bring reproach upon ourselves by going from house to house; by telling the people of the organization of Satan and that of God. We are really better than others. Let them do it.’ As God foretold, such would say: ‘(I am holier than thou.” (Isa. 65: 5) The above fairly well describes the condition that existed in the church particularly after 1917, and in a more marked degree from and after 1918."

And who may I ask promoted such a "condition" that "existed in the church particularly after 1917"?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Jonathan Drake: However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it.

_______________________

Peter had received a direct revelation from God Almighty!

Even though, he had been inculturated by his tradition in Judaism, Peter had immediately begun living as a Gentile! Paul's fury was directed at the HYPOCRISY of living one way and teaching another. Why?

The question of Justification was at stake. This is a foundational orthodox teaching. Belief and acceptance either was or was not all a Christian needed for salvation. This was a huge apostasy in fundamentals.

And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy (2:13).

Peter's defection had a disastrous effect on the Antioch church. The reason for this is that all of the Jews in the church began to follow his example. Peter was a natural leader. No matter what he did, people would follow him.

When Jesus asked His disciples who they thought He really was, it was Peter who acted as their spokesman.

When the gift of tongues was given at Pentecost, it was Peter who addressed the crowd that gathered.

And when Peter decided to go fishing after the resurrection, the disciples were quick to follow him, even though they had been instructed to remain in Jerusalem.

Once again we see people following Peter. The entire Jewish-Christian community began to follow his example of separation from the Gentile believers. Even Barnabas was swept up in this separation. The result was a giant split in the church.

Even worse there was a split over the eating of the Lord's Supper. The one place where unity should have been the most evident had now become the scene of division. Paul calls this action "hypocrisy." They were saying and believing one thing while they were doing another. They were preaching the gospel but they were not living the gospel. They were preaching that faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, but they were living as though Gentiles were second-class Christians.

Peter and Barnabas knew better than to act like this. But they had been intimidated. Peter was intimidated by the disciples of James. Barnabas and the other Jewish Christians were intimidated by Peter's defection. By running away from the problem, Peter had created a far greater problem.

Was this Apostacy on the part of Peter? If so, what could have been worse inasmuch as Peter had been the agent of false Gospel?

"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all. . . " (Galatians 2:14).

Paul rebuked Peter's false teaching which had split the church. The General Truth of Justification: A man is not justified by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16)

_______________

What I find interesting is this, Peter was acting the way the Governing Body today does. By making door to door witnessing, obedience to the FDS and the Organization the core of salvation, they've made Jesus' sacrifice null and void.

_________________________

Jonathan Drake: Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first-century apostles is literally trash.

____________________________

Gulp! We DON'T HAVE any first-century manuscripts at all, Jonathan. We only have corrupt LATER approximations developed by people who weren't of the first-century. So, our discussion is pretty much moot 'trash.'

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Jonathan Drake: Peter never opposed the gentile mission, or any Gentiles. In galations the confrontation with Peter isn't abiut anything he said.

_____________________

Why then did God have to tell Peter THREE TIMES that it was permitted for him to enter a Gentile home and freely give the gospel to Gentiles? Jews who were still keeping the Law acted as though Gentile homes and Gentile meals were accursed. Conflict came to a head when Peter arrived in Antioch (the first place to use the term, "Christian" we are told.) Paul and Peter were not seeing eye to eye about Christian fellowship. In Antioch, there was epic confrontation between Paul and Peter.

I understand you don't see fellowship as anything other than a cultural problem rather than a matter of core identification of theology. But, the 'body of Christ' is an indivisible concept, is it not? Fellowship as the 'bride' is a symbol of purity and integrity because it is not tarnished in any manner (even cultural.)

Orthodoxy is 'right belief.' If Jesus' bride was divided into two classes (Jewish/Gentile) because of cultic paranoia, there is no 'rightness' to a 'house divided' which cannot stand.

