Reconsider the Recent Threads Section

[OBW]

Scribe has correctly pointed out that he/she has been posting to a "personal blog" here within the forum. And while the "Recent Threads" section that I and many others use to find the recent posts more quickly does list the subforum in which each new post is found, along with the thread, it is not the thing that his highlighted. In my case, I have not paid attention to the subforum in which threads/posts are found, but only the thread name.

This brings up a couple of problems.

First, and most obvious, is that while we now have an easier way to find the latest posts, we have effectively obliterated the structure of the forum. Oh, it's still there. But you can click on that neat little link on the first page and go straight back to the right post within the right thread without ever knowing where in the forum's structure you are. The structure of the forum has become essentially irrelevant.

Now it has generally been common for people to comment on things within the blogs, but not to carry on significant discussions concerning topics that are rightly found elsewhere in the forum.

But this brings up the second problem. While I understand the blogs as a place for each of us to speak out on things, the idea that it would become a soapbox to say whatever you want about topics that are otherwise subject to discussion within the forum without comment seems to be a slight(?) abuse of the system. I am not suggesting that there should be repercussions to Scribe, or to anyone else who does this. I just think that if they come into a forum whose purpose is to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Local Churches as founded by Nee and Lee, then to avoid discussion about what you speak is counterproductive to the purpose of the forum.

Now, I agree that I could simply copy and paste the relevant sections from the blog posts into my own posts to be created within a new thread in the relevant subforum. But then, we are having to duplicate too much of the original posts since the thread will otherwise be discussing text which is not within the thread. The result is one giant cross-posting.

So, I guess I have to ask whether Scribe's intent is to find a way to post pro-Nee/Lee/LRC positions and materials in a manner that stands without challenge. Don't bother saying that we can discuss it elsewhere. The fact that it is found in one place with nothing but the pro-LRC/LSM line and no comment is to leave it uncommented. The fact that there are comments elsewhere is a ruse. To anyone who only reads some of the posts, some will read the blog and never find the discussion. That means that there will be some who see only one side of the discussion. And unless that is your express purpose, I would think that it should be avoided.

I will respect Scribe's request. And I guess I have to anyway since he/she locked the thread.

But it seems an abuse of the whole "discussion forum" premise for this to be an acceptable use of the blogs.

That's my opinion. And I have no authority to do anything about it.

[Scribe]

It is my understanding that Blogosphere is the only dominion that can be locked by the original builder. I see this as a home in this great forum. Yesterday I learned much as to the value. I now have two blogs: One is "Inheritance" where I place my witness in the local churches as history. The other is THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST where I post present and coming history. These two I have some control over. I can lock or unlock. Beside these two, I have entered, CALLING ALL SAINTS which is not a blog and is began by another. The title was good for me to submit into. And I have entered THE WORD which is a blog not began or controled by me. I am willing to engage in all three of these places. Though I believe THE WORD is began by Manna-man, and I want to respect his direction there. I do not appreciate disrespect of my blog, so i suggest that if you cant see what I am posting or are not seeking to, that you do not mount accusations, but try to stick to civility. I am a brother bought by the blood of Christ, right or wrong and I give you the benefit of any doubts I might have of you. If we are brothers in Christ, we are in debt to guide each other to the Truth. This is done in blessing not in cursing.

Now I need a little help here. I do not know what LRC is. Please explain. And as to LSM, I have never been pro LSM. Obviously you are not reading my posts, or else you read but filter through bitterness of not having overcome such as LSM. I am lined up in the name Watchman and Witness not in the error of their days. Also in another place you linked me to BB. I think that means blended brother. I don't know what that is either. Obviously these are places you would like to pigeon hole me so as to know how to fight.

As to OBW thinking I try to lay my teaching before all without opposition, I view this as impossible in this world. The whole world is at enmity with the Word. But in my blog i would like what I post there time to have opportunity to be read by some, before a load of none issue, or other issue things are dumped there. Why be so quick? Why let fear of what I write, or what you think i write control your more reasonable mind?

Anyway, you have written "I will respect Scribe's request."
Amen. The Word is God. Even my faith sees God in your hand. So be it.

Scribe

[OBW]

First, I might suggest that you check with UntoHim concerning the intent of the blog. My understanding is that it is set up so that a single thread is provided to be your blog. I really don't care, but I note that it seems that others have operated under this assumption. Under the premise that a blog is a continuing succession of posts by an author, then within this forum one thread would seem to be the equivalent of a blog. If everyone started a new thread for a new topic, then it would not be a blog, but multiple blogs.
I do not appreciate disrespect of my blog, so i suggest that if you cant see what I am posting or are not seeking to, that you do not mount accusations, but try to stick to civility. I am a brother bought by the blood of Christ, right or wrong and I give you the benefit of any doubts I might have of you. If we are brothers in Christ, we are in debt to guide each other to the Truth. This is done in blessing not in cursing.First, I do not believe that anyone was disrespecting your blog. As I mentioned in my opening post, I was not observing that it was a blog I was commenting to. If I had noted it, I might have made some brief comments, but not carried on as if starting a detailed discussion. I would have taken the discussion somewhere else. My error.

I can see what you are posting. What I do not see is a lack of civility, or for that matter, any cursing of anyone by anyone. I have begun to wonder based on a comment you made in another post whether you truly understand the general purpose of this forum. It is not a place set aside to simply fellowship over the wonderful teachings of Nee and Lee. That can happen among those who agree that those teachings are wonderful. But the purpose is the discussion of the teachings of Nee and Lee, along with the practices and baggage of the "Local Churches." Many of those discussions are critical of those teachings. And when there is criticism, there is bound to be some disagreement. But neither disagreement nor criticism are cursing. And they are not, in themselves, uncivil. I disagree on things with many yet am not uncivil with them. And I have acknowledged that my overly-edited writing style often seems cold. We must all try to deal with the words that are actually written rather than trying to read between the lines.
Now I need a little help here. I do not know what LRC is. Please explain. And as to LSM, I have never been pro LSM. Obviously you are not reading my posts, or else you read but filter through bitterness of not having overcome such as LSM. I am lined up in the name Watchman and Witness not in the error of their days. Also in another place you linked me to BB. I think that means blended brother. I don't know what that is either. Obviously these are places you would like to pigeon hole me so as to know how to fight.Unfortunately, while it is best that all acronyms be defined before use, there are some that are so common that we have used so frequently that we seldom redefine them. For your benefit, I will provide a common list:

BB — Blended Brothers. These are the primary leaders of the LRC in the US (and some elsewhere) who have identified themselves, among other names, as the "blending brothers" or "blended brothers."
GLA — Great Lakes Area, referring to those states and the portion of Canada surrounding the Great Lakes (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Ontario, etc.)
LC/LRC — LC is simply Local Church, referring to either the group as a whole or a particular assembly. Because we believe the term "local church" should refer to all churches, even including those in the RCC (I will get a lot of flack from some for this), we have begun to change over to LRC — Lord's Recovery Church. Either way, it refers to the churches, both in the US and abroad, that have sprung from the teachings of Lee. I would also include the teachings of Nee, but some will point out that this would include those churches following Stephen Kuang (sp?) and others.

There are several names that we shorthand a lot:
BP — Benson Phillips
JI — John Ingalls
NT — Nigel Tomes (This one can be problematic since NT is also "New Testament.")
PL — Phillip Lee
RG — Ray Graver
RK — Ron Kangas
TC — Titus Chu
WL — Witness Lee
WN — Watchman Nee

There are others, but they are less frequent and do not come to mind at the moment.

Last, you suggest that discussing your positions, or disagreeing with them is to be "at enmity with the Word." But so far, while you have mentioned a very few verses, you have made a lot of statements that do not arise from those scriptures. The issue many of us see is not what scripture says, but what Nee and Lee taught that scripture did not say, or even said the opposite. I realize that you are primarily either quoting or paraphrasing from the ministries of Nee and Lee, so I do not consider this to have been your speaking on the subject. But it has clearly not been scripture, except for an occasional reference, therefore I cannot see how anyone's disagreement is about "enmity with the Word." It would only be a true statement if we could correctly refer to the teachings of Nee and Lee as "the Word of God."

I doubt that you intend to take that position.

[ZNPaaneah]

First, I might suggest that you check with UntoHim concerning the intent of the blog...

Just one point of clarification. LRC does have a negative connotation with some (the idea that the term Recovery is arrogant and exclusive) while LC is a much more non judgmental term. On the other hand, LC cannot only refer to the LSM sect, but to any genuine gathering of the called out ones. So if by LC you are really only referring to the LSM sect, or the WL or WN sect, then you will confuse some.

[Scribe]

First, I do not believe that anyone was disrespecting your blog. As I mentioned in my opening post, I was not observing that it was a blog I was commenting to. If I had noted it, I might have made some brief comments, but not carried on as if starting a detailed discussion. I would have taken the discussion somewhere else. My error.

I can see what you are posting. What I do not see is a lack of civility, or for that matter, any cursing of anyone by anyone. I have begun to wonder based on a comment you made in another post whether you truly understand the general purpose of this forum. It is not a place set aside to simply fellowship over the wonderful teachings of Nee and Lee. That can happen among those who agree that those teachings are wonderful. But the purpose is the discussion of the teachings of Nee and Lee, along with the practices and baggage of the "Local Churches."


