Quote:
Originally Posted by Cassidy
Ohio> Could you please rethink your position on "Examining LSM's Eschatology ..." and re-address some specifics that we can discuss, with specific references to Tomes' paper?
Ohio,
I would have been delighted to address the specifics of Tomes' alternative interpretation of Rev 2 & 3.... except he did not provide one. He said what he was against... but not what he was for. That is not scholarship, that is an Op Ed.
Many writers have already made a compelling case for the prophetic interpretation of Rev 2 and 3. I believe they rightly divided the word on those chapters. Tome's points about white man's religion, European-view, pentecostal history, Africa, China, etc. are part of a non sequitur fallacy. An interesting history lesson... and that is all.
If you wish to present specifics of his interpretation of Rev 2 & 3 I will be glad to discuss it with you. That would be refreshing. Or if you wish to discuss the specifics of my objections to Tomes' presentation and arguments that would be fine too. That is why I posted them. However, if you, like Tomes, are only interested in dismissing the prophetic interpretation held by many credible biblical scholars without providing an alternative interpretation then there is nothing to rethink.
Thanks
|
Wait. Hold on. You are saying that if I don't provide an alternate interpretation of something then I cannot conclude that someone else's interpretation is problematic? And if I do that then it's not scholarship but Op-Ed? Really? Based upon what exactly do you make such broad declarations?
So if you declare, for example, that pulsar stars are composed of millions of glowing silver kittens, and I say I don't buy it, then that's just an Op-Ed until I come up with an alternative? Sorry. I don't have to have an alternative explanation of something to see the problems in someone else's explanation.
Tomes wasn't pointing out that Rev 2 & 3 could not be prophetic at all. He was pointing out the problems with Lee's specific prophetic interpretation of it. One would think that you could appreciate those problems, specifically with the progressive historical narrative nature of the interpretation. Rev 2 & 3 can be considered prophetic without having to apply each church to a specific historical slice of Christianity.
But Lee did it because he wanted to place his group at the top of the totem pole. Otherwise he would have had no reason to interpret it that way. And Tomes has shown that as time has moved on, that interpretation holds a lot less water.
Regardless, anyone who interprets Revelation prophecy to cast his little camp as the church in Philadelphia while casting the rest of Christianity as the other flawed churches is being
transparently self-serving. Good grief, I can see you falling for it when you were 25. But still? Really? You still think God's going to reward you for being faithful to Witness Lee? You really did drink the Kool-Aid, didn't you?
"Bigger than Witness Lee?" Not by much. Not really. It's pretty much always just been about him.