Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Two comments (related to that in bold).
Satan's seed, is the Dragon, which is Satan. The Dragon is Satan.
Eve is a type for the church. See Eph. 5:23-26 which describes the husband-wife relationship.
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
Rev 12:2,5 speaks of the man-child, or the stronger part of the church.
That the seed of the woman is Christ and the church, or God's people

Answer: Satan’s seed is the Red Dragon, the coming world leader and the false prophet in Rev 12:3,…

In Rev 12:1-5. 1A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems. 4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. 5And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

The woman in Rev 12:1-5, is Israel. If you say that this woman is the church, you have a BIG problem, because the church is a VIRGIN BRIDE (2Cor 11:2) and this woman in Rev. is “pregnant”. Rev 12, is a “summary of Israel” that started in Gen 3:15, where we see the term: “her seed” or “seed of the woman”, meaning the woman has seed or gives birth. A “mother-Son” relationship and NOT a “Bridegroom-bride” relationship, because Israel gives birth to the child who is Jesus which is confirmed in Rev 12: 2,5 (read verses). The male child in verse 5, is Jesus and NOT “the stronger part of the church” which is W. Lee’s wrong interpretation.

Why is W. Lee’s interpretation wrong? Because as I explained in detail in my original post, W. Lee’s teaching does NOT have Israelology in his teaching (83% of the Bible is related to Israel), as a result of that, his Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible) is wrong and as a result of that, his Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology) is also wrong. When you lack understanding or completely ignore, Israelology you will do exactly what W. Lee did in his teaching: it does NOT differentiate Israel from the church, it applies what is for Israel to the church (read his Life Studies, ex.Jer 31:31), making a big salad with Israel and the church. Additionally, he starts to “freely” allegorize the Scriptures as he wishes coming up with self- made doctrine that “ONLY” he knows, because it is his private interpretation. One example of the many, of his self-made doctrines; is “the ground of oneness” (there is not even ONE verse in the Bible showing this point), or Boiling a young goat in the mother’s milk (Exo 23:19; 34:26; Deut 14:21), or eating poisonous gourds (2King 4:38-41) and I can go on and on and on…. With all the allegories made up by himself without paying attention to the “fundamental points” that I mentioned already at the very beginning of my post.

If you can NOT see or understand what I am explaining to you about the “Major errors of W. Lee’s teaching: Replacement Theology, absence of Israelology (83% of the Bible is related to Israel), wrong Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible), Wrong Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology); I can NOT do anything else for you, except to pray for you, that the Lord would open your right understanding of the Scriptures. I know, it is not easy, but also it is possible with the Lord (Mt 19:26). I don’t want to convince anybody, everyone should do their homework and come to their own conclusions.

[Boxjobox]

I would say the chief major error in his teaching was the "the processed triune God". Through bits and pieces of verses, he created a god of the local church, which was not the God of our Lord Jesus. One would think, if the truth was "the processed triune God", that Jesus and the apostles, and writers of the NT would have been preaching and teaching this, and using the same vocabulary as WL to convey this marvelous wonder to the Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. WL's ability to create messages through the use of verse fragments was amazing, and created a dazzling creed that captured many (and sold a lot of material)- what was wrong with us, that no one stood up and said " this is not what I read in my Bible"?

[Drake]

Unreg "The woman in Rev 12:1-5, is Israel. If you say that this woman is the church, you have a BIG problem, because the church is a VIRGIN BRIDE (2Cor 11:2) and this woman in Rev. is “pregnant”. Rev 12, is a “summary of Israel” that started in Gen 3:15, where we see the term: “her seed” or “seed of the woman”, meaning the woman has seed or gives birth. A “mother-Son” relationship and NOT a “Bridegroom-bride” relationship, because Israel gives birth to the child who is Jesus which is confirmed in Rev 12: 2,5 (read verses). The male child in verse 5, is Jesus and NOT “the stronger part of the church” which is W. Lee’s wrong interpretation.

Your argument here about the VIRGIN BRIDE giving birth is not a problem unless you also think Mary being a virgin and giving birth to Jesus is a problem. Your argument is a moral one not a biblically based one.

Unreg "Why is W. Lee’s interpretation wrong? Because as I explained in detail in my original post, W. Lee’s teaching does NOT have Israelology in his teaching (83% of the Bible is related to Israel), as a result of that, his Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible) is wrong and as a result of that, his Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology) is also wrong. When you lack understanding or completely ignore, Israelology you will do exactly what W. Lee did in his teaching: "

When you put on the "83% of the Bible is related to Israel" glasses they become filters in your understanding and hermeneutics. Your starting point will then lead you into other misunderstandings and errors. For instance, if you believe that the woman of Revelation 12 is Israel and only Israel then you will have to conclude that the man child is Jesus and only Jesus. However, in so doing you will also have great difficulty with the timeline. To start off with Revelation 1:1 says clearly that the signs show the things that must take place. Revelation 12:1 shows the woman is a great sign, therefore it is a future event based from the time of the writing in the latter half of the first century, not before Christ was born as you assert. This is an error on your part because you have donned Israelology glasses that filter the complete biblical revelation.

