The God who died

[aron]

I kind of wanted to create a contrast on this thread. First is a continuation of bearbear's idea of a "supernatural worldview" and "works of power of the Holy Spirit." Second is to contrast that with what we typically do, which is inject our own soulish reaction to the world we see, including imposing our cultural and personal agendas upon the Bible we read. Nee talked about this, as did Lee, but somehow they thought they were immune from this. Somehow God had given them a special dispensation. "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong he's right", we would say. I remember current Blended, RK, saying of Lee, that "No self" was involved in his ministry. I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc. Was there no self when Lee established the Daystar Motor Home company with son Timothy at the helm, then began to shake down the parishoners from his pulpit? No self involved when he appointed his son Philip to run LSM? Actually we took a lot from a fellow human and treated it as if it were from God. We created a "God who died", when the truth came out and the foundation of our spiritual worldview was revealed as made of sand. Lee's feet were made of clay, just like you and me. Surprise, surprise. So he tried to expose the Shanghai elders: "How did you feel" when the truth came out, but he really exposed his whole system.

The fact is that we are human, and we respond imperfectly to the perfect God. And that includes Mssrs Nee & Lee, the current Blendeds in Anaheim, and the rest of us. So I would like to revisit my earlier discussion, of the "open heavens" in John 1:51, the "servants under me" as related by the Roman centurion in Luke 7, and the scene in front of the throne in Revelations 1 through 3.

Now, why did I pick these three sets of scripture as my portals to the supernatural world? Admittedly they are arbitrary. Someone else might have picked 3 entirely different passages. So I admit my subjectivity here. John 1:51 is interesting to me because it's at the end of the clearly introductory first chapter of John's gospel. Immediately after this the "signs" begin, with the wedding feast at Cana, Galilee in John chapter 2. So this verse, 1:51, stands as a kind of coda to the introduction, and arguably it opens the works of power that follow. If you want to know where Nathaniel saw heavens open, and angels of God ascending and descending, you might start with the miracle of water turning into wine in John Chapter 2. And so forth.

But my raising this verse was mainly to show how Lee with his own agenda moved the conversation away from the actual verse at hand, and on to his underlying motive. Jesus didn't talk in John 1:51 about the church. But because Jacob had commented about the place of his dream in Genesis 28, "Surely this is the gate of heaven; this is the house of God", then Lee turned the attention away from angels ascending and descending, to the Church of Nee and Lee. Nifty move, huh? Likewise, when Jacob poured the oil on the rock, Lee said that was the outpoured Holy Spirit. But the Genesis 28 passage doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does Jesus in John 1:51; is the outpoured Spirit the same as angels ascending and descending upon the heavenly ladder? Or something different? No comment from Lee. "Much traffic" is all we get to acknowledge the actual text.

So the contents of the verse get re-directed to what is profitable for Lee to cover. And the same goes for the information given by the Roman Centurion in Luke 7. No mention of "I have servants under me, and I tell this one..." We instead focus on the next verse: "You just say the word and my servant will be healed"; as if that were all the germane information in this passage. But the Roman shared in detail of the background of the working, and Jesus marveled, and the writer Luke conveyed the information. Why ignore it? Perhaps because it's not central to your "God's economy" or "normal church life" schema.

Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls: Lucifer/Satan in Ezekiel 14/Isaiah 28, the fall of the human race in Genesis 3, and the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 (which is subsequent to, and entirely tied up with, the fallen human race [!!] ). So Jesus shows up and constantly is portrayed as doing battle with fallen spirits who usurp humankind, and oppress them, and this evil spirits/demons connection to Genesis 6 is clearly established in supporting non-canonical literature, and is even referenced in places like Jude verse 6, and yet it is not "central to the divine economy" of Lee so it is ignored. As BP liked to say "We don't care for that".