Last, you suggest that discussing your positions, or disagreeing with them is to be "at enmity with the Word." But so far, while you have mentioned a very few verses, you have made a lot of statements that do not arise from those scriptures. The issue many of us see is not what scripture says, but what Nee and Lee taught that scripture did not say, or even said the opposite. I realize that you are primarily either quoting or paraphrasing from the ministries of Nee and Lee, so I do not consider this to have been your speaking on the subject. But it has clearly not been scripture, except for an occasional reference, therefore I cannot see how anyone's disagreement is about "enmity with the Word." It would only be a true statement if we could correctly refer to the teachings of Nee and Lee as "the Word of God."

I doubt that you intend to take that position.


I have taken three paragraphs from your post.

1. Thanks for your respect of the blog. We are all learning how to walk here.

2. I am not discussing Watchman and Witness teachings. I am judging what I gained from them and discussing the local churches, past, present and future. Most here write as if the local churches are past , over. Most write as being freed from the local churches. Obviously they have never seen and stood in the churches, and mix up such terms as you have detailed with the churches. The only way to heal that wound is to see the churches and walk in them rightly. The local churches are all made of gold and they hold the light of the Word to shine upon the Lord's table.

3. When you write the Word - "scripture", what do you mean? We have to find the same dictionary if we are to have communion. And if communion is not your goal, and mine, then what is it? So help me to see your understanding of what is "scripture".

Scribe

[ZNPaaneah]

Most here write as if the local churches are past , over. Most write as being freed from the local churches. Obviously they have never seen and stood in the churches, and mix up such terms as you have detailed with the churches. The only way to heal that wound is to see the churches and walk in them rightly. The local churches are all made of gold and they hold the light of the Word to shine upon the Lord's table.


What are you talking about. Most of those that write here (I would say at least 9 out of 10) meet with the church. Now of course, many of those do not meet with the LRC, but to say that the LRC has a monopoly on being the church is absurd.

[OBW]

First, it is clear that you have a great fondness for the Christian denomination/sect that has referred to itself as the "local churches" and claims to stand apart from other Christian churches which are, by definition, local, and therefore local churches. And in having that great fondness, you clearly prefer the teachings of Nee and Lee to any others.

There also are many here who have spent many years "seeing" the same vision of the "local churches" and then awakened one day to discover that their scripture did not support it. That their leaders, including Lee, were lying to them to retain their following. If you have not seen those truths, then we pray that either through the reading of this forum or some other means you would have your eyes opened and see it.
3. When you write the Word - "scripture", what do you mean? We have to find the same dictionary if we are to have communion. And if communion is not your goal, and mine, then what is it? So help me to see your understanding of what is "scripture".Scripture is not a mysterious term. It is what is found in the 66 "books" that have been collected together and called the Bible. While there is clearly a spiritual aspect to understanding scripture, that understanding begins with understanding the actual words found in it. And even though spiritual insight is a great aid in understanding what those plain words say, there is no mystical "seeing" of meaning in scripture that can then stand opposed to the words actually recorded in that scripture.

We had a discussion some time back with someone else. Many say that scripture is our ultimate authority. While it should be obvious that God is the actual ultimate authority, he is not physically present to make his truth known. Instead, he gave us what we need of truth in the form of these 66 "books" we call the Bible. Since they are God's word, although incomplete relative to the entirety of God's truth, being and nature, the part of God's truth, being and nature that we do not find written in the Bible ("scripture") is not inconsistent with what we do find written in scripture.

So what we find written in scripture is clearly God's word. And what he leads us to that is clearly taught in scripture is correctly from God's word. Beyond that, there are things that may or may not be. They are neither confirmed nor denied by scripture, therefore they could be, but are not determined to clearly be so. Therefore, if we sense that God is telling us (you and/or me) to do a particular thing, act in a particular manner, etc., it may be God's word to us. But since it cannot be confirmed as clearly from God, we cannot teach it as doctrine. It might be a reasonable practice for those who choose to follow. But it can never be a "must" relating to our walk with God unless God impresses us about it.

I've said a lot. Is there still any question about what is scripture?

[OBW]

What are you talking about. Most of those that write here (I would say at least 9 out of 10) meet with the church. Now of course, many of those do not meet with the LRC, but to say that the LRC has a monopoly on being the church is absurd.Excellent point. To suggest that "the church" is anything other than the collection of believers and that any gathering of such believers is not "the church" would be blasphemy if it were directed at God rather than just at other Christian brothers and sisters.

[Scribe]

We are now defining our dictionary. When you see the Word: local church you relate to a denomination. This no doubt because LSM seized this term and encorporated it into the denominational world. It did this when it used this name and got a tax free sanction from the states of the world. But the local churches are far greater than any denomination of world organization. And cannot be owned by the states or their organizations.

Likewise, terms like "scripture" must be defined. You mean the 66 books of the Bible when you write "scripture". Surely I agree that every Word of the Bible is scripture. But is this the only scripture? What is the scripture that annouced the glad tidings to Abraham?

Galations 3:8 And the SCRIPTURE, forseeing that God would justify the gentiles out of faith, ANNOUNCED the glad tidings to Abraham:..."

What scripture annouced the glad tidings to Abraham?

Scribe

[Ohio]

What are you talking about. Most of those that write here (I would say at least 9 out of 10) meet with the church. Now of course, many of those do not meet with the LRC, but to say that the LRC has a monopoly on being the church is absurd.

Brother Z et al, I began to protest many of Scribe's outlandish claims a while ago, but my posts were all deleted for some reason. So ... I have not posted since.

I still don't understand what happened. I never received an infraction or a notification. Why are your posts still intact?

[OBW]

Likewise, terms like "scripture" must be defined. You mean the 66 books of the Bible when you write "scripture". Surely I agree that every Word of the Bible is scripture. But is this the only scripture? What is the scripture that annouced the glad tidings to Abraham?

Galations 3:8 And the SCRIPTURE, forseeing that God would justify the gentiles out of faith, ANNOUNCED the glad tidings to Abraham:..."

What scripture annouced the glad tidings to Abraham?First, if we assume that "scripture" announced the glad tidings to Abraham, then it is scripture that we know not of. And if it is scripture, then it is so because it is the Word of God. But since we do not have that scripture, we cannot know it. Yet there is scripture which we have that proclaimed what was announced to Abraham.

The problem with this is that you are falling into a kind of equivocation. "Scripture" that is not written down and available to us may have been to the then-recipient scripture. But if it does not exist for us to read and understand, then it is useless to suggest that it is important scripture to us. We can only have the scripture (writing) that we actually have.

But that is not the end of the story. A rather literal reading of the translated Greek for Galatians 3:8 goes something like this:

Before perceiving yet the writing that out of belief is justifying the nations the God he before well messagizes (brings before well messages) to the Abraham that shall be being blessed in you all the nations.

Tough to read. So I will paraphrase it:

Before perceiving the writing (scripture) that out of belief is justifying the nations, God brought the message to Abraham that shall be a blessing to (you in) all the nations.

Not very easy to read. But the word that is "writing" there at the beginning (and is also translated as "scripture") does not appear to refer to what was given/spoken to Abraham, but to what was after God sent his message to Abraham. That message to Abraham is not said here to have been written nor is it called "scripture."

So, in answer to your last question, my reading of Galatians does not say that "scripture" spoke to Abraham. But the telling — the scripture, in the form of the Torah, and most specifically the book of Genesis — did foresee that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.

Even if you accept your version, or the NIV, as they stand, they are not saying that scripture was written and presented to Abraham, but that scripture, before the time of grace and faith, foresaw the time that God would justify the nations by faith when it recorded the message that God spoke to Abraham. Remember, scripture as recorded by Moses in the Torah, did foresee the justification by faith. But that does not mean that there is some "scripture" somewhere that was written down and given to Abraham. That is a misreading of the verse.

Can you find where there is scripture referenced that is not found within the 66 books that we know as the Bible? I cannot agree that this one meets the criteria that you are trying to put forward.

But if you persist in your insistence that there is scripture outside of what we call the Bible, you must be among those who are adding to the prophecy. (And I admit that while most accept that meaning of that particular passage in Revelation, I'm not so sure.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Brother Z et al, I began to protest many of Scribe's outlandish claims a while ago, but my posts were all deleted for some reason. So ... I have not posted since.

I still don't understand what happened. I never received an infraction or a notification. Why are your posts still intact?


Don't know. Glad to see you are back.

[ZNPaaneah]

Can you find where there is scripture referenced that is not found within the 66 books that we know as the Bible? I cannot agree that this one meets the criteria that you are trying to put forward.


How about Jude 14-15?

[Scribe]

First, if we assume that "scripture" announced the glad tidings to Abraham, then it is scripture that we know not of. And if it is scripture, then it is so because it is the Word of God. But since we do not have that scripture, we cannot know it. Yet there is scripture which we have that proclaimed what was announced to Abraham.