If the man child is only Jesus then then you will also have trouble reconciling the Dragon being cast to the earth to devour the baby Jesus in the manger, the reason for the Dragon and one third of the angels being cast to earth, and why it takes Satan and one third of his angels to engage in infanticide in a failed attempt to wipe out Jesus. Also, you would have to violate the timeline of the future war in heaven v7-9 while leaving the obvious future event of the woman fleeing to the wilderness in v6 in place unless you want to bring that forward too prior to the birth of Jesus in which case you will have to explain where in history Israel fled into the wilderness and was nourished by God for a thousand two hundred and sixty days.

A third example of the trouble you will have reconciling the woman as Israel only and the man child as Jesus only is found in verse 5. To maintain the position you hold will require you to ignore the meaning of the word used for "caught up" which roots are based in selection and to pluck. Jesus resurrection and ascension do not use this word.

Unreg "it does NOT differentiate Israel from the church, it applies what is for Israel to the church (read his Life Studies, ex.Jer 31:31), making a big salad with Israel and the church."

I am not aware of anywhere where Brother Lee teaches replacement theology. However, in reference to Jerusalem 31:31 speaking of the new covenant of course the church is living in the new covenant. That was for Israel too but they obviously are not living in it unless they become believers like any other christian in this age of grace. As a nation, they will live in the new covenant in the coming Kingdom once the Lord returns and establishes it in the future and the nation repents and receives Him as the Messiah on that glorious day (Revelation 1:7).

In summary Unreg. First, let me say I appreciate your posts. They are focused on the teachings and you challenge them forcefully. That is commendable and a welcome addition to this forum.

Having said that your teachings on Revelation 12 are lacking. Just saying the woman is Israel because 83% of the Bible is related to Israel......even if that were proven valid perhaps this is part of the 17% that includes something more. The timeline in Revelation 12 (the birth of the manchild, the Dragon and one third of the angels cast to earth, the war in heaven, the plucking up of the man child, the wilderness experience of the woman, etc.) simply falls apart with your interpretation and the meaning of actual words must be ignored such as "caught up" when referring to the manchild.

Thanks
Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I would say the chief major error in his teaching was the "the processed triune God". Through bits and pieces of verses, he created a god of the local church, which was not the God of our Lord Jesus. One would think, if the truth was "the processed triune God", that Jesus and the apostles, and writers of the NT would have been preaching and teaching this, and using the same vocabulary as WL to convey this marvelous wonder to the Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. WL's ability to create messages through the use of verse fragments was amazing, and created a dazzling creed that captured many (and sold a lot of material)- what was wrong with us, that no one stood up and said " this is not what I read in my Bible"?

This is probably the clearest, most concise short form description of the "major error of Witness Lee's teaching" ever posted on our forum. If there's one better, please bring it to my attention and you will receive the grand prize of.......my eternal gratitude.
-

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg "The woman in Rev 12:1-5, is Israel. If you say that this woman is the church, you have a BIG problem, because the church is a VIRGIN BRIDE (2Cor 11:2) and this woman in Rev. is “pregnant”. Rev 12, is a “summary of Israel” that started in Gen 3:15, where we see the term: “her seed” or “seed of the woman”, meaning the woman has seed or gives birth. A “mother-Son” relationship and NOT a “Bridegroom-bride” relationship, because Israel gives birth to the child who is Jesus which is confirmed in Rev 12: 2,5 (read verses). The male child in verse 5, is Jesus and NOT “the stronger part of the church” which is W. Lee’s wrong interpretation.

Your argument here about the VIRGIN BRIDE giving birth is not a problem unless you also think Mary being a virgin and giving birth to Jesus is a problem. Your argument is a moral one not a biblically based one.

Unreg "Why is W. Lee’s interpretation wrong? Because as I explained in detail in my original post, W. Lee’s teaching does NOT have Israelology in his teaching (83% of the Bible is related to Israel), as a result of that, his Eschatology (33% is Prophecy in the Bible) is wrong and as a result of that, his Ecclesiology (result of NOT knowing Israeology) is also wrong. When you lack understanding or completely ignore, Israelology you will do exactly what W. Lee did in his teaching: "

When you put on the "83% of the Bible is related to Israel" glasses they become filters in your understanding and hermeneutics. Your starting point will then lead you into other misunderstandings and errors. For instance, if you believe that the woman of Revelation 12 is Israel and only Israel then you will have to conclude that the man child is Jesus and only Jesus. However, in so doing you will also have great difficulty with the timeline. To start off with Revelation 1:1 says clearly that the signs show the things that must take place. Revelation 12:1 shows the woman is a great sign, therefore it is a future event based from the time of the writing in the latter half of the first century, not before Christ was born as you assert. This is an error on your part because you have donned Israelology glasses that filter the complete biblical revelation.