I am not saying we should become demon fighters and miracle workers. I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest. And Lee pretended that he focused on the "pure word", as if his approach was equal in purity to the scriptural text itself. News flash: it wasn't. Nor is mine, or yours, which is why we have discussions. A tad of humility is in order here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls...

The fall of the angels in Genesis 6, in my last post, actually was a kind of side-track. I was trying to get back to the theme, seen in Revelations 1-3. Here's my revised version:

Lastly, the speaking in Revs 2 & 3 is interesting. First you have Jesus speaking to the angel of the church, then the speaking concludes with a blessing to those who have ears to hear what the Spirit is speaking to the churches.

So Jesus speaking to an angel of the church somehow becomes the Spirit speaking to the church. Is the recipient angel at the beginning, the same speaking Spirit at the end? If not, why do these two messengers overlap like this? If this is what it is saying, literally, and it doesn't jibe with our theology, was John wrong here? Did John make the same mistake 7 times, in each epistle to each church? Was he being sloppy, and not checking his typesetting? Getting the angel confused with the Holy Spirit? I think not. John was very careful in his composition, and I think he's telling us something here.

But my main point was simply that we were under a ministry that focused on the ministry, not on the word. So we ignored the word when it wasn't convenient to the ministry. I am trying to look at what the word actually says here, not what we might wish it said if it lined up with our presuppositions more conveniently. As I said earlier, I'm just a doofus on the bus. Looking at the word of God. "The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John," Etc etc...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc.

A snake in the open is better than a snake in the grass.

Originally Posted by aron

I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest.

In a sense we create our own Holodeck ... and take it as real. It works for awhile. And feels good. But reality is relentless ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

In a sense we create our own Holodeck ... and take it as real. It works for awhile. And feels good. But reality is relentless ...

Witness Lee visited us in Santa Cruz in 1970 and I had dinner with him along with 3 others. It was at the daughter of Karl Hammond’s house. I remember Lee praying strongly for the Blood of Christ. Maybe he was praying for himself or for all of us. I have often reflected, was it Lee, or was it us as individuals who put our trust in a person. Lee was being Lee. Karl Hammond shared with me one time that he had gone to Taiwan because he heard all these swirling rumors about Lee. He said he came back satisfied that they were not true. However, Karl was always seen as the outsider by Los Angelos/ Anaheim, I guess because he was a maverick. Of course, looking back that was our salvation in Santa Cruz at least while I was there.

Interestingly, I have an article from Christianity Today from February 1969. I didn’t think of it much when I saw it but it was a precursor of things to come. It stated, “Carefully castigating all Pentecostal excesses, Witness Lee, scholarly “apostle” of the new in China’s indigenous church, generates a frenzy all his own. He is dividing not only the tranquil waters of the faithful in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia but the hegemony established by imprisoned Watchman Nee as well….Even founder Nee will have to follow the teaching of the self-proclaimed apostle or find himself ‘jobless’ Asia News Reports quotes ambitious Lee as saying in one of his more brazen pontifications.” One wonders why Lee really came and settled in the US e.g. to help his children, make more money etc. Also, who were those brothers who checked him out since I know they went to Taiwan. Maybe those who were in disagreement with Lee were kept away.

I have mentioned before that I remember Tim S. told me in Detroit when we first arrived there that he and Ron K. were trained in Los Angelos/Anaheim by Witness Lee. He said it in such a way as to minimize my experience in S.C. There was a certain superiority which existed among some of those in Los Angelos/Anaheim and that may well have been their undoing. They believed they had been trained, prepared and commissioned to lead the Recovery through migration. Also, they expected the same kind of increase they had experienced in Los Angelos. As it turned out their training didn’t amount to much.