The problem with this is that you are falling into a kind of equivocation. "Scripture" that is not written down and available to us may have been to the then-recipient scripture. But if it does not exist for us to read and understand, then it is useless to suggest that it is important scripture to us. We can only have the scripture (writing) that we actually have.

But that is not the end of the story. A rather literal reading of the translated Greek for Galatians 3:8 goes something like this:

Before perceiving yet the writing that out of belief is justifying the nations the God he before well messagizes (brings before well messages) to the Abraham that shall be being blessed in you all the nations.

Tough to read. So I will paraphrase it:

Before perceiving the writing (scripture) that out of belief is justifying the nations, God brought the message to Abraham that shall be a blessing to (you in) all the nations.

Not very easy to read. But the word that is "writing" there at the beginning (and is also translated as "scripture") does not appear to refer to what was given/spoken to Abraham, but to what was after God sent his message to Abraham. That message to Abraham is not said here to have been written nor is it called "scripture."

So, in answer to your last question, my reading of Galatians does not say that "scripture" spoke to Abraham. But the telling — the scripture, in the form of the Torah, and most specifically the book of Genesis — did foresee that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.

Even if you accept your version, or the NIV, as they stand, they are not saying that scripture was written and presented to Abraham, but that scripture, before the time of grace and faith, foresaw the time that God would justify the nations by faith when it recorded the message that God spoke to Abraham. Remember, scripture as recorded by Moses in the Torah, did foresee the justification by faith. But that does not mean that there is some "scripture" somewhere that was written down and given to Abraham. That is a misreading of the verse.

Can you find where there is scripture referenced that is not found within the 66 books that we know as the Bible? I cannot agree that this one meets the criteria that you are trying to put forward.

But if you persist in your insistence that there is scripture outside of what we call the Bible, you must be among those who are adding to the prophecy. (And I admit that while most accept that meaning of that particular passage in Revelation, I'm not so sure.)


First, the translation you use is weak in that it tries to replace the Word-"Faith" with "belief". Faith and belief are not the same thing. The Word here is "Faith".

Then as to scripture. Paul writes clearly that the scripture announced the gospel to Abraham. We thus do not need to assume anything. The scripture spoke to Abraham. If we allow the Word to operate in us, we will first see this cannot be the Bible because it was not yet written. At the same time I reject that there is another book that is scripture like the Bible. So this is not what Paul means. There is not a Koran or a book of Mormon, or such thing that comes to Abraham. But still the scripture spoke to him. Here our heart should rest in the same Father that called Abraham, and we should humbly ask, "Father, what scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham?"

All were worshipping idols when the Lord called Abraham. At that time the living Word came to Abraham. The Word took him by the hand and found faith. Then as Abraham wrote, THE SCRIPTURE ANNOUNCED THE GOSPEL TO him. This is the faith of our father Abraham. Line upon line he wrote in the Word's coming and the scripture taught him and lead him line upon line. Such writing is Christ.

This is why at John 8 where all are being tested as to who is the son of Abraham, Jesus stoops down and writes before speaking, when challenged. The Word and faith mingled in that writing and the scripture spoke. Upon the ground of what he wrote he stood and spoke. This is the way of faith. This is the scripture.

The Bible bears witness to a people who had faith to handle the Word. The new covenant is a book of letters that are all scripture. These ones are kept by the Lord to bear witness to us that the church is a holy people of the Word. The saints attend to the Word and the scripture announces the glad tidings daily. The Bible bears wtiness.

You challenge that I add to the prophesy. I challenge that he who writes outside of this faith is adding to it,and he who does not write in the faith is taking away from it. All must write in the anointing and be taught of Him who is God at hand! This is scripture and this is the reality of the sign of the son of man in the local churches coming to John to lay his right hand upon him so he also can write again.

Scribe

[Scribe]

What are you talking about. Most of those that write here (I would say at least 9 out of 10) meet with the church. Now of course, many of those do not meet with the LRC, but to say that the LRC has a monopoly on being the church is absurd.

I know that you are in New York and thus the property of the church there. I know you have great value to the church in New York, which I already laid hands on last week and shall again.

Scribe

[OBW]

First, the translation you use is weak in that it tries to replace the Word-"Faith" with "belief". Faith and belief are not the same thing. The Word here is "Faith".Actually, the translation I use (NIV) says much the same as yours. There is no material difference. The raw translation of the Greek, though difficult to deal with when the sentence structure of Greek is imposed upon English speakers, is what the translation you are using probably comes from.

I would not quibble about the difference between "belief" and "faith." In fact, it seems that you have brought up a point of contention that I do not believe exists between us. Though they are not the exact same word, the rough translation of the Greek was "belief" although both your translation and the NIV used the word "faith." I agree that faith is a more powerful word. Faith is belief in action. Many people believe, but not as many have faith to live by their beliefs.
Then as to scripture. Paul writes clearly that the scripture announced the gospel to Abraham. We thus do not need to assume anything. The scripture spoke to Abraham. If we allow the Word to operate in us, we will first see this cannot be the Bible because it was not yet written. At the same time I reject that there is another book that is scripture like the Bible. So this is not what Paul means. There is not a Koran or a book of Mormon, or such thing that comes to Abraham. But still the scripture spoke to him. Here our heart should rest in the same Father that called Abraham, and we should humbly ask, "Father, what scripture announced the glad tidings to Abraham?"

All were worshiping idols when the Lord called Abraham. At that time the living Word came to Abraham.Up to this point, we are in agreement. It was not the written book of the Bible that "spoke" to Abraham. You continue on to say that it is the "living Word" which is God who spoke. This is true. That fact is recorded in the Bible in Genesis. It even tells us some of what God said.

But I believe that you are misunderstanding the fullness of what Paul wrote and trying to concoct a story about God writing out what He had to say to Abraham and going over it with him. There is no such record. The scripture we have does not say this occurred. It could be. But it is not a claim made by scripture.

Even in Galatians 3:8. If you follow the meaning of what Paul did write, you will see that he is saying that scripture records the promise made to Abraham and that promise said that the Gentiles (nations) would be justified by faith. So the word came to Abraham by the speaking of God, and Moses records it in Genesis. Since Genesis is scripture and is centuries prior to Christ, scripture "foresaw" that the Gentiles would be justified by faith. There is no other scripture required for that verse to be entirely true.
This is why at John 8 where all are being tested as to who is the son of Abraham, Jesus stoops down and writes before speaking, when challenged. The Word and faith mingled in that writing and the scripture spoke. Upon the ground of what he wrote he stood and spoke. This is the way of faith. This is the scripture.Jesus stooping down to write is a part of the story concerning the woman caught in adultery. The rest of the chapter is not even clearly in the same place or even the same day, although it probably is. In any case, to make this writing on the ground into some kind of special thing seems to be a serious distraction. The point within the story of the woman is that he turned his head to ignore the accusers while they thought about what he said (not what he wrote). He gave them time.

But that had nothing to do with the rest of his day's speaking. To claim otherwise is a fantasy with no basis.

I cannot figure out how to deal with the rest of your post. It is a collection of independent statements that may or may not be true as stated, but that when taken together do not reveal anything that I can grasp.

Last. I note that you have not told us anything about yourself. There is an "Introductions and Testimonies" grouping. If you are willing, tell us as much or a little as you feel free to share about your life, both concerning the LRC and the rest of your life. Some have told a lot. Others little. It is up to you.

[11of101]

Where has the "Psychological Damage in the LC" thread gone?

[Scribe]

Last. I note that you have not told us anything about yourself. There is an "Introductions and Testimonies" grouping. If you are willing, tell us as much or a little as you feel free to share about your life, both concerning the LRC and the rest of your life. Some have told a lot. Others little. It is up to you.


I started out in Introductions and testimonies to give a detailed account of who I am. You exercised no patience there and continued to post long insulting remarks to distract. As a result it got moved to blog, under Inheritance and I lost some of the burden to tell you any more about myself. I did continue church history there, which would have revealed who I am. Again you complained about two blogs (though ohters have two), as a result that got merged with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Also as a result , you have probably heard all you will hear of who I am unless we enter into the right hand of the fellowship together. Really if you know I am Scribe, you know all there is to know.

[Scribe]

I would not quibble about the difference between "belief" and "faith." In fact, it seems that you have brought up a point of contention that I do not believe exists between us. Though they are not the exact same word, the rough translation of the Greek was "belief" although both your translation and the NIV used the word "faith." I agree that faith is a more powerful word. Faith is belief in action. Many people believe, but not as many have faith to live by their beliefs.



Up to this point, we are in agreement. It was not the written book of the Bible that "spoke" to Abraham. You continue on to say that it is the "living Word" which is God who spoke. This is true. That fact is recorded in the Bible in Genesis. It even tells us some of what God said.

But I believe that you are misunderstanding the fullness of what Paul wrote and trying to concoct a story about God writing out what He had to say to Abraham and going over it with him. There is no such record. The scripture we have does not say this occurred. It could be. But it is not a claim made by scripture.