If the man child is only Jesus then then you will also have trouble reconciling the Dragon being cast to the earth to devour the baby Jesus in the manger, the reason for the Dragon and one third of the angels being cast to earth, and why it takes Satan and one third of his angels to engage in infanticide in a failed attempt to wipe out Jesus. Also, you would have to violate the timeline of the future war in heaven v7-9 while leaving the obvious future event of the woman fleeing to the wilderness in v6 in place unless you want to bring that forward too prior to the birth of Jesus in which case you will have to explain where in history Israel fled into the wilderness and was nourished by God for a thousand two hundred and sixty days.

A third example of the trouble you will have reconciling the woman as Israel only and the man child as Jesus only is found in verse 5. To maintain the position you hold will require you to ignore the meaning of the word used for "caught up" which roots are based in selection and to pluck. Jesus resurrection and ascension do not use this word.

Unreg "it does NOT differentiate Israel from the church, it applies what is for Israel to the church (read his Life Studies, ex.Jer 31:31), making a big salad with Israel and the church."

I am not aware of anywhere where Brother Lee teaches replacement theology. However, in reference to Jerusalem 31:31 speaking of the new covenant of course the church is living in the new covenant. That was for Israel too but they obviously are not living in it unless they become believers like any other christian in this age of grace. As a nation, they will live in the new covenant in the coming Kingdom once the Lord returns and establishes it in the future and the nation repents and receives Him as the Messiah on that glorious day (Revelation 1:7).

In summary Unreg. First, let me say I appreciate your posts. They are focused on the teachings and you challenge them forcefully. That is commendable and a welcome addition to this forum.

Having said that your teachings on Revelation 12 are lacking. Just saying the woman is Israel because 83% of the Bible is related to Israel......even if that were proven valid perhaps this is part of the 17% that includes something more. The timeline in Revelation 12 (the birth of the manchild, the Dragon and one third of the angels cast to earth, the war in heaven, the plucking up of the man child, the wilderness experience of the woman, etc.) simply falls apart with your interpretation and the meaning of actual words must be ignored such as "caught up" when referring to the manchild.

Thanks
Drake

Answer: I can see that you are not understanding why I mention Israelology? It is because Israelology plays a big role (83%) in the Bible, since the Bible is a Judeo-Christian Book. Not because everything is Israel, just to be aware of that BIG point that we should consider when studying the Bible. Otherwise you come up with “free” allegories that you find in the Life Studies of W. Lee.

Another point you are misunderstanding is that the book of Revelation itself gives you an outline of the whole book in Rev 1:19. 19“Therefore write the things which you have seen (past, about Christ, chp 1), and the things which are (present, chp 2,3, the 7 churches), and the things which will take place (future, chp 4-22) after these things. Notice that the book of Revelation is the conclusion of the whole Bible plus is a prophetic book, meaning telling us things that will happen in the FUTURE, but still tells us things from the PAST and PRESENT (read verse Rev 1:19). You mention the conflict with the “time line”, this verse answers your question. Verse 19 is a general outline of Revelation with MANY INSERTIONS. (For further explanation see the paragraph about heptadic structure of Revelation below).

Also, you mention the confusion in Rev 12:5. By the way that verse is very controversial even among very good scholars. 5And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne.

The Son is Christ. The second half of verse 5, says “caught up” which is the same Greek word for “rapture” as in 1Thes 4:17. G.H. Pember is the first one that brought up that the “child” could ALSO INCLUDE the Body of Christ. Remember that we are talking already about Eschatology, the conclusion of Israel and the conclusion of the whole Bible. Additionally, please notice in order to understand properly the book of Revelation, you have to study the book of Daniel (these 2 books go together) because in this particular case, in between verses 5 and 6 of Rev 12, there is a gap or interval of time; which is the same gap in between verses 25 and 27 of Dan 9. This gap is verse 26. Putting these pieces together you can see the complete picture for this section. It is helpful to keep in mind that the church appeared miraculously in Acts 2 and will disappear (VERY SOON!!) also miraculously through the rapture (1Thes 4:16, 17; 1Cor 15:52), this is why Paul in 1Thes 4:18 says: “comfort one another with these words”, these are good news for the church!! In these Eschatological topics, you have to increase the resolution of your magnifying glass, otherwise you will miss what the Bible is showing us. This is the reason why the Lord Jesus Himself said Mt 5:17,18. W. Lee in his Life Studies teaches to focus on “main points only”, but Mt 5:17,18 says exactly the opposite.