In 1972 the Church in Los Angelos published a projection paper, “Prospective Migration Throughout USA and Emigration to Europe, Israel and other Continents” listing each year’s projected growth. As of 1972 they listed Los Angelos as having 5 halls comprising 1,050 people and in “other places” 26 churches with 2,600 people or a total of 3,650 people. This paper listed expected migrations and subdivisions of the Church in Los Angelos until the year 1982 where they expected to have a total of 230 churches and 66,000 people comprising migrations throughout the US and to Eastern/Western Europe and the Middle East. Of course, by 1982 they expected to have 11,000 people in 72 halls in Los Angelos. At the bottom they note that the increases were “Based upon rate of annual increase of 35%”. I guess they fell short.

Once we (all of us) became convinced that every word uttered by Lee was golden and divine we were finished. It was like we had resurrected the golden calf. What should we have expected? Lee may have been caught up in the adulation but we were blinded and couldn’t see beyond our noses. Of course, we weren’t close to the action so to some extent we looked to John Ingals and others for the cue. As much as I thought highly of John and others, they were caught up in what they thought was an historic movement led by a living Apostle, however flawed.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

who were those brothers who checked him out since I know they went to Taiwan. Maybe those who were in disagreement with Lee were kept away.

And I wonder about the trip Lee made to Taiwan with several dozen strapping young American men in 1968 or so. Ostensibly it had some divine purpose but looking back, Lee returning to Taiwan with the Americans seems like MacArthur retaking the Philippines after the disaster of Bataan and Corregidor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Do...nds_Leyte1.jpg

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

Witness Lee visited us in Santa Cruz in 1970 and I had dinner with him along with 3 others. It was at the daughter of Karl Hammond’s house...

Did you get invited because you were one of the top recruiters? Like the salesman who hits $100,000 in a month getting to meet the chairman?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

Did you get invited because you were one of the top recruiters? Like the salesman who hits $100,000 in a month getting to meet the chairman?

You might say something like that. Karl and I really started Santa Cruz from scratch and I guess it was like a reward for my efforts in helping to build S.C. On the other hand, I got along well with Karl even though he was a difficult person for most and he said he was "grooming" me to be an elder though at 24 I had no interest. Actually, I don't think I even understood the concept of being an elder. I was working the campuses bringing people to Jesus. In Santa Cruz there weren't a lot of other Christian groups which we could rob, unlike Detroit which was loaded with Christian groups. Of course, I didn't make any effort to bring in other Christians since Santa Cruz was a haven for unsaved people who were searching for answers. So, a goodly number of our "recruits" were those we brought in and baptized them in the Pacific Ocean. It was a wild time because of all the new people we had brought in. Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz. It was the highlight of my LC experience.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz. It was the highlight of my LC experience.

From my understanding, Santa Cruz was far enough away from LA and Anaheim that it could actually function as a genuine "local church", and not a branch office of the Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Corp. I believe the same was true for Berkeley and maybe some others as well. Having been "born and raised" in Orange County (just minutes from Anaheim) I never got to experience anything like you did in Santa Cruz. The closest thing may have been when Lee initiated "The Young People's churches" (circa 1977) in Orange County - Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fullerton and some others. Those were some exciting times, and brought a breath of fresh air...but of course it was short-lived...Lee and some of his minions cooked up a great "rebellion", which of course had to be quashed. I was bussed up to Berkeley to that crazy, infamous Memorial Day conference (78?). We had barely been back a day or two and there was an emergency meeting called where Lee put down the hatchet. I remember that meeting well...one young person, usually an older one chosen to be the representative, was chosen to stand up and "repent" to Witness Lee as he sat in the front with a smug look of satisfaction. Looking back, if that didn't seal the deal of making us a personality cult, then I don't know what did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The closest thing may have been when Lee initiated "The Young People's churches" (circa 1977) in Orange County - Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fullerton and some others. Those were some exciting times, and brought a breath of fresh air...but of course it was short-lived...Lee and some of his minions cooked up a great "rebellion", which of course had to be quashed. I was bussed up to Berkeley to that crazy, infamous Memorial Day conference (78?).

That would be May of 1977. We had our own version of "crazy" in Chicago.