Even in Galatians 3:8. If you follow the meaning of what Paul did write, you will see that he is saying that scripture records the promise made to Abraham and that promise said that the Gentiles (nations) would be justified by faith. So the word came to Abraham by the speaking of God, and Moses records it in Genesis. Since Genesis is scripture and is centuries prior to Christ, scripture "foresaw" that the Gentiles would be justified by faith. There is no other scripture required for that verse to be entirely true.
Jesus stooping down to write is a part of the story concerning the woman caught in adultery. The rest of the chapter is not even clearly in the same place or even the same day, although it probably is. In any case, to make this writing on the ground into some kind of special thing seems to be a serious distraction. The point within the story of the woman is that he turned his head to ignore the accusers while they thought about what he said (not what he wrote). He gave them time.

But that had nothing to do with the rest of his day's speaking. To claim otherwise is a fantasy with no basis.

I cannot figure out how to deal with the rest of your post. It is a collection of independent statements that may or may not be true as stated, but that when taken together do not reveal anything that I can grasp.

Last. I note that you have not told us anything about yourself. There is an "Introductions and Testimonies" grouping. If you are willing, tell us as much or a little as you feel free to share about your life, both concerning the LRC and the rest of your life. Some have told a lot. Others little. It is up to you.


If i tell you I will give you a hundred dollars tomarrow. You may or may not believe it. You my believe I will. But you still don't have to the money. You have belief but not yet faith. When the money is in your hand- that is faith. There are many beliefs in the world, but only one faith. Those beliefs falasely call themselves faith. You say faith s not a point of contention between us. I say it is THE POINT OF CONTENTION. Faith is the only thing worth contending for. Faith is the Word in our hand. At the end of your writing (in which is much belief but no faith) you say you have nothing you can grasp in my writing. That is the point of faith. Faith is the glue in our hand that allows us to grasp the Word that can be written before the angels as revelation and command to them. Without faith we cannot handle the Word.

I'll deal with the rest of you writing in the next post.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Up to this point, we are in agreement. It was not the written book of the Bible that "spoke" to Abraham. You continue on to say that it is the "living Word" which is God who spoke. This is true. That fact is recorded in the Bible in Genesis. It even tells us some of what God said.

But I believe that you are misunderstanding the fullness of what Paul wrote and trying to concoct a story about God writing out what He had to say to Abraham and going over it with him. There is no such record. The scripture we have does not say this occurred. It could be. But it is not a claim made by scripture.

Even in Galatians 3:8. If you follow the meaning of what Paul did write, you will see that he is saying that scripture records the promise made to Abraham and that promise said that the Gentiles (nations) would be justified by faith. So the word came to Abraham by the speaking of God, and Moses records it in Genesis. Since Genesis is scripture and is centuries prior to Christ, scripture "foresaw" that the Gentiles would be justified by faith. There is no other scripture required for that verse to be entirely true.
Jesus stooping down to write is a part of the story concerning the woman caught in adultery. The rest of the chapter is not even clearly in the same place or even the same day, although it probably is. In any case, to make this writing on the ground into some kind of special thing seems to be a serious distraction. The point within the story of the woman is that he turned his head to ignore the accusers while they thought about what he said (not what he wrote). He gave them time.

But that had nothing to do with the rest of his day's speaking. To claim otherwise is a fantasy with no basis.

I cannot figure out how to deal with the rest of your post. It is a collection of independent statements that may or may not be true as stated, but that when taken together do not reveal anything that I can grasp.

Last. I note that you have not told us anything about yourself. There is an "Introductions and Testimonies" grouping. If you are willing, tell us as much or a little as you feel free to share about your life, both concerning the LRC and the rest of your life. Some have told a lot. Others little. It is up to you.


You say that I "concoct a story about God writing out what He had to say to Abraham and going over it with him." Please show me where I wrote that. This is your concoction when it passes through the imagination of your mind. I did not say God wrote something and then read it to Abraham. I say that as Abraham wrote he saw God who is the Word. This is faith. The Word and Abraham walked hand in hand. Abraham wrote and all the angels obeyed and he then walked in what was written. God, as the Word joined with Abraham's faith and the Word Abraham wrote was living scripture announcing that days good news to him. Abraham and all his seed walk in the faith of the Word.

At this point you try to make little of Jesus stooping down to write, you find yourself very much where his accusers were. John is a book of signs. At the end of chapter seven Jesus has gone up the mount of Olives and all went to their own house. This is a sign of the age. Jesus went up the mount of Olives and returns from there. All went to their own things. But now, early in the morning He suddenly enters into the temple and begins to teach. This is sign for now! Religion brings a woman caught in adultery. They come to prove Jesus is the same. Suddenly we are at the test in the garden. Before Jesus is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as they speak. Moses says she should be stoned. What do you say? If He says anything he will have fallen into the ancient trap of the serpent. If he says let her go he overthrows the law, if He says stone her He overthrows mercy. So He reaches out to the tree of life and stoops down to write. He writes forth holy ground and then withing what is written He stands to speak! This is the work He does and is the proof of the faith of Abraham. All Abraham seed write forth the oracles of God.

To not make the writing a special thing is the serious distraction. Here the Lord reveals the way of His coming. He teaches us by the anointing as we write for the Word is tabernacling among us. This is the faith.

Scribe

[OBW]

I started out in Introductions and testimonies to give a detailed account of who I am. You exercised no patience there and continued to post long insulting remarks to distract. As a result it got moved to blog, under Inheritance and I lost some of the burden to tell you any more about myself. I did continue church history there, which would have revealed who I am. Again you complained about two blogs (though ohters have two), as a result that got merged with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Also as a result , you have probably heard all you will hear of who I am unless we enter into the right hand of the fellowship together. Really if you know I am Scribe, you know all there is to know.I will accept that you do not desire to tell us more at this time. But I find no thread of your introduction in the Introductions and Testimonies section. Did you post as an add-on to someone else's intro? Just trying to find it. Nothing else is an introduction except for your statement that you are "Scribe."

[OBW]

If i tell you I will give you a hundred dollars tomarrow. You may or may not believe it. You my believe I will. But you still don't have to the money. You have belief but not yet faith. When the money is in your hand- that is faith. There are many beliefs in the world, but only one faith. Those beliefs falasely call themselves faith. You say faith s not a point of contention between us. I say it is THE POINT OF CONTENTION. Faith is the only thing worth contending for. Faith is the Word in our hand. At the end of your writing (in which is much belief but no faith) you say you have nothing you can grasp in my writing. That is the point of faith. Faith is the glue in our hand that allows us to grasp the Word that can be written before the angels as revelation and command to them. Without faith we cannot handle the Word.You are quibbling over the difference between belief and faith which I agreed to and gave a very brief example of the difference.

[Scribe]

You are quibbling over the difference between belief and faith which I agreed to and gave a very brief example of the difference.

If you only have belief it is quibble. But if we have faith we are to contend for it. All who have faith shall come to the revelation of the unspeakable gift of the Word in hand. If not today, then tomarrow, But none shall enter the kingdom rule with empty hands.

Scribe

[ZNPaaneah]

I started out in Introductions and testimonies to give a detailed account of who I am. You exercised no patience there and continued to post long insulting remarks to distract. As a result it got moved to blog, under Inheritance and I lost some of the burden to tell you any more about myself. I did continue church history there, which would have revealed who I am. Again you complained about two blogs (though ohters have two), as a result that got merged with the revelation of Jesus Christ. Also as a result , you have probably heard all you will hear of who I am unless we enter into the right hand of the fellowship together. Really if you know I am Scribe, you know all there is to know.


OBW is thoughtful, he is precise, he can wear you down like sandpaper, but he doesn't do it to distract, and he is not intentionally insulting. I understand why you would take 2 of his comments as insulting, but to be fair your language was very tough to follow. So except for one comment which I think he apologized for, you have to admit he is fair.

[UntoHim]

Where has the "Psychological Damage in the LC" thread gone?

I had to dig to find it here:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=10

There is now a "search forum" module on the right hand side of the opening page. If you enter a key word, such as "psychological" it will usually come up with the thread that you're looking for.

[OBW]

I had to dig to find it here:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=10

There is now a "search forum" module on the right hand side of the opening page. If you enter a key word, such as "psychological" it will usually come up with the thread that you're looking for. The one problem with that is that I think the thread title had a misspelling. I think it was "psycholigical" rather than "psychological." So even now, 11of101 may end out looking for the right thing in the wrong way.

[OBW]

If you only have belief it is quibble. But if we have faith we are to contend for it. All who have faith shall come to the revelation of the unspeakable gift of the Word in hand. If not today, then tomarrow, But none shall enter the kingdom rule with empty hands.I said it was a quibble rather than suggesting you were trying to argue a strawman. The part that you quoted from my previous post stated rather clearly that I know the difference between belief and faith. If you had quoted more, you would recall that I said that I had only given a brief statement concerning the difference. That should have suggested to you that I could be more detailed.

But now you come and say "if you only have belief..." Are you trying to say that I only have belief? That I don't have faith? If so on what do you base your position?

You act as if I have been arguing for something less than faith. But you ignore that the Greek word that was translated as "faith" in both our translations was also first translated as belief. While you and I both consider "faith" to be the better word here, it is not so simply because we like it to be so. And unless you have extensive training in Greek — and ancient Greek at that — neither of us are going to know why they decided that "faith" was the preferred translation over "belief." It wasn't just because it is a stronger term for the context. Stronger is not necessarily correct. They found other factors to determine that faith should be correct.

