Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Typical. You said my response was weak, this is lame.
|
Actually, I have the same thoughts. It is not weak. It is a short post with a rather profound observation. You can't just dismiss it because the one making it is so often found to make crazy statements.
You splice unrelated things together through the existence of a common word. Or the fact that it is about God. Or about man. I've hardly heard this kind of nonsense outside of Nee and Lee. You may not like them. Or want to be associated with them. But you practice their ways with gusto.
You don't answer my questions concerning the alleged links between Job and the One New Man or concerning claims that there is proof that Jesse taught David anything. You just say that because you can make generalities not recorded anywhere, it must be so. And carry on as if it qualifies as a preponderance of evidence.
I sort of want to misquote a John Houseman line and say "Mister ZNP, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a teacher of the Bible." Oh, there are still a few people who will be overwhelmed by the faux spirituality that is exuded by the kind of arguments you make here. They continue to ensnare a number of people to the teachings of Lee. But if there is any real meaning to the charge to "come, let us reason," then this kind of nonsense will be cast aside very quickly.
It is easier to deal with the nonsense of those "I write it so it is scripture" guys. Everyone sees through their ignorance. And despite the number of people who don't want to put up with the nonsense of 11of101, his can be seen through. But these kinds of nonsense arguments are entirely more insidious because they drip with a wet veneer of spirituality and more closely use the words of scripture to say things that simply are not true. Or are not true with respect to the passages being discussed.
As I have said over and over, it is one thing to openly take one passage and springboard to something else. But to declare that the first passage is about that something else is to obliterate the meaning of the first and make it subservient to the second. This is something that is undertaken way to often by Lee. And now it seems way too often by you. Job is not about the One New Man. Even if you can find a springboard for that unrelated discussion. You mock the very discussion of God and evil by saying it is so.