I was part of two LC migrations. Definitely my most joyful and fruitful times. Both were subsequently damaged by meddling from headquarters, both Anaheim and Cleveland.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

From my understanding, Santa Cruz was far enough away from LA and Anaheim that it could actually function as a genuine "local church", and not a branch office of the Local Church of Witness Lee/Living Stream Corp. I believe the same was true for Berkeley and maybe some others as well. Having been "born and raised" in Orange County (just minutes from Anaheim) I never got to experience anything like you did in Santa Cruz. The closest thing may have been when Lee initiated "The Young People's churches" (circa 1977) in Orange County - Costa Mesa, Irvine, Fullerton and some others. Those were some exciting times, and brought a breath of fresh air...but of course it was short-lived...Lee and some of his minions cooked up a great "rebellion", which of course had to be quashed. I was bussed up to Berkeley to that crazy, infamous Memorial Day conference (78?). We had barely been back a day or two and there was an emergency meeting called where Lee put down the hatchet. I remember that meeting well...one young person, usually an older one chosen to be the representative, was chosen to stand up and "repent" to Witness Lee as he sat in the front with a smug look of satisfaction. Looking back, if that didn't seal the deal of making us a personality cult, then I don't know what did.

Your comments remind me of an experience both Don O and I went through in Detroit. This was in 1973. Don and I were sent to Berkeley by the elders because of their growth in young people to find out what they were doing. It was exciting being out there seeing what was going on. We came back and over the next several weeks we instituted changes. All I can say is that young people were attending our meetings like never before. It was a little bit crazy but energizing. The problem was that Don and I had some concern about the elders support despite sending us out to Berkeley. They seemed to be putting on the brakes. In any case, some of the sisters painted our metal chairs different colors as they were excited about what was going on. It was fun but kind of crazy. What happened next was that a couple sisters talked to the elders and said we were rebelling. In the next meeting Don and I walked in and it was very solemn and the song was "follow brothers"... Don was overwhelmed and cried like a baby in the meeting and I was like "what just happened"? They never asked us anything and just blasted us. In any case, it was probably the beginning of the end for me. Any further effort in trying to reach young people was over. The next step: in early 1974 everyone "migrated" to Ft. Lauderdale and that was another disaster. Ron K went to Anaheim.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

It was a wild time because of all the new people we had brought in. Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz.

It was a common practice of WL and also TC to uproot the fruitful brothers, and then relocate them elsewhere. The result was a breach in fellowship between the shepherds and their sheep, with the subsequent "reattachment" of the saints to new leaders connected to headquarters.

I watched this occur repeatedly in the LC's. It was just another proof that both WL and TC were more interested in building their empires, than building God's house and family.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It was a common practice of WL and also TC to uproot the fruitful brothers, and then relocate them elsewhere. The result was a breach in fellowship between the shepherds and their sheep, with the subsequent "reattachment" of the saints to new leaders connected to headquarters.

Whenever I visit the locality of my youth, I find it refreshing the same responsible brothers are there. On the surface, I have respect they haven't been relocated and since there is a history, I regard these brothers far more favorably than the blendeds.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Dave

Even though WL later asked me to come to Detroit I wish I had stayed in Santa Cruz. It was the highlight of my LC experience.

As Ohio wrote, it was the policy to uproot people, so they couldn't be truly local; they couldn't get attached to the local assembly, area, city, or neighbors. Instead, people were to be for the ministry. WL would rather uproot a fruitful serving person into an unfruitful position, and suffer loss, rather than let them become too successful in one spot, and generate a a competing kingdom. Just look at what happened with both DYL & TC. No, for the sake of the ministry they needed to be rooted up and moved.