But spending time arguing with me about what should be the right word is to make it seem that I argued in favor of "belief" when I did not. I just started my discussion with a Greek interlinear translation as a base-line. That source used belief. And rather than immediately change a bunch of terms, since belief v faith was not the reason we were looking at Galatians 3:8, I was basically ignoring the difference. It is irrelevant whether belief or faith is the correct word for purposes of determining what the verse is saying about scripture. I did not call your emphasis on faith v belief a strawman because I assumed that you had merely become sidetracked on it yourself.

The point of bringing the verse up was presumably the use of the term "scripture" in it. So the point of discussion has always been about how "scripture" fits into the verse and what it means. Let's leave belief v faith alone for now. It is a distraction.

[OBW]

Seems that, like Ohio, I have made a response to this one before only to find it missing now. So I will try again.
You say that I "concoct a story about God writing out what He had to say to Abraham and going over it with him." Please show me where I wrote that. This is your concoction when it passes through the imagination of your mind. I did not say God wrote something and then read it to Abraham. I say that as Abraham wrote he saw God who is the Word. This is faith. The Word and Abraham walked hand in hand. Abraham wrote and all the angels obeyed and he then walked in what was written. God, as the Word joined with Abraham's faith and the Word Abraham wrote was living scripture announcing that days good news to him. Abraham and all his seed walk in the faith of the Word.I may have reversed who was said to have done the writing, but on what do you base your account of Abraham writing anything? What tells us that the Angels obeyed? Those statements are made as if factually true yet I am not aware of a basis for them. I used the word "concoct" which is to devise or fabricate. Neither word means to just make it up. It can, but not necessarily so. It can also mean to take raw materials and add something else to create something, like an answer. Stories are not always just made up. They are often the taking of true, actual events and then filling in the gaps with "might be" kind of things to create a complete, although not necessarily true account. Lots of movies are made this way.

Since I see no inference in the scripture we have to suggest that Abraham wrote anything, then if you are basing your argument on such a claim, then I have to say that the claim is concocted. Don't just recoil at the word. Admit what it means indicates you have not been clear. If you think you have information that proves I am wrong, bring it on. Just to claim that I insulted you is to try to shift the burden of proof concerning your account from you to me. Your claim of Abraham writing is either true or it is imaginary. I need more than your claim that it is so to accept it. If you provide real proof and I continue to call your account "concocted" then you have a complaint against me. Otherwise, your only complaint is that I do not take your word just because you say it.
At this point you try to make little of Jesus stooping down to write, you find yourself very much where his accusers were. John is a book of signs. At the end of chapter seven Jesus has gone up the mount of Olives and all went to their own house. This is a sign of the age.I'll not quote the rest.

To make anything out of Jesus writing as if it is a certainty is, once again, to "concoct" meaning where none is given. I've heard different people give different accounts of what Jesus may have been writing. Each one could be profound for the situation, but none of them were more than conjecture. Yours is no different. And scripture gives no profound meaning to the fact that he was writing. It just says he was. But since the account does not give it anything more than it does, to insist that it is a distraction to not focus on it is to make it into something that scripture does not.
To not make the writing a special thing is the serious distraction. Here the Lord reveals the way of His coming. He teaches us by the anointing as we write for the Word is tabernacling among us. This is the faith.Yet you are so sold on your conjecture that you think it is a serious distraction not to go along with your version.

But the third sentence is telling. Are you saying that if we are in the "anointing" that we are effectively writing scripture? I await an answer.

[UntoHim]

The one problem with that is that I think the thread title had a misspelling. I think it was "psycholigical" rather than "psychological." So even now, 11of101 may end out looking for the right thing in the wrong way.

Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately the spell check feature of the forum does not work within the thread title box :nono: I have corrected the misspelling of this particular thread title. Amazingly enough, before I corrected the misspelling, when I put the correct spelling in the "search forums" box it STILL found thread 11of101 is looking for! The software must have some sort of smart search built within. Anyway, I think this is a valuable tool which is why I added the search module to the opening page of the forum. I think I'm going to restore some of the other modules as well. Maybe some of you out there could take a look at some other Vbulletin forums out there and give some other suggestions.

[11of101]

Thank you.

[Scribe]

I said it was a quibble rather than suggesting you were trying to argue a strawman. The part that you quoted from my previous post stated rather clearly that I know the difference between belief and faith. If you had quoted more, you would recall that I said that I had only given a brief statement concerning the difference. That should have suggested to you that I could be more detailed.

But now you come and say "if you only have belief..." Are you trying to say that I only have belief? That I don't have faith? If so on what do you base your position?

You act as if I have been arguing for something less than faith. But you ignore that the Greek word that was translated as "faith" in both our translations was also first translated as belief. While you and I both consider "faith" to be the better word here, it is not so simply because we like it to be so. And unless you have extensive training in Greek — and ancient Greek at that — neither of us are going to know why they decided that "faith" was the preferred translation over "belief." It wasn't just because it is a stronger term for the context. Stronger is not necessarily correct. They found other factors to determine that faith should be correct.

But spending time arguing with me about what should be the right word is to make it seem that I argued in favor of "belief" when I did not. I just started my discussion with a Greek interlinear translation as a base-line. That source used belief. And rather than immediately change a bunch of terms, since belief v faith was not the reason we were looking at Galatians 3:8, I was basically ignoring the difference. It is irrelevant whether belief or faith is the correct word for purposes of determining what the verse is saying about scripture. I did not call your emphasis on faith v belief a strawman because I assumed that you had merely become sidetracked on it yourself.

The point of bringing the verse up was presumably the use of the term "scripture" in it. So the point of discussion has always been about how "scripture" fits into the verse and what it means. Let's leave belief v faith alone for now. It is a distraction.

The point of our debate is now...."what is scripture"? We agree!
Without faith this cannot be answered. So we focus on the right hand. Scripture is that which is written by the right hand of the faithful. All comes to focus on the right hand at revelation 1:20.

Scribe

[Scribe]

But the third sentence is telling. Are you saying that if we are in the "anointing" that we are effectively writing scripture? I await an answer.

Absolutely! See my post on this in the Blogosphere today.

Scribe

[OBW]

How about Jude 14-15?Finally got around to this. First, there is nothing that refers to what is quoted as being scripture. Second, I note that it is from the Jewish First Book of Enoch which is dated as approximately the first century B.C. Since Jude does not consider it scripture, but merely uses a quote of Enoch found in it, I do not think that this gives a status of "scripture" to the source, and is therefore not an example of something we should consider scripture.

Paul, in some of his writing, even uses Greek philosophers. That does not make the writings of those philosophers scripture. The thing that he does with it is scripture.

[ZNPaaneah]

Finally got around to this. First, there is nothing that refers to what is quoted as being scripture. Second, I note that it is from the Jewish First Book of Enoch which is dated as approximately the first century B.C. Since Jude does not consider it scripture, but merely uses a quote of Enoch found in it, I do not think that this gives a status of "scripture" to the source, and is therefore not an example of something we should consider scripture.

Paul, in some of his writing, even uses Greek philosophers. That does not make the writings of those philosophers scripture. The thing that he does with it is scripture.

I don't think the analogy with Greek philosophers is a good comparison.

Jude is quoting Enoch from the book of Enoch, showing that scripture agrees or validates this quote. That may not elevate the book to scripture, but it does seem to give it the Bible's stamp of approval.

[Scribe]

I don't think the analogy with Greek philosophers is a good comparison.

Jude is quoting Enoch from the book of Enoch, showing that scripture agrees or validates this quote. That may not elevate the book to scripture, but it does seem to give it the Bible's stamp of approval.


And here is a point of agreement between you and I. Jude who is taken into the Holy Bible as varified scripture invokes Enoch with a quote from the book of Enoch. Stamp of approval. Enoch is called the scribe of righteousness. He wrote in such a way that death bowed.

Scribe

[OBW]

I don't think the analogy with Greek philosophers is a good comparison.

Jude is quoting Enoch from the book of Enoch, showing that scripture agrees or validates this quote. That may not elevate the book to scripture, but it does seem to give it the Bible's stamp of approval.Are you suggesting that because there is a book of non-scripture that accurately has recorded the words of Enoch as handed down through the generations, that if it is quoted in scripture that anything more than the portion actually added to the scripture (the quote) is also potentially raised to the level of scripture?

This book seems to have been regarded by the Jews as little more than historically accurate. So quoting it does not grant status as scripture. That was the point of my original question. And nothing anywhere, neither in Jewish history or Christian history, has indicated that this "book of Enoch" is considered scripture. That does not make it inaccurate or historically incorrect. Just not scripture.

As to the Greek philosophers, Paul even borrowed from Socrates' Apology a little when he talked about his own impending death. But only what Paul put in the scripture is scripture — not the recording of Socrates' words. The scripture is what is recorded in scripture. Even the same words found in another place are not scripture. No special status was given to Socrates by Paul.

[OBW]

Enoch is called the scribe of righteousness. He wrote in such a way that death bowed.Huh? Care to elaborate on this?

[Scribe]

Huh? Care to elaborate on this?


