|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We dallied in exploring the term 'fear of the LORD,' a bit.
Apr 19, 2022, 9:22 AM
|
|
In the Easter thread as we discussed the exact meaning of the 'sons of God,' as related in Genesis 6 which some believe refers to fallen angels. We found several passages in the Old Testament where sons of God were references to righteous men. While that term does not mean they were Holy or without sin but that they sought God wholeheartedly, feared God.
The term 'children of God,' is more prevalent in the New Testament which led us to Ephesians Chpt 5 where The Apostle Paul instructs us to 'Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children.' I understand that as a transition from previous instructions at the end of chapter 4 which is:
'28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.
Chapter 5 vs 1 'Be ye therefore followers of God as dear children.'
This leads to some clarification of 'fear of God,' which some misunderstand as cowing down, shaking with fright and dread. That is not what 'fear of the LORD,' means to me. Reading the 119 chapter of Psalm this morning I found a more accurate definition of 'fear of God,' in verse 39.
'Turn away my reproach which I fear: for thy judgments are good.'
As said previously here disappointment in a father crushes a child when that child is seeking to please his daddy. A good earthy father might skirt the truth and say 'good job,' after his child totally fails at an assigned or solicited task. An honest father would say 'nice try,' or 'good try.'
Our success and failure to please God is to trust Him. Philippians 2:13:
'For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.'
While that leaves us with no reason for pride in anything we accomplish to please God it does leave us with the comfort of knowing that we put our faith in Him who wills us to please.
Put your trust in God and be blessed today.
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: We dallied in exploring the term 'fear of the LORD,' a bit.
Apr 19, 2022, 1:49 PM
|
|
As I was reading your post 88 I noticed you referenced Philippians and Paul.
My grandmother used to have a nice old Bible with the words of Christ in red. I always liked it because it was easy to see what Jesus himself, as opposed to Paul, or anyone else, said.
Sometimes, they seemed to have different views. For instance, Jesus apparently didn't mind women having a role in the Church (if you believe the Gospel of Mary Magdalene) and Paul said women should be silent in church. But there are others:
Jesus: Matt 23:9 "And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
Paul: 1 Cor 4:15 "Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me."
Yikes.
But differences like that led me to a greater question. How many times does God himself (I suppose in his God form vs his Jesus or Holy Spirit form if you ascribe to the Trinity) speak directly in the NT? I don't know the answer but I'm searching for it now.
He does it frequently in the OT, in the Torah most often. There seem to be 3 cases in general:
1) God speaking directly (albeit with someone doing the transcribing for him; so I suppose you have to trust the translator)
2) Someone saying "God said this verbatim"
3) Someone saying "God means this"
It caught my interest because the summation of your post was "Trust in God", which might be different than "Trust in the messengers" (like, say, Paul, who was most decidedly only a man), you know?
Anyhow, just something that popped in my head. But I can't seem to find anywhere in the NT where God communicates directly. Do you know on anywhere off the top of your head?
Nice post btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: (?) partial resolution of "father" vs. "Father" (?)
Apr 19, 2022, 4:23 PM
|
|
Not intending to derail the discussion between you two scholars, but indulge me (and don't spare use of direct 'corrections' as you see fit) with what may appear to be a contradiction in the use of "Father" (from Jesus) vs. "father" (from Paul).
English language convention (and yes, I recognize that English language conventions were not the major factor in the composition of the KJB) has the use of "Father" limited to when this is specifically substituted for your dad's name. In other words "Father" is synonymous to "Danny" when used by the children in the famous Danny Ford family.
The use of "father" (uncapitalized) is when describing the male DNA donor when proceeded by a progressive pronoun. For example, my father really admired the way that Danny Ford coached teams kept both Herschel and George Rogers out of the Clemson end-zone.
The exception to the progressive pronoun 'non-capitalized' version of father is when referencing God. I.e., our Father who art in Heaven ... Similar to how we use "him" when talking about another man, and "Him" when referencing God or Jesus.