I once went back to my old local church after about 8 years away. All the young people (HS & College) were gone. They were all either "serving" the ministry somewhere else, or they had gone into the world. The "local" in the local church was revealed as a convenient fiction.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by aron

As Ohio wrote, it was the policy to uproot people, so they couldn't be truly local; they couldn't get attached to the local assembly, area, city, or neighbors. Instead, people were to be for the ministry. WL would rather uproot a fruitful serving person into an unfruitful position, and suffer loss, rather than let them become too successful in one spot, and generate a a competing kingdom. Just look at what happened with both DYL & TC. No, for the sake of the ministry they needed to be rooted up and moved.

I once went back to my old local church after about 8 years away. All the young people (HS & College) were gone. They were all either "serving" the ministry somewhere else, or they had gone into the world. The "local" in the local church was revealed as a convenient fiction.

I think you are on to something. When I came back from Detroit (to Santa Cruz) after WL asked me to move there (Detroit) and I shared what happened to Karl he was a little miffed although he thought that maybe WL was giving a blessing on his efforts since WL was taking one of his key people to migrate to Detroit (Please note that WL had called Karl and asked him to send me to a conference in Detroit and Karl was obviously concerned before I left) Karl had mixed emotions but saw it as an overall positive and at least he spun it that way at the time. Of course, looking back WL probably saw an opportunity to undermine SC since WL never discussed me moving to Detroit with Karl either before or after.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by aron

As Ohio wrote, it was the policy to uproot people, so they couldn't be truly local; they couldn't get attached to the local assembly, area, city, or neighbors. Instead, people were to be for the ministry. WL would rather uproot a fruitful serving person into an unfruitful position, and suffer loss, rather than let them become too successful in one spot, and generate a a competing kingdom. Just look at what happened with both DYL & TC. No, for the sake of the ministry they needed to be rooted up and moved.

Is this what happened to Gene Gruhler?

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Dave

Interestingly, I have an article from Christianity Today from February 1969. I didn’t think of it much when I saw it but it was a precursor of things to come. It stated, “Carefully castigating all Pentecostal excesses, Witness Lee, scholarly “apostle” of the new in China’s indigenous church, generates a frenzy all his own. He is dividing not only the tranquil waters of the faithful in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia but the hegemony established by imprisoned Watchman Nee as well….Even founder Nee will have to follow the teaching of the self-proclaimed apostle or find himself ‘jobless’ Asia News Reports quotes ambitious Lee as saying in one of his more brazen pontifications.” One wonders why Lee really came and settled in the US e.g. to help his children, make more money etc. Also, who were those brothers who checked him out since I know they went to Taiwan. Maybe those who were in disagreement with Lee were kept away.

Dave, care to clarify the bolded portion? The quotation's a little hard to follow -- i.e., is the article clear as to what it's quoting (or paraphrasing) Lee as having actually said about Nee?

(I didn't find the article online after a cursory search.)

[Jesus4Me]

Originally Posted by aron

I kind of wanted to create a contrast on this thread. First is a continuation of bearbear's idea of a "supernatural worldview" and "works of power of the Holy Spirit." Second is to contrast that with what we typically do, which is inject our own soulish reaction to the world we see, including imposing our cultural and personal agendas upon the Bible we read. Nee talked about this, as did Lee, but somehow they thought they were immune from this. Somehow God had given them a special dispensation. "Witness Lee: even when he's wrong he's right", we would say. I remember current Blended, RK, saying of Lee, that "No self" was involved in his ministry. I think this is actually the most pernicious self, because it has convinced us that it doesn't exist: it's fully concealed and thus free to wreak its havoc. Was there no self when Lee established the Daystar Motor Home company with son Timothy at the helm, then began to shake down the parishoners from his pulpit? No self involved when he appointed his son Philip to run LSM? Actually we took a lot from a fellow human and treated it as if it were from God. We created a "God who died", when the truth came out and the foundation of our spiritual worldview was revealed as made of sand. Lee's feet were made of clay, just like you and me. Surprise, surprise. So he tried to expose the Shanghai elders: "How did you feel" when the truth came out, but he really exposed his whole system.

