[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So the question becomes a philosophical one: Do you believe that God used writers to encode messages into the Bible based on the meaning of words that go beyond what the writers intended to convey, or even what the original speaking meant to convey. We know that God's sovereignty is present in the numbers of words and letters in, for example, the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. And God is surely capable of doing this in other ways if he wanted to.

So the question becomes, do you believe he did. Tomes' report shows that the approach of modern biblical scholars implicitly holds that we should not suppose he did.

Tomes' study not only assaults the ministries of Lee and Nee, but also centuries of of the best of Christian research.

I guess I am not buying it today.

That does not mean I disagree with all of Tomes or all of Lee. I still agree with the etymology of ekklesia, the "called out" assembly.

I have to disagree, however, with Lee's interpretation of the "Nicolaitans." I have seen far more oppression coming out of Lee's "band of brothers," aka full-timers and co-workers, than that from the "pastors." If Lee's interpretation is correct, then he must be the consummate NOTA, the "Nicolaitan of the Age."

Originally Posted by Igzy

But if like Lee you think we should, then finding messages in words like "Nicolaitans" and "Laodicea" might make sense to you. The downside to that, however, is deciding where to stop. Lee went all out finding hidden meanings in the Bible. The potential for subjectivity and insertion of personal bias in such an approach is obvious.

LSM operatives have proven that once you start down this slippery slope, there is no turning back. This was abundantly clear when LSM assaulted the Midwest LC's. Their justification for destroying churches and filing lawsuits was based on obscure Levitical passages about "replastering the walls" and "tearing down the houses" of known lepers.