Again faith is needed to hear. We go back to the first family. Jude tells us Enoch was the seventh from Adam. Two lines went out from Adam. One is Cain, the others is Seth via Abel. Cain heard the curse and became a tiller of the soil. Abel heard the blessing that we don't see recorded. Abel saw his parents were clothed in skin due to Jehovah's work upon them. Abel saw that they were a family of sheep. So he became a shepherd. Of course, the shepherd has staff in hand. By faith he reaches out to the life tree. In the end of days both boldly bring offering to the Lord. Both think they know Him. Both think their works will bear witness on their behalf. We know the story. Cain was rejected, Abel was received. Cain killed Abel. Abel's blood cried out from the ground and the Lord heard it. In the hearing, Seth was given as replacement. Seths whole existance is based upon Abel's blood. Seth lived his life in the hearing of his brothers blood. Seth and his whole line lives a life in debt to his brother's blood sacrifice. That blood was a heavy weight on one side of a great scale. In the hearing of that blood Seth began to write. In each generation the writing advanced, and began to tip the scale. From father to son the Word advanced. At the seventh the Word had gained equal weight with the blood and tipped the scale. The Word was so mature in Enoch that He did not see death because the Word took Him. This was the result of the fellowship from father to son in the hearing of Abel's blood.

Now we have a better blood than that of Abel. In the hearing of that blood the Father entrust us with a better Word. Here at the seventh millennial day from Adam the Word challenges death in many. Many holy scribes hall obtain the kingdom.

Bless Him who is the Word. He is touchable. We are made to handle Him. Men of faith are attendants of the Word.

Scribe

[OBW]

Again faith is needed to hear...A lot of words. But nothing that makes the questioned statement meaningful. And some kind of incantation of "having faith" does not make it have a meaning that the scripture does not support.

Try again.

[ZNPaaneah]

Are you suggesting that because there is a book of non-scripture that accurately has recorded the words of Enoch as handed down through the generations, that if it is quoted in scripture that anything more than the portion actually added to the scripture (the quote) is also potentially raised to the level of scripture?

This book seems to have been regarded by the Jews as little more than historically accurate. So quoting it does not grant status as scripture. That was the point of my original question. And nothing anywhere, neither in Jewish history or Christian history, has indicated that this "book of Enoch" is considered scripture. That does not make it inaccurate or historically incorrect. Just not scripture.

As to the Greek philosophers, Paul even borrowed from Socrates' Apology a little when he talked about his own impending death. But only what Paul put in the scripture is scripture — not the recording of Socrates' words. The scripture is what is recorded in scripture. Even the same words found in another place are not scripture. No special status was given to Socrates by Paul.

What I am saying is that by quoting the Book of Enoch it does suggest that the Bible regards it as historically accurate. Unless I am mistaken the book says that Enoch was taken by God and then 300 years later returned to Earth. I find it quite amazing and believe that quoting this in the Bible raises it from the status of myth to historically accurate. In addition, unlike Socrates, the account of Enoch being taken by God is scripture, so this book gives us a window into this scripture and is given a stamp of approval by the Bible based on this quote in Jude.

[Ohio]

What I am saying is that by quoting the Book of Enoch it does suggest that the Bible regards it as historically accurate. Unless I am mistaken the book says that Enoch was taken by God and then 300 years later returned to Earth. I find it quite amazing and believe that quoting this in the Bible raises it from the status of myth to historically accurate. In addition, unlike Socrates, the account of Enoch being taken by God is scripture, so this book gives us a window into this scripture and is given a stamp of approval by the Bible based on this quote in Jude.

Interesting points, brother Z.

Wikipedia also made these comments:

It may be significant that the attribution "Enoch the Seventh from Adam" is apparently itself a section heading taken from 1 Enoch (1En 60:8, Jude1:14a), and not from Genesis. Another probable Biblical reference can be found in I Peter 3:19,20 to En. 21:6.

1 Enoch is considered as Scripture in the Epistle of Barnabas (16:4) and by many of the early Church Fathers as Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian who wrote c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ.

However, later Fathers denied the canonicity of the book and some even considered the letter of Jude uncanonical because it refers to an apocrypha work. By the 4th century it was mostly excluded from Christian lists of the Biblical canon, and it was omitted from the canon by most of the Christian church (the Ethiopian Orthodox Church being an exception).

[OBW]

This whole discussion brings up an interesting truth. And that is that truth is truth no matter where we find it. But just because it is truth, it is not necessarily scripture. While there are surely aspects of truth that we do not need to have told us by anything, scripture is what you might call God's basic truth. If you find any of that truth elsewhere, it does not make that other source scripture. Instead, it would seem to establish the truth as not only from God, but also clearly understood as truth, even by those not relying on God.

And when we consider the other Jewish writings, many of which are primarily historical in nature, or that fall into the classification as "commentary," references to then are not ridiculous, even if they do not rise to the level of scripture.

But I am a little skeptical of saying that Enoch "wrote" the book in question. Do we have evidence of detailed writing at that point in history? Or is it one of the oral traditions — not saying it is not true and not from Enoch, but that it was passed down verbally? There is some indication that the book was not actually written down until only a couple of hundred years before Christ. That does not reflect on its accuracy, but it does question the notion that Enoch "wrote." He probably spoke to his sons, or others collected from things Enoch said and collected them into one "telling," and therefore the words were included in the oral histories from which parts of Genesis were derived. This particular part was eventually written, but possibly only as late as 100-200 B.C.

And it is probably somewhat (seriously?) doubtful that Enoch spoke it originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. So any writing in the hands of the Jews was at least a translation.

But even if historically accurate, and also found to be in complete agreement with scripture, it has not been given the status of scripture. That is not my call. It probably is at least partly due to the length of time between the source and the setting to stone/papyrus. And if it tells us nothing important about God that we do not already know, then it is not required for our understanding. Unless we intend to argue the canon of scripture, we should let it rest. I doubt any of us have the credentials or knowledge to take on that task.

I note that in another place there is great consternation concerning one person questioning the veracity of what is accepted as scripture, yet here we seem to be in a hurry to add other writings to what we would call scripture just because there is something true in it. Well, there is something true in Catcher in the Rye. I know. Way over the top. But sometimes we need to see the extremes to understand how to deal with the undistributed middle. Is just including truth sufficient to be scripture? Is being historically accurate sufficient to be scripture? Or is it something greater? I believe that one of the basic tenets of the canon of scripture was that, for the OT, it needed to be considered scripture by the Jews. And the quote by Jude does not indicate that it was considered scripture, but only that it was considered true and/or accurate.

[Scribe]

This whole discussion brings up an interesting truth...

Sanctify them by the Truth, your Word is Truth. John 17:20. The very Word is truth......the Catcher in the Rye handled the Word but without revelation of the Truth and thus his writing is vain, though it may speak something true to some.

Enoch. Mike rightly notes that the book was probably written around 1-200 BC. Enoch had written and translated millenniums before. So what happened that this book was written in his name and yet has credence with Jude in the Bible? These writings took place in the four hundred year gap between Malachi and Matthew. Of course in this time we still have many writings. The Enoch writing is Ethiopian. I believe a remnant were still playing the name game and writing in various names. Their faith was tapping into portions of those names. In the case of Enoch the writer or writers were carried into the time transcendness of his translation. They were wriitng in a translated Word as they wrote as Enoch. The Holy Spirit used this to bring forth such as the book of Enoch. In those days the remnant handled the Word in a way that prepared for the coming of John and Jesus to sacrifice.

The Logos is God. Logos must be written. Speaking is witness, true or false, but the Logo is Unspeakable and must first be written before He can be Witnessed. O readers, we are debating writing, not oral history. What is you your hand?

Scribe.

[OBW]

I doubt that the things you are saying here go over very well with your cohorts in the local churches. Have you first tried to discuss these thoughts there? Have you received honest fellowship concerning these things? I do not believe that this is representative of the teachings of Watchman Nee, Witness Lee, or any elder/leader/co-worker in any local church. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please let me know where I might find such a statement. Book, chapter, and section so I can find it in the LSM online books. Or other source if not accessible there.

[Scribe]

Watchman Nee died in 1972, Witness Lee died in 1997. The Lord has gone on in His revelation. (i have testified that from Watchman's last writing, I can see he was coming close to the revelation, if not there yet.) Witness did not , and could not see the reality of such Words as : Saints, consecration, calling on the name of the Lord, "in the beginning", and many more. As far as LSM goes, as soon as they or anyone copyrights and sells the Word the heavens shut up and the revelation will not proceed to them. So why would I care what LSM says? As to the local church I abide in and those I travel to, we are in the right hand of fellowship. We don't merely talk about spiritual things. we do (write) them.
As James say.."Be you doers of the Word" . This Word "doer" is poet. Be poet of the Word.

We can see they wrote in faith. If not we would not have anything. Thus to oppose holy writing is an amazing task. For two millennium none could write in the mystery of the Word, but now on the third day the Word arises and comes as the branch.