The fact is that we are human, and we respond imperfectly to the perfect God. And that includes Mssrs Nee & Lee, the current Blendeds in Anaheim, and the rest of us.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Romans 12:3For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

1 Corinthians 11:3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I would have to say that as much as Paul would exhort believers to be followers of him, he was referring to the example set by Him of having Christ as his head; thus submitting to His words as His disciples; rather than for his followers to be known as disciples of Paul.

So I would like to revisit my earlier discussion, of the "open heavens" in John 1:51, the "servants under me" as related by the Roman centurion in Luke 7, and the scene in front of the throne in Revelations 1 through 3.

Now, why did I pick these three sets of scripture as my portals to the supernatural world? Admittedly they are arbitrary. Someone else might have picked 3 entirely different passages. So I admit my subjectivity here. John 1:51 is interesting to me because it's at the end of the clearly introductory first chapter of John's gospel. Immediately after this the "signs" begin, with the wedding feast at Cana, Galilee in John chapter 2. So this verse, 1:51, stands as a kind of coda to the introduction, and arguably it opens the works of power that follow. If you want to know where Nathaniel saw heavens open, and angels of God ascending and descending, you might start with the miracle of water turning into wine in John Chapter 2. And so forth.

But my raising this verse was mainly to show how Lee with his own agenda moved the conversation away from the actual verse at hand, and on to his underlying motive. Jesus didn't talk in John 1:51 about the church. But because Jacob had commented about the place of his dream in Genesis 28, "Surely this is the gate of heaven; this is the house of God", then Lee turned the attention away from angels ascending and descending, to the Church of Nee and Lee. Nifty move, huh? Likewise, when Jacob poured the oil on the rock, Lee said that was the outpoured Holy Spirit. But the Genesis 28 passage doesn't mention the Holy Spirit, nor does Jesus in John 1:51; is the outpoured Spirit the same as angels ascending and descending upon the heavenly ladder? Or something different? No comment from Lee. "Much traffic" is all we get to acknowledge the actual text.

So the contents of the verse get re-directed to what is profitable for Lee to cover. And the same goes for the information given by the Roman Centurion in Luke 7. No mention of "I have servants under me, and I tell this one..." We instead focus on the next verse: "You just say the word and my servant will be healed"; as if that were all the germane information in this passage. But the Roman shared in detail of the background of the working, and Jesus marveled, and the writer Luke conveyed the information. Why ignore it? Perhaps because it's not central to your "God's economy" or "normal church life" schema.

When someone gets exalted to such a position that he is treated as the "Head" and coming to him instead of the actual Head, is how believers are victimized by covetous self serving believers.

Look at Paul in how he had an abundant of revelations and such that God had to give him a thorn in the flesh so that no one would exalt him higher than they ought to; and in spite of scholars today, it was not his failing eyesight. That would not stop any one from thinking too highly of Paul at all, but hearing voice of the devil accusing him; that would make people think twice about exalting him because they would view him as having a mental illness or something.

2 Corinthians 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Seems to me that Nee & Lee were exalted beyond measure as that should have been a telltale sign that God was not using them to serve Him in seeking the glory of the Son by testifying of Him. No. Somehow, by certain claims they have made, directly or indirectly, they began sharing in the spotlight and soon, they became the spotlight in gathering their disciples as it seems to be the case by what I am reading here at this forum.

Lastly, the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 doesn't get much coverage. Think of this: the Bible arguably shows us three falls: Lucifer/Satan in Ezekiel 14/Isaiah 28, the fall of the human race in Genesis 3, and the fall of the angels in Genesis 6 (which is subsequent to, and entirely tied up with, the fallen human race [!!] ). So Jesus shows up and constantly is portrayed as doing battle with fallen spirits who usurp humankind, and oppress them, and this evil spirits/demons connection to Genesis 6 is clearly established in supporting non-canonical literature, and is even referenced in places like Jude verse 6, and yet it is not "central to the divine economy" of Lee so it is ignored. As BP liked to say "We don't care for that".

