Re: [TruthTalk] Is Truth always rational?

[Knpraise]

In a message dated 12/12/2004 7:05:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Paul is holding the coats of the murderers.  Ask yourself again why Paul was going after them to kill them.   Actually, how do I know from scripture that Paul killed any one?   With Stephen, I see the emotional cause of his death the fact that he (Stephen) traces the history of the Rebellious ( not to be confused with the larger community) and ties the Council (representative for the Jewish leadership ??) to this continued rebellion.   "You men who are stiff necked and uncircumcised in the heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?   And they killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;  you who received the law as ordaind by angels and yet, did not keep it"   (Acts 7:51-53). Does Stephen preach against the Law?   Certainly not in this record of his last words. Rather  (and I am not talking about Dan),  he lashes out against rebellion -----  to the guidance of the Spirit and the importance of an inwardness controlled by that Spirit  (circumcision of the heart and ears).    If "the Law" does not lead us to a holy and inward alliance, it is just so many words.   I think that this has always been true.  I see this very problem, often;   brothers and sisters who think of themselves in such self-righteous terms that the heart response  (i.e. compassion, empathy, respect, benevolent display and the like) is simply not present on a consistent level.  I do not think you will agree with this, but I see the First Church's theology of Judaism (its history and its Law) in relationship to whatever change God initiated in the mission of Christ as an evolving theology.   On the Pentecost Day,  I seriously doubt that any, including the Apostles, fully understood the grace aspect in the death of Christ.   It was received as a fact, a blessing, a reality, to be sure  --   but not fully understood as a theology.   I mean, how many of us have studied Romans and Galatians for years, and yet have so many questions, and yet experience some many blessings related to God's continuing work of revelation and understanding in our lives.  How many times have we been stopped in our tracks,  right in the middle of an exhaustive study, and BAM, there it is  ---------------------   how could we have not seen it before  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Understanding a single passage or a single thought for the first time, but not for the last time.   NOT FOR THE LAST TIME.   Knowing full well that time might allow us to revisit this revelation again, and, perhaps, with a "different" theological understanding  ....   one which was closed to us before but is now available.   Growth and experience all from the Spirit giving us a fresh look and an increasing understanding (read different").   Such is the miracle of God's Providence in our search for what is meaningful to us.   Truth?   Forget about it   ---   unless, of course, it is comes our way via our relationship with the Living Truth.   That is what I see in the writing of the Scriptures  --   an unfolding story (ala Hays) .   A God that grows on you.  A move from carnality to maturity  --   none of it ever fully accomplished in this life;   all of it credited to an indwelling that is both divine and verifiable  --  the increasing sense of maturity, love and brotherhood being the Witness to this Divine Presence. And what is my point?    Depending on where we begin our study or end our search, we might expect our opinions to be different because the whole of our theology has a dynamic that procedes from God,. Himself and a beginning/ending that is not certain.  Without the benefit of counsel,  we can only expect our view to be myopic  and without clarity.   Unfortunately, this may not be the perceived reality  --  but a fact, nonetheless.   What is obvious to Stephen, even in this earliest age of the Ekklesia, is the difference between the established leadership (The Council, the High Priest) and what God has in mind.   Separation has not yet occured  --  perhaps it is not even hinted at --  but the seeds of this separation are recorded in this speech of the First Martyr AND the hateful reaction to it's truth.  We know, from this account alone, that the marriage between Judaism and Christianity is headed for trouble.   How we account for this is part of the explanation for our difference of opinion on some matters.   And, here, I am not just talking to you, Slade.  I see a link to our disagreements  --  all  --  as being based in this effort to separate Christianity from Judaism.  Could that be  correct?    Gary and I and you and Jeff may see things differently in the most fundamental of ideas.   We are at ground zero......Judaism is right here  --  and you are a Jewish Christian and how can this be?   And the struggle begins.   Pre, post, a-millenialism has everthing to do with differing interpretations of apoclyptic scripture;  Luther's conclusion is the end result of  a continuing debate over the place of law and forgiveness (Jewish ideas);   Finney's view of perfectionism is heavily influenced by Jewish scripture;   and I could go on and on.   What I have gained from my very brief association with you is (first) the above "revelation" and (secondly) the need to become more familiar with all that is a part of the Jewish history, tradition, law and culture.   At age 60,   I probably have run out of time to learn much in this regard, but it is  now on the calendar, when, before, it was not.   As I study with Wright (Romans in a Week) , I am somewhat startled at just how much he knows about Jewish ideas and faith  -----    reinforcing this notion that I must go and do likewise. And I apologize to all for going on and on.   The only reason why I do not sign off long before some of these posts become ridiculously long is that, in fact, I am writing for myself !!  I admit it  !!     I am working it out for me.   That is why I do not mind correction or impute or silence.    I speak or write with a sense of finality  --   but that perceived reality is the farthest thing from my pathetic little mind.  Nothing is written in stone  --  nothing is final. But, of course, I can do all this off line, I suppose.  I'll get a grip. JD