Scribe

[OBW]

Watchman Nee died in 1972, Witness Lee died in 1997. The Lord has gone on in His revelation. (i have testified that from Watchman's last writing, I can see he was coming close to the revelation, if not there yet.) Witness did not , and could not see the reality of such Words as : Saints, consecration, calling on the name of the Lord, "in the beginning", and many more. As far as LSM goes, as soon as they or anyone copyrights and sells the Word the heavens shut up and the revelation will not proceed to them. So why would I care what LSM says? As to the local church I abide in and those I travel to, we are in the right hand of fellowship. We don't merely talk about spiritual things. we do (write) them.
As James say.."Be you doers of the Word" . This Word "doer" is poet. Be poet of the Word.


We can see they wrote in faith. If not we would not have anything. Thus to oppose holy writing is an amazing task. For two millennium none could write in the mystery of the Word, but now on the third day the Word arises and comes as the branch.The word for "doer" is "poet" here? My source gives 3 definitions:
1. a maker, a producer, author
2. a doer, performer; a) one who obeys or fulfills the law
3. a poet

Note that "poet" is the last definition and would seem to be contextually indefensible here. In any case, it is interesting that you choose the definition that everyone else has rejected. Your opinion of the majority position must be really low that you would simply ignore it, and the obvious fit, to instead accept a reading that is so linguistically awkward and unlikely.

So you are suggesting that the continued revelation is in your writing? That what you are writing is simply true because you are the one who wrote it? That is what you seem to be saying. You are making quite unusual statements with no support except that it is you that said it.

Or do you suggest that we can all do it?

[Scribe]

The word for "doer" is "poet" here? My source gives 3 definitions:
1. a maker, a producer, author
2. a doer, performer; a) one who obeys or fulfills the law
3. a poet

Note that "poet" is the last definition and would seem to be contextually indefensible here. In any case, it is interesting that you choose the definition that everyone else has rejected. Your opinion of the majority position must be really low that you would simply ignore it, and the obvious fit, to instead accept a reading that is so linguistically awkward and unlikely.

So you are suggesting that the continued revelation is in your writing? That what you are writing is simply true because you are the one who wrote it? That is what you seem to be saying. You are making quite unusual statements with no support except that it is you that said it.

Or do you suggest that we can all do it?


Yes sir. I suggest that each one having his own oracle; it being UNSPEAKBLE holy gift given to each according to name in Christ Jesus. Maker, producer, author, you have at the top of the meaning of James instruction. Be you a maker of the Logos. Be you a producer of the Logos. Be you an author of the Logos. When each handle the Word the holy ground of our oneness manifest under our feet and the angels see.

Out of this gift the New Covenant scribes sign for works that were prepared before the foundation of the world.

Of course, I am presenting right hand (gentile) measures to you. To balance out and ground my witness, surely one from the left hand (Jew) will need to join me for some writing here. I measure and ponder how this will be.

The Word is living and our hand is now free to reach the tree of life.

Scribe

[ZNPaaneah]

The word for "doer" is "poet" here? My source gives 3 definitions:
1. a maker, a producer, author
2. a doer, performer; a) one who obeys or fulfills the law
3. a poet

Note that "poet" is the last definition and would seem to be contextually indefensible here. In any case, it is interesting that you choose the definition that everyone else has rejected. Your opinion of the majority position must be really low that you would simply ignore it, and the obvious fit, to instead accept a reading that is so linguistically awkward and unlikely.

So you are suggesting that the continued revelation is in your writing? That what you are writing is simply true because you are the one who wrote it? That is what you seem to be saying. You are making quite unusual statements with no support except that it is you that said it.

Or do you suggest that we can all do it?

I think this is a great quote and really supports Scribe's thesis. OBW, I don't think you are being fair. I think this is a great example of how much is lost in the translation. For example, I read about how Joe Montana and his father (an insurance salesman) bought a book on how to play quarterback. In that book it said that you should have a 2 1/2 step drop, and so that is what they tried to do. So they took this word in a book and they tried to do it, until it became natural and instinctive. In this way he became a doer of the word. But, by the end of his career I think it would be fair to call him an artist or a poet. So this word encompasses the full range from a craftsman (a "wordsmith" or someone who makes, produces, authors the word) to a "doer" of the word (someone who is an example of the word. For example, I heard that when they teach receivers in the NFL how to run routes they just show them film from Jerry Rice, he was an example, a "doer" of the word) to a "poet" or artist.

Thank your for sharing this verse Scribe, I think I can grasp your thesis much better now.

[OBW]

I think this is a great quote and really supports Scribe's thesis. OBW, I don't think you are being fair. I think this is a great example of how much is lost in the translation. For example, I read about how Joe Montana and his father (an insurance salesman) bought a book on how to play quarterback. In that book it said that you should have a 2 1/2 step drop, and so that is what they tried to do. So they took this word in a book and they tried to do it, until it became natural and instinctive. In this way he became a doer of the word. But, by the end of his career I think it would be fair to call him an artist or a poet. So this word encompasses the full range from a craftsman (a "wordsmith" or someone who makes, produces, authors the word) to a "doer" of the word (someone who is an example of the word. For example, I heard that when they teach receivers in the NFL how to run routes they just show them film from Jerry Rice, he was an example, a "doer" of the word) to a "poet" or artist.

Thank your for sharing this verse Scribe, I think I can grasp your thesis much better now.But Scribe's purpose for using the term "poet" is not to comment on doing more proficiently, but to say that we should become "writers of the word" — authors of new scripture.

If this were just because our lives are like more of Acts 29, I have no real complaint. But Scribe is proposing not only an open canon of scripture, but one that can consider the latest scripture written by him/her — writings that change the meaning of existing scripture or set it aside. After all, that is what "Watchman" did, and "Witness."

[ZNPaaneah]

But Scribe's purpose for using the term "poet" is not to comment on doing more proficiently, but to say that we should become "writers of the word" — authors of new scripture.

If this were just because our lives are like more of Acts 29, I have no real complaint. But Scribe is proposing not only an open canon of scripture, but one that can consider the latest scripture written by him/her — writings that change the meaning of existing scripture or set it aside. After all, that is what "Watchman" did, and "Witness."

Well, the three meanings: maker of the word, doer of the word, and poet all suggest that writing the word here is not an off base interpretation. Second, this verse is definitely a charge to the saints, which was my original question. Also, by quoting James to support his thesis he is distancing himself somewhat from WL. I am still holding out hope that his interpretation of writing scripture is not that different from Gal 2:20, an experience of Christ living in you.

[OBW]

Well, the three meanings: maker of the word, doer of the word, and poet all suggest that writing the word here is not an off base interpretation. Second, this verse is definitely a charge to the saints, which was my original question. Also, by quoting James to support his thesis he is distancing himself somewhat from WL. I am still holding out hope that his interpretation of writing scripture is not that different from Gal 2:20, an experience of Christ living in you.Unfortunately, unless we are going to deconstruct James into every nuance of the word actually used, plus take on the possible other words that seem similar, James did not have "writing" in any way in his mind when he wrote.

He said to not just listen to the word, and be deceived. Deceived about what? Deceived that hearing it and nodding your head in agreement was enough. Instead, you have to do it. Otherwise, you only have a claim of belief instead of true belief. A claim of belief that will not act on the alleged belief is not true. But true belief does. The story about the guy pushing a wheel barrow across the American portion of Niagara Falls comes to mind. Many believed he could push it across with a person in it. But almost no one believed it enough to get in the wheel barrow.

And what would writing do to avoid being "deceived"? Nothing. It is more likely that you would further deceive yourself by writing in a manner that alters what is heard so that you might then be able to really believe it. But that means that what was already written is never believed.

The use of "writing" here, or "author" or "poetry" is to avoid the real meaning of what James wrote (thereby deceiving yourself). Instead, we get goosebumps from the (false) notion that we are charged to author/write something that will keep us from being deceived. That is its own deception. And these kinds of thoughts generally arise from someone who will eventually assert that it really is not directed at everyone, but at them only, and possibly at those who agree with them in even non-essentials.

Yes, this person may be distancing from Nee and/or Lee, but they are beginning in the same manner. Start nuancing scripture in a manner that sounds appealing. Once enough are firmly entrenched in that frame of mind, add some more, and so on, until you can establish yourself as the new oracle. There is someone lurking these boards that already believes that Lee's link to God passed to them (and long before he died). Now we may have another.

While I may not believe in Brian McLaren's version of Generous Orthodoxy, I do believe in generous orthodoxy. But generous orthodoxy means that we can have fellowship despite disagreeing on non-essential issues, even many non-essential issues. But there begins to be a disconnect when the direction of what is proposed is not simply a disagreement over what is actually there and becomes about something that cannot be supported as being there. The more disconnected from what is written (which Paul actually says we should not go beyond) the more troublesome it all becomes. I would not draw a line like the Bereans and determine absolutely that certain factors mean that they are worshiping a "different Jesus." But it does create enough uncertainty that I would find it difficult to recommend them to any other Christian. And I can recommend Calvinist or Arminian. I can recommend Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., any number of independent groups, whether they exist as loosely associated with others or simply as stand-alone assemblies, from small home meetings to very large mega-churches. While I do not deny the true Christian underpinnings, I cannot recommend those that preach a gospel of wealth and health, although I would not simply counsel someone to get out of one of those places.