The first canonical Gospel, Mark, does not have the story of the Virgin birth, and in fact, shows no clue that it is familiar with the stories of the Virgin birth. Mark does not narrate an account of Jesus’ birth. Mark never says a word about Jesus’ mother being a virgin. Mark does not presuppose that Jesus had an unusual birth of any kind. And in Mark (you don’t find this story in Matthew and Luke!!), Jesus’ mother does not seem to know that he is a divinely born son of God. On the contrary, she thinks he has gone out of his mind. Mark not only lacks a virgin birth story; it seems to presuppose that they never could have been a virgin birth. Or Mary would understand who Jesus is. But she does not.

What to make of this? Simply, there were differing views of the Christian experience by different writers and believers. Is this a 'big deal" or not?

All I'm asserting is that the cultural, historic context is important when examining early Christianity. By the time Constantine tries to pull all the Christian ecclesia together, you practically have a series of fistfights, according to Eusebius. Why? How? Where is the basis for solidarity?

It is a question worth contemplating.

As to scholar Hurtado, I haven't read his book, but it certainly sounds remarkable! I read a few reviews online.

http://www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/review_Hurtado.pdf

"One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confi dent assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror."

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Justin Martyr wrote, “And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.”

The pagans during the 2nd century thought of Perseus’s birth as a virgin birth, and considering the “celestial intercourse” between the mother and the god, similar to Mary and the Holy Spirit, this would make sense. It would make sense that Danae WAS a virgin because her father kept her locked up because he didn’t want her conceiving any male children. In today’s contemporary age, when we read Greek mythology, it’s never emphasized that Danae was a virgin, not in the way Mary’s virginity is emphasized, so it never occurs to readers, “Perseus was born of a virgin,” but that doesn’t mean that the pagans back in the day didn’t emphasize that idea more, and this quote by Martyr gives an indication that Perseus was thought to have been born of a virgin.

_________________

The ongoing absorption in Jewish Messianic Christianity of Greco-Roman pagan influence seems a no-brainer. The first Gospel in the canon, Matthew, jumps right in with the pagan-influenced 'virgin birth."

Was there a battle going on in the New Testament period over orthodoxy? Sure. It wasn't settled, except in the minds of those wishing (and insisting) it were.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Paul started churches among former pagans in Galatia, probably in several different cities. The gospel he converted them to was the one we know from this letter and others, such as Romans. A pagan who wants to be made right with the one true God needs to abandon his/her worship of other gods and believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for their sins and be baptized. The person does not, and should not, convert to become Jewish. Jesus’ salvation extends to both Jews and Gentiles equally, by faith.

After Paul left the region other missionaries came with a different gospel message. They insisted that Jesus was the Jewish messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law, so that OF COURSE following Jesus meant being Jewish. Jesus, for these people, was the fulfillment of the covenant promises God had made with the father of the Jews Abraham; the sign of that covenant was circumcision; and when God gave circumcision as the sign to Abraham, he called it an “eternal covenant” – -meaning that it would never change. To be an heir of the covenant that God had given, and to fulfill the plan that God had set out long ago, a person has to do what God demands of his people. Males have to be circumcised; males and females have to keep the law. To follow Jesus a person has to adopt the ways of Judaism.

These other missionaries insisted that Paul has corrupted the original gospel of Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem. The original apostles agree that the law must be followed; Paul is a maverick.

Paul can be very angry and sarcastic about the prejudices in other congregations' idea of pure worship. For instance, in Galations 5:12, when he is referring to the missionaries advocating another gospel. (This is more graphically portrayed in the Greek.). Literally Paul says that “Would that those who are unsettling you would be cut off.” But what he’s saying is – to give the idiomatic translation, “Would that those who are unsettling you, when they themselves undergo circumcision, the knife slips and they cut off the whole thing.”

These are examples of a rift or divergence from "settled" true teaching, are they not?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

Let's take a look at the process.

A Pagan is not circumcised. A Jewish Christian is horrified. Peter argues against accepting the Pagan.

Paul prevails. Circumcising was the Law to a Jew. The explanation (the mcguffin!) is a 'vision' was sent

making it 'okay.' Ha!

Idolatry consisted of sacrificing food to pagan gods.

Paul had no problem with eating food sacrificed to false gods!

Now ask yourself, what was all the fuss about and who won?