At least to me, this is how I bridge what appears to some as a contradiction between Paul's guidance vs. Jesus' guidance.
As always, thanks for playing along!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: (?) partial resolution of "father" vs. "Father" (?)
Apr 19, 2022, 5:33 PM
|
|
A very good point, and a part of the problem of interpreting text. (I just touched on the same issue in my response to CuinT.
It's compounded in those quotes by Jesus using both "father" and "Father."
So when Paul says "I became your father", to me, he's kind of deliberately walking a thin line. The transcriber gave Paul the benefit of the doubt, by using "f", not "F". Fair enough. We'll give him the benefit if the doubt. But if you can imagine the scenario where it is being spoken not read, it's much more shaded.
Now, Paul doesn't have to walk that thin line at all. He's got thousands of words he could have used. But he chose to walk that line. To avoid ANY confusion, he could have just said "Do what Jesus said." But he chose to cut it closer and be ambiguous. Even to the point of saying "I urge you to imitate me." not, "I urge you to imitate Christ." To me, that appears deliberate.
I've got a lot of mixed views on Paul but I'm saving those for when we get into Christianity proper. This is not the only occasion, by far, where Paul "guides" Christianity a little strong handedly, I think.
But of course, that is purely my opinion and nothing more. And it carries all the weight my opinion should, which is next to nothing  ">
Now, to his credit, Paul did carry the church on his back in the early years, but the problem is that Paul carried the church on his back in the early years. He spread the word, but how much of the word was his, and how much was Jesus's? Which is where the words in red come back around. Because if you just read those, it paints a slightly different picture than Paul's words sometimes.
One of the very first things I ask when discussing scripture is "Did Jesus say that" or "Did Paul say that." After a while of making that distinction, you begin two views emerging.
Anyhow, it's a great question and will be good for some lively future discussion. His "siddling up" is sort of a pet peeve of mine, but there's no denying that historically, Paul was HUGELY responsible for not only the expansion of the church through his travels and ministry, but also the philosophical leap that interpreted Jesus's death as an ultimate sacrifice.
I'll have to check but I think Thessalonians is among his very first letters, and among the oldest writings of the accepted New Testament. That puts it at about 51 AD, where Paul speaks of Jesus in a much more symbolic way as dying for everyone, not just himself.
There was no doubt oral tradition before Paul's letters, but he was extremely well educated, having attended the Hebrew Gamaliel School and was also very familiar with Greek philosophy. So although there's no definitive proof of where that concept started, his stature, even not being an original apostle, certainly shows he was a central and enormously influential person in the very earliest days after Jesus's death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7128]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9690
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: (?) partial resolution of "father" vs. "Father" (?)
Apr 19, 2022, 6:00 PM
|
|
As always, Ford, you put in the work.
As for Paul and taking liberties with his license, we know that Paul (like all the disciples, apostles, and great men and women of the OT) suffered from vanity, uncertainty, emotional high's and low's, (surely some) paranoia, etc. ... those same things which affect all humans.
How well do we know EXACTLY what Paul heard when Christ spoke to him on the road to Damascus? Or for any other times in which God spoke to him (but ... maybe unbelievably ... were not chronicled by Paul?
How well did Paul recite to his soon-to-be followers the EXACT meaning of what Jesus (and God) had told him?
The above is the backdrop. What follows is my interpretation ... and then summary.
Paul, with his blend of human frailties and hearing directly from Jesus / God, had the "license" to do his best to interpret the Holy communications in a way that Paul thought would best bring the unwashed to Christ. Like all humans ... even those which had received divine inspiration ... he was still not perfect (and never could be perfect). It is easy to see how he may have gotten some little details (and also some not-so-little details) wrong. However, I cannot see where Paul's intentions for spreading the Word effectively to bring the unwashed to Christ were anything but good. Again, some problems in Paul's execution? Sure. Problems with Paul's overall work? Not many.
Paul's experience and views could then be refined / contrasted with others who had their own communications from God, which is a big part in challenge to those writers that 'constructed' the Bible to emphasize those apostolic details that could be corroborated by apostles other than Paul.
