Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee
One or more of the courses were quite negative about other churches. I was a little surprised the negativity was so pronounced. The other denominations were called something like shallow and boring. They were all degraded and WL even admitted the LC was degraded too.
The main emphasis seemed to be on how to expand and enlarge the LSM ministry which wasn't growing as fast as hoped. Instead of flogging the saints to go knocking on doors and collar warm bodies to expand his ministry, WL should have realized that claiming to be the only true church is a major turnoff and might have explained why his ministry stopped growing, at least in part.
|
The whole ministry of WL is one long infomercial about the ministry of WL. Other contemporary ministries, and all but a few previous ones (that had 'God's oracle', and only one per age, sorry) were deemed grossly deficient. Only WL had fully recovered light and truth, and could thereby give 'life' for the initiate (i.e. his 'Life-Studies' of the Bible).
WL repeatedly termed seminaries as "cemeteries", yet I suspect he was aware of his own inadequacies, and thus his continued 'pooh-pooh' of all else was merely camouflage.
By contrast, I'd present a couple of contemporary scholars, NT Wright and GK Beale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Beale
Neither is particularly 'anointed' beyond the rest, but they represent the good, serious work done by those who take God's word seriously and have done actual leg-work to present something of value. And none of them, btw, believe they hold a corner on the truth.
Beale's 1998 work "The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text" is an example of decent scholarship. He doesn't say, "This means that"; rather he examines the words, looks at contemporaneous usage to determine what it might have meant, looks for scriptural allusions (Revelation is packed with them), and then examines the history of understanding of the meaning. WL looked at a few 19th Century studies and rendered verdict: "This clearly shows us that...". Beale doesn't do that. He allows the different interpretations to co-exist, says what strengths and weaknesses each has for the over-all understanding, and why he thinks one has more weight.
https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-In...ion+commentary
And Beale never loses the forest for the trees. And he certainly never lets his exegeses push the text aside as of little value! What kind of interpretation tells us that the writers and compilers of the Bible were confused, and lost their way? And if so, why did God wait for WL to come along and set us all straight? Has Christianity really been so aberrant, for so long? I daresay no. WL would find little traction in the free market of ideas. His ministry can only exist in a captive system, a sort of "North Korea" of spirituality. One Uber Boss, the rest as minions adoring his every utterance as divine, oracular. In a free market of ideas, WL's work would be seen for what it is: sloppy scholarship at best, plagiarism at worst, and very, very out of date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renee
Where was this promise of Jesus when she was taken in hook, line and sinker by a false apostle?
|
The promise of Jesus is there, but is only discerned by the heart. Only later does the brain catch up. First we appreciate the glory, the 'cloud of unknowing'; eventually our consciousness faintly gets some of the particulars.
My strong image is of the aged apostle John. He'd been the bright-eyed, devout young man tagging along after John the Baptist, who then was recommended to and transferred to be with Jesus (John 1:35; note that one disciple isn't named [John never names himself], yet the scenes are always narrated in eye-witness format).
John had been there from Day One. Saw all the miracles. Even saw things the other 9 had not (the mountaintop, Jairus' daugher). Leaned on Jesus' breast. Then in the immediate, post-resurrection church, was also front and center: side-by-side with Peter as miracles poured out (Acts 3:1). Then saw the rise of James the brother of the Lord, and saw Paul's ministry wax and wane. His own brother was killed by Herod; I suspect that John went into hiding soon after, knowing that he was a marked man.
Now, on Patmos, the old man considers the bleak situation: the churches pummelled and in disarray. Not only five of the seven Asian churches that need to repent, but there are others that aren't flourishing either. The heady days of Pentecost are long gone. The Sermon on the Mount is but a distant memory.
Then he hears a sound, and turns, and the vision causes his consciousness to dissolve. It is Jesus.
You know, if Moses had got up and walked across the sapphire stones toward God, as he sat there with Aaron and the seventy, (Exod 24:10) he probably wouldn't have made it. God is holy, and we are not. Look at what happened to Aaron's two sons! But nonetheless, our journey into the text of the Bible is a journey into bright fire. We have no recourse. Jesus has gone before, and we are bid to follow. So we step onto the sapphire pavement and begin to walk.
Don't worry about jumping into the deep end of the pool. Just jump. You may only understand 15 or 20%, and even some of that's irrelevant: scholars writing to other scholars about people like Philo or Josephus using some Greek phrases, and asking how does this pertain to a clause in Mark's gospel, chapter 8? This seems off base, and irrelevant. But if you persist in the pursuit, the fire will come.