And even in the context of this forum and the other, while I do recommend leaving the so-called "Local Churches," my primary point is to make the reasons available for those who can begin to see clearly to make their own decision. And I surely do not agree to remain silent or otherwise endorse another system that appears to be headed down another path of error. (And that does not make anyone a heretic or non-Christian.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Unfortunately, unless we are going to deconstruct James into every nuance of the word actually used, plus take on the possible other words that seem similar, James did not have "writing" in any way in his mind when he wrote
That is why I find this interesting, I have never considered this before.

He said to not just listen to the word, and be deceived. Deceived about what? Deceived that hearing it and nodding your head in agreement was enough. Instead, you have to do it. Apparently this word for do has this sense of be a doer of the word in the same way that Joe Montana was. This does match my experience, when we write we must understand in a much finer way than when we just listen. I like this reading because it is much more in line with the rest of the Bible. The word became flesh and dwelt among us, we eat the word, we become the word, ultimately our living should express the word, hence be "doers of the word".

Otherwise, you only have a claim of belief instead of true belief. A claim of belief that will not act on the alleged belief is not true. But true belief does.
On the contrary, this understanding is much more in line with my belief in John and the epistles of Paul.

The story about the guy pushing a wheel barrow across the American portion of Niagara Falls comes to mind. Many believed he could push it across with a person in it. But almost no one believed it enough to get in the wheel barrow.

And what would writing do to avoid being "deceived"? Nothing. It is more likely that you would further deceive yourself by writing in a manner that alters what is heard so that you might then be able to really believe it. But that means that what was already written is never believed.I am reading this differently. For example, who authored 3 superbowl MVP's? Was it Joe Montana or some sportswriter? I would say that Montana was the author even if he never used a typewriter or pen. Could Montana have been more deceived? No, anyone can think they can play quarterback until they try to do it. To improve you need to become a doer of the word (2 1/2 step drop, etc). Ultimately it was through the superbowl that we could see that he wasn't deceived. Now if you consider that the Acts of the Apostles is scripture because they were living and expressing Christ, then in the same way Montana was adding to the Acts of the football players.

The use of "writing" here, or "author" or "poetry" is to avoid the real meaning of what James wrote (thereby deceiving yourself).
Well it is an interesting interpretation that seems to have a basis in the shades of meaning of the word, hence my concern that something had been lost in translating the word from Greek to English. Also, this interpretation is certainly in line with many other verses in the NT. So, unless the linguists want to tell us that these shades of meaning don't exist I don't understand your basis for talking about "the real meaning".

Instead, we get goosebumps from the (false) notion that we are charged to author/write something that will keep us from being deceived.Well, the charge here is clear, to be a doer of the word. I don't think any of us are disputing that. I think we also agree that the Bible charges us to "walk in Christ as we have received Him", which is the way I am understanding this. What he is adding (your reference of goosebumps) is that when you do "walk in Him" or "become a doer of the word" then you are "writing scripture". I find that interesting, maybe not to the goosebump level, but also not out in the left field cult level either.

That is its own deception. And these kinds of thoughts generally arise from someone who will eventually assert that it really is not directed at everyone, but at them only, and possibly at those who agree with them in even non-essentials.No need to jump the gun.

Yes, this person may be distancing from Nee and/or Lee, but they are beginning in the same manner.
They are trying to read and consider the word of God. Not a bad way in which to begin.

Start nuancing scripture in a manner that sounds appealing. Once enough are firmly entrenched in that frame of mind, add some more, and so on, until you can establish yourself as the new oracle.
Granted the concept of "writing scripture" is very disconcerting. However, the concept of living Christ is fundamental and mainstream. If this is what he is referring to I don't see any issue. So you have to wait until it is clear, otherwise you are arguing that Christians cannot experience Christ, and it was Christ that said we would do greater things than these.

There is someone lurking these boards that already believes that Lee's link to God passed to them (and long before he died). Now we may have another.
Again, no need to jump the gun.

While I may not believe in Brian McLaren's version of Generous Orthodoxy, I do believe in generous orthodoxy. But generous orthodoxy means that we can have fellowship despite disagreeing on non-essential issues, even many non-essential issues. But there begins to be a disconnect when the direction of what is proposed is not simply a disagreement over what is actually there and becomes about something that cannot be supported as being there. The more disconnected from what is written (which Paul actually says we should not go beyond) the more troublesome it all becomes.

Yes, but Paul was the one who taught that "it is no longer I that live but Christ in me".

I would not draw a line like the Bereans and determine absolutely that certain factors mean that they are worshiping a "different Jesus." But it does create enough uncertainty that I would find it difficult to recommend them to any other Christian. And I can recommend Calvinist or Arminian. I can recommend Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc., any number of independent groups, whether they exist as loosely associated with others or simply as stand-alone assemblies, from small home meetings to very large mega-churches. While I do not deny the true Christian underpinnings, I cannot recommend those that preach a gospel of wealth and health, although I would not simply counsel someone to get out of one of those places.

And even in the context of this forum and the other, while I do recommend leaving the so-called "Local Churches," my primary point is to make the reasons available for those who can begin to see clearly to make their own decision. And I surely do not agree to remain silent or otherwise endorse another system that appears to be headed down another path of error. (And that does not make anyone a heretic or non-Christian.)

Yes I understand that, my feeling is that if you are going to catch a mouse you have to have a hair trigger that doesn't fire until you have caught the mouse, and I don't think you have. I am not denying that this whole thread has certainly shown the appearance that it might head in this direction, but I think you are jumping the gun. He could change directions on you and then you are denying that Christians can experience Christ.

Sorry I messed up the quotes again. It just seems like a lot of trouble to cut and paste all those quote marks.

[OBW]

Rather than quote anything, I just would like to point out that Joe Montana directing or authoring a superbowl victory was the result of making the directions in a book into the way he lived. He did not do it by writing a book, or writing an article, but by doing what the book said.

You can use some words in a manner that are not "native" to describe what is done. Words like "artist," "magician," or even "poet" (as in "poetry in motion"). But none of them are about "writing," or "painting," or "sculpting." We call it "poetic license."

But when I read the actual words begin written by Scribe, it seems clear that the writing of these sometimes run-on thoughts is the "writing" that is being proposed as scripture. It is not something else that is described by the writing. So the "doing" that James meant is not being described by the writing, but it is the writing itself that is the doing. Even your example of Joe Montana does not in any way approach that. Joe did not write. He did not sculpt. He did not paint. He used his mind to read defenses and watch each play run its course. He relied on the years of practice in throwing that gave him both strength and accuracy — mostly by muscle-memory. He was alert to the opening of a receiver and the missing of a block that left him vulnerable. None of it was "authored" or "written."

You are being lured by flowery speaking that is using words in a way that you are not expecting. If you let it go for too long, you will become "captured" by an impression and a feeling of awe. (Now I do not actually expect you to be captured in this manner. Just making a point about where this seems to be going.) The words spoken by Scribe to not say that we should do anything. Or do anything exceptionally. But instead they say we should write. Lee would have been proud. He could still ignore James' charge to action because he could now replace it with his own writings that would be evidence of his not being deceived.

I recall a girl in high school during my senior year that had decided that she was going to convert from being Baptist to being RCC. She had been captured by the awe that the huge cathedrals, stained glass, liturgy, traditions, etc., had created in her. I could only shake my head in wonder. I did not know her well and only heard about this when it was a fully decided conclusion.

But without being that overt, the very way that some "do worship" creates a sense of being special that is not supported by anything other than the sense. In this case, the idea of being a poet, or an author is enticing. Just like being part of "God's best." And when someone tells you that you are God's masterpiece, but does it in such a way that the status is tied to continuing with their organization, then it is a hook. But other than the fact that we really are God's masterpiece — all of us — this talk about writing for God, or writing more scripture — all while ignoring the actual call to do what the Word says to do — is like giving everyone an A on the final exam because "everyone is special." It gives you a sense of importance and accomplishment without the need to be important or accomplish anything.

[OBW]

Also, this interpretation is certainly in line with many other verses in the NT.Many other verses? First how many? And how do they read in their context? This one only feels "possible" to me if you extract the phrase "be doers" from the rest of the verse and then change it to "be writers/authors/poets." In context it would be indefensible to start by presuming that "poet" or "author" was even possible. The entire context is about doing what the word says and not just reading it. This one part meaning "poet" or "author" would be like an ADHD moment or an Alzheimer's patient forgetting the beginning of a sentence and ending it with a totally unrelated fragment.

[Scribe]

I am still holding out hope that his interpretation of writing scripture is not that different from Gal 2:20, an experience of Christ living in you.


I like this term..."holding out hope", this requires the hands.

Galations 2:20 experience ushers into Galations 3:8 experience.

Scribe

[Scribe]

Eph. 1:13 shows us that the Word of the truth is the gospel of our salvation.

This Word of Truth sanctifies us John 17:17. And we each have a Word. 17:20.

To not handle the Word of the Truth is the another gospel Paul warned of.

Scribe

[ZNPaaneah]

I agree that the use of write or author or poet can only be supported metaphorically as in the example of Montana. Other than that, writing may be something that the Lord would lead you to do, but I don't see that as a general charge.