What can be found as far as 'weeds in the lawn' can indeed be interesting, but I am confident that the 'lawn' itself provides a fine platform for learning and understanding Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29860]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8837
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: (?) partial resolution of "father" vs. "Father" (?)
Apr 19, 2022, 7:05 PM
|
|
That’s a very nicely nuanced and reasoned view, Rem. I essentially agree with everything you said.
Granted we know very little if anything exactly, and Jesus didn’t speak on all topics. so interpretations had to be made.
Neither do we know exactly who Paul was speaking to and what they needed to hear, so to speak, to understand the message. So allowances must be given for that.
Paul never said anything as off message as “worship me” lol, or the other disciples, who clearly took him in, would have booted him out the door.
And there were plenty of other details to work out, like the Antioch debate over gentiles, as the early framework was being decided on.
But of all the disciples I don’t get the same ego vibe as I do from Paul, but he was only a man, and that’s a part of the human package.
His ego and drive might have saved the church in the early days. Had he not pressed for gentile leniency Christianity might have become nothing more than a Jewish splinter sect.
And, true, there were much bigger divisive issues on the horizon than any liberties or interpretation allowances Paul may have made.
The woman thing still rubs me though, but he, like all of us, are of our own time, and he wasn’t alone in his view, with Peter and Andrew clearly in that camp with him.
As you said, a few weeds here and there, but a pretty good lawn nevertheless. Great reply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: (?) partial resolution of "father" vs. "Father" (?)
Apr 21, 2022, 8:32 AM
[ in reply to Re: (?) partial resolution of "father" vs. "Father" (?) ] |
|
The Authorized Version Paul says, "...for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." Paul founded many churches. They met in homes of believers. When we read 'Church at Corinth,' we think of 'First Baptist Church, Church of God, Church of Christ,' or 'Saint Mary's Catholic Church,' and some specific building comes to mind with a name signifying that it is not only different from other churches but identifying it as having a collection of members who agree on a certain doctrine and meet at one particular building.
Would one believe there are divisions among us, that I am a Baptist but others are Catholic, others Pentecostal? Paul was telling them there is one gospel and listening to those who created divisions was harming them spiritually. He was not referring to other Apostles for no other Apostles were assigned to preach to the heathen. Jesus Apostles all had the same message although their focus was customized to different groups yet they all preached The Gospel.
Technically, Paul didn't instruct or solicit any to call him father. He was warning mostly against division, the caterwauling and contention(s) those who would usurp authority in their group created and perhaps generated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My speculation(s) is/are, that while there are many similarities between the first church and those today there are several significant differences. They had the Apostles, friends and some had family who had seen Jesus. Most likely many claimed to have seen Him and therefor were able to assume some special respect and consideration(s).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many times I fall into the trap of pride. Knowing that it is only God who works in me to do good and only He can open His Word to me and open me to The Word I still sometimes take pride in the bits of Truth I understand and 'know.' I profess that I have met Christ, it's normal among believers to know Him personally for though He is the God of all He is also my God. Not that He belongs to me but that I belong to Him.
When we read Paul's letters to Corinth we think, 'What an awful bunch of heathen.' Yet when we carefully study those writings we find that God is speaking to us. Oh how many times have I heard the story about 'Preaching to the choir.' As it was originally meant...
At one particular church Sunday after Sunday the only ones to attend were those who sang in the choir, the preacher and one old man. The preacher, again and again, preached on The Blood of Jesus redeeming power being the only way to be saved and how desperately we all need that salvation. How that the love of God could change a life after one was saved by God's grace and filled with His Spirit while looking straight at the one member of his congregation which didn't sing in the choir loft.
Sunday after Sunday the choir sang Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me...Sunday after Sunday the old man would say Amen, thinking the preacher was preaching to the choir and as he left the building he would shake hands with the preacher and say 'you sure gave it to them this morning, preacher,' then walked away, 'as lost as a blind goose in a snowstorm.'
