Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
What I've always found to be somewhat ironic is that WL was seemingly good about providing references for his basic doctrines, or things most people would agree on. It's his wild, or even absurd claims that are greatly lacking in support. As I mentioned, the vast array of references provide at times (especially on outlines), might lead people to think that all such claims are easily verifiable. It seems however, that whenever WL when down the path of metaphorical interpretation, scholarship got thrown out the window. It could have just been a matter of convenience. I don't think anyone would have cared had he provided support for his arguments or not. They were ready to swallow whatever he said.
|
I'm sure had someone chosen to undertaken research to verify Witness Lee's interpretation, you might hear the following words: argumentative, contentious, nit-picking, just to name a few. All because he/she wasn't ready to swallow whatever he said.