Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
Still confused…
The fruit of the tree offers eternal life.
Jesus offers eternal life.
Which of these statements is a lie?
Or are there two kinds of eternal life?
Please give a simple man a simple answer.
|
If you want a simple gospel, then believe that God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day, confess Jesus as Lord and you are forgiven your sins, and have eternal life. The Lord's command is to love one another, visit the widows and orphans in their afflictions, and stay unspotted from the world.
There is no need for theology beyond than that. Just, abide in his love.
Now, to start talking about "life" versus "death" in some comprehensive ontological praxis in the NT, one quickly sees a very, very complex subject. There's the river of water of life, there's the tree of life, there is the first and second death, there are angels who sinned cast to Tartarus in chains, there are demons going from men into hogs and drowning in the sea, there is a "worm that doesn't die", at least in the KJV.
There are multiple quasi-divine characters flitting in and out of the scene - did Moses talk with God, or did he talk with an angel? It says both in the text - so then, which of these statements is a lie? Then, are the four living creatures in Ezekiel & Revelation representative of all aspects of creation, or the four principal directions (time/space), or the "Quadrune God" in some manner? The creatures are "living", right? What does that mean? Isn't everything living? Or only God?
I recommend, keep it simple. If you want the detailed granularity and specificity that Lee promised (sold), you get into absurdity, as logic trains create contradictory positions.
A = B = C = D, then at some point A = D and voila Aron is God the Father and Witness Lee is Lord Changshou! Doesn't make any sense. At some point "this means that" will take you from the simple commands to love, and separate you from the flock.
I bet if we sat down at John's feet, and pestered him with questions about the fourth gospel, many of us would get up confused and walk away in puzzlement. Look how many times the disciples were "amazed beyond measure", or "astonished" or "they did not understand" in the NT, at being with Jesus. Yet they stayed, because they were loved.
Jesus spoke publicly, then explained to his incredulous followers privately (e.g., Mark 4:10-13). Likewise, Jesus' disciples (apostles) wrote publicly, and also explained privately to their disciples. Not all of those private explanations have come across through time. Some can be discerned to some degree, even to a high degree. Other things, if forced into rigid boxes for mental satisfaction, will end up labeled "absurdity".
I repeat: the command is to love. Love brings understanding. Keep it simple. Let the Bible breathe, don't force it into predetermined bins.
Please allow me to repeat an earlier observation: in discussing the tree of life in Rev 22, the
RecV footnote said that the gentiles/nations do not have eternal life yet they live forever. Doesn't this statement look absurd? By forcing "life" into a simplistic meaning, shorn of it's inherent nuances and contextualities, Lee made hard, one-size-fits-all conceptual bins, but his ontological praxis led to absurdity. For "life" to fit all his check-marks, then "eternal" and "forever" had to mean two different things, which to my view is nonsense.
And, if you want to watch absurdity, go to YouTube and watch Hank Hanegraaf explain 'energies' and 'essences' and 'persons' to his baffled audience. Is this why Jesus came?
What does S-C-A-M spell?