Heb Chpt 2
'1 Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
2 For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Context.
Apr 20, 2022, 11:30 AM
[ in reply to Re: We dallied in exploring the term 'fear of the LORD,' a bit. ] |
|
Just glancing through Matt 23 one will find that Jesus was referring to the Pharisees. Try reading God's Word like you would read the writing on the walls of a tomb in Egypt. You would never take that out of context and only read what others thought it said by trying their words against what you understood the writing to be.
"1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For 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.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ..."
Basically, 'These monsters are using their position to empower and enrich themselves rather than serve God. They demand that all behave in a righteous manner which includes serving them rather doing their jobs and doing service to God. They tithed (to themselves) of the mint of their garden and let their parents live in destitute. Neither Rabbi, father nor any other title of respect should be given to them. Think average TV evangelist.
Why in the world do you think these pharisees had him crucified?
Paul, on the other hand was dealing with the very confused Church at Corinth. The first three chapter of that letter to them he address the confusion and them being divided. He accused them of being babies not able to digest meat (unable to access facts and thereby mature to spiritual adulthood) but to return to the basic of Christian behavior which is to love unfeigned from a pure heart. From the previous chapter. BTW, these were letters, not some list of facts to be taken out of context and to be confused about. From 1 Cor Chpt 3:
"3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"
Chpt 4
"15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
Paul was the only apostle called to dedicate his life to preaching to the gentiles (we heathen). He was literally their spiritual father and mine. When he said "follow my teachings, follow me," he did so to remind them that through him God reached out to them, they a people who had been scorned and mocked by those of the Jewish faith.
'...for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you in the faith." He wasn't taking credit, he was certifying his position in an effort to straighten out the total dumpster fire called the Church at Corinth. They had drunken feast at meetings, when wild speaking in tongues without anyone interpreting so that everyone could understand their prophesying (preaching). One guy was sleeping with his father's wife.
Women have roles in churches. They make great SS teachers and organizers for gathers and events. They also are the backbone of many male church members, wives. Paul made no remarks to discourage women's role in the activities for which God called them
God gives godly women a glow which is a testimony greater than any in the world. They are so precious to God and to me and others who can see and identify the glow of God on their faces and in their lives. That glow comes from humble faith in, and obedience to, God.
However, they are not called to preach. A woman is called to many roles in a church but not to preach or be a deacon. Read Paul's letters to Timothy. 'Husband,' doesn't leave much room. At Corinth women were prophesying in tongues (preaching) so Paul instructed them to quit it.
Every word in my Bible is God breathed. If you want to communicate with God try the first three chapters of the Gospel of John.
These are my understandings. Anyone who wants to weigh my words against the Bible does well. Any man can deceive, God does not deceive. The Bible is like one of those painting of a face with eyes that follow you around the room. If you're reading it to find confusion and conflict within, it will jump out at you. If you're reading it to prove what you already know, it's on every page.
However, when a man humbles himself and with a great desire in his heart to know and understand what God wants him to know and understand he should seek that truth as a 49er panned for gold. The bits are there and can lead one to the motherlode of Truth. God loves you, Christ died for you. God does not want to enslave you with the law but to free you from the law through your faith in Him to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I can't reply to all your questions in one post.
Apr 21, 2022, 10:30 AM
[ in reply to Re: We dallied in exploring the term 'fear of the LORD,' a bit. ] |
|
I claim old age and senility.
Nevertheless, Heb Chpt 1
"1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;..."
If you met Jesus, as many have, you would know you're talking to and hearing the words of God.
It seems rather superstitious that you show some special interest in Matthew's recording of Jesus words and Moses' recording of God's words and differentiate those writings from other things they wrote. Of course everyone had a scribe back then. It's not as if the authors of the books took shorthand while God and Jesus spoke.
It also seems obvious to me that it is understood that each of them recorded their portion of God's Word by and through the power of God's Holy Spirit. What might be a better question is why did God speak directly to Abraham, Moses and others at some times then send angels at other times? Would it make a difference if you spoke with an angel, with God or Jesus, or someone sent by God to give you their Word?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
