Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDuff
Where is the New Jerusalem, if it's coming down out of heaven but didn't land on earth? Why mention a new earth, if that wasn't it's destination?
|
The new earth seems to be the destination of the New Jerusalem, but by the same logic, why mention its origin, heaven? Because, um, maybe the New Jerusalem brings heaven down to earth? As in, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"? So, then, if we care about "Thy kingdom come on earth", why don't we likewise care about "as it is in heaven"?
Nope, says the LC apologist. We don't care for that. Because Witness Lee didn't care for that. So neither do we.
WL was so keen to distinguish himself and his ministry from the rest of Christianity that he even separated himself and his ministry from the Bible. WL and the LC were so zealous to reject any orientation toward heaven as merely of darkened Christianity that they ended up ignoring the actual Bible, when it showed an orientation toward heaven. WL provided the LC with an alternative interpretational scheme, which included both implicit and explicit criticisms of Christian thought, and once that was set on the Bible, the LC could freely ignore the text. So how things should be "as in heaven" meant nothing, and the NJ descending "down from heaven" meant nothing. That didn't fit the scheme, so it didn't exist.
Next time you talk to an LC'er, bring up a verse that isn't trumpeted in the LSM hermeneutic. You'll either get a blank stare, and silence, or they'll get uncomfortable and will redirect the conversation to one of "their" verses.