I am not saying we should become demon fighters and miracle workers. I am saying that we ignore the text because it doesn't prop up our world view. We create a "supernatural worldview" based on whatever texts are convenient, and ignore the rest. And Lee pretended that he focused on the "pure word", as if his approach was equal in purity to the scriptural text itself. News flash: it wasn't. Nor is mine, or yours, which is why we have discussions. A tad of humility is in order here.

And mayhap more than just humility. We are to submit to the Word of God ( Jesus Christ ) as He is the Head over every believer. With our eyes on the Bridegroom, Whom is within us and thus with us always, we need no man teacher to have the final word on any matter when His will do.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Incidentally, the use of Genesis 6th as referring to fallen angels is not of the truth. I can understand how false teachings can come in and corrupt the plain reading of it, but God did not judge the world because of mixed hybrids coming out of fallen angels and daughters of men; it was because of every thought & intent of their hearts was wickedness.

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them......

And that was what God had destroyed; it did not mentioned the fallen angels at all that supposedly was read into the texts as reproducing hybrids.

So who were the sons of God? The descendents of Seth that had replaced Abel from whom Israel is the family tree springing from. Israel were considered as the sons of God as well. It was by marrying outside the line of Seth's family line that the godly followers were reproducing giants & men of renown in the earth, but they were still just men.

Scripture can confirm this again after the flood as to the real reason why the flood had happened:

Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Indeed, as Israel are of the line of Seth, as the former sons of God of the O.T., this was why Israel was not to marry outside the nation of Israel, but some did and one could see how Goliath may have come about since the scripture did report that it happened again thereafter...

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I suppose it could be debateable, but Jesus removes all doubts by saying this:

Matthew 22:30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Since we acknowledge that God's marriage is a man & a woman for them to become one flesh and no amount of same sec marriages is going to make oit a marriage in God's eye, then surely, He will not join fallen angels to be one with the daughters of men for these women to be called "wives" to them in the scripture. That would be a lie in His words then.

Matthew 19: 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

So in no way would God join any fallen angels with women to be called wives to them in His words. The sons of God of the O.T. were descendents of Seth from which Israel came from by way of Noah.

In the N.T., now believers in Jesus Christ are the sons of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jesus4Me

Incidentally, the use of Genesis 6th as referring to fallen angels is not of the truth. I can understand how false teachings can come in and corrupt the plain reading of it, but God did not judge the world because of mixed hybrids coming out of fallen angels and daughters of men; it was because of every thought & intent of their hearts was wickedness.

...
And that was what God had destroyed; it did not mentioned the fallen angels at all that supposedly was read into the texts as reproducing hybrids.

So who were the sons of God? The descendents of Seth that had replaced Abel from whom Israel is the family tree springing from. Israel were considered as the sons of God as well. It was by marrying outside the line of Seth's family line that the godly followers were reproducing giants & men of renown in the earth, but they were still just men..

Okay, granting all your points (I think), it still says that "God didn't spare angels who sinned, and left their allotted posts (as servants)..." So deny Genesis 6 as pertaining to angels, but the point remains. Satan fell, humankind fell, and "one third of the stars" also fell. You can put the pieces to gether however you want. They are still there.

We are all under God's authority. Obedience is paramount. Doesn't matter if you are Gabriel, who stands before God's throne (Luke 1:19, cf Rev 8:2), or if you are "little nobody". Everyone's place is allotted. Serve God in trembling and fear. It is not about angels (or anything else). The moral of the story is obedience.

Jesus is the true obedient Son. He alone is the Lamb of God, spotless and pure. We the sinners see Him (by faith, and yes revealed by the Holy Ghost) and live. It is about obedience - Jesus' obedience. Even to death He was obedient.