Going back to Rev 12:1-5, verse 1 is explained for us by Jacob in Gen 37:9-11, confirming again that the woman is Israel. Further confirmation that the woman is Israel and NOT the church: Micah 4:9; 5:2; Isa 9:6; Gal 3:16; Jer 31:31; Gen 3:15 (the beginning). Please read carefully each one of the references.

Another helpful thing to be aware when studying the book of Revelation, is to realize the “heptadic structure” For the 7 seals, in between the 6th and the 7th seal there is an insertion which is chp 7. For the 7 trumpets, in between the 6th and the 7th trumpets there is an insertion which are chps 10-14. For the 7 bowls, in between the 6th and the 7th bowls there is an insertion which is chp 16. That means that Rev 12 is an insertion in the sequence of events happening in the book of Revelation (related to timeline).

Finally, a little historical background. The confusion of trying to make the woman, the church in Rev 12; comes from Origen: he started with allegorical interpretations. Then Augustine: he developed Amillennial Eschatology. Then the Medieval church with the quest for power, this led to the Holocaust in Germany and it will happen again in the Great Tribulation.

Interesting, several years ago, Rev 12 is what triggered my search for the Truth including several theologians in addition to the teachings of W. Nee and W. Lee; since both teachings were contradicting each other. Here is the portion of my testimony: I finished reading all the conclusion messages and other books of W. Lee; since I needed to continue studying, I continued with the collected works of W. Nee. Interestingly, I started to see differences in between W. Nee's and W. Lee's ministry. Additionally, since we live in these "last years" or apocalyptic age, I started to study Eschatology or the study of the "end times" ( 33% of the Bible is Prophecy and I knew almost nothing!). It became even more interesting when I was studying Rev 12:1-5 about the great sign of the woman in heaven... W. Lee says that the woman is the church (which is wrong), and W. Nee says the woman is Israel (which is correct). These are two different interpretations, so I wanted to find out which interpretation was correct, according to the whole Bible. (for the rest of my testimony you can see my original post).

I hope this explanation helps some. The proper way to study the Bible and to avoid to be deceived by following the wrong teaching or interpretation is: First to have prayer and relationship with the Author (God) of the Bible (Jn 5:39,40), then we need to take notes as we read and study the Bible (God’s Word), lastly we can check with the commentaries of the theologians; NOT just ONE author, but 3 or 4. And try to understand why the interpretations differ. We need to do our homework and NOT to blindly believe the commentaries, learn from the Berean believers (Act 17:10,11).

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Answer: I can see that you are not understanding why I mention Israelology? It is because Israelology plays a big role (83%) in the Bible, since the Bible is a Judeo-Christian Book. Not because everything is Israel, just to be aware of that BIG point that we should consider when studying the Bible. Otherwise you come up with “free” allegories that you find in the Life Studies of W. Lee......

....I hope this explanation helps some. The proper way to study the Bible and to avoid to be deceived by following the wrong teaching or interpretation is: First to have prayer and relationship with the Author (God) of the Bible (Jn 5:39,40), then we need to take notes as we read and study the Bible (God’s Word), lastly we can check with the commentaries of the theologians; NOT just ONE author, but 3 or 4. And try to understand why the interpretations differ. We need to do our homework and NOT to blindly believe the commentaries, learn from the Berean believers (Act 17:10,11).

Unreg,

Thanks for your post. I'm going to respond in three parts. Otherwise a single post to cover different lines of thought will become too unwieldy. The three parts will be Israelology, interpretation of Revelation 12, and what Witness Lee actually taught concerning Israel. A fourth part concerning "allegory" has already been addressed in post #14. If you care to respond to that then please do so otherwise it stands as is.

Israelology: you have made the point several times that "83% of the Bible is related to Israel". At first I thought this was just a statistic you found interesting but since you are repeating it and placing so much value on it I see that it is central to your belief system. Let's have a closer look at that.

No matter how you calculate the 83% the way that you use it is a fallacy in argumentation. It is an Argumentum Ad Numerum and like the Tiny Percentage Fallacy that states "an action that is quite significant in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant simply because it's a tiny percentage of something much larger." Your argument is a Large Percentage Fallacy. By frequently referring to "83% of the Bible is about Israel" you are inflating it's significance based on statistics. For example, the word "law" is mentioned over twice as many times as the word "grace" in the Bible. What does that tell you? Nothing of significance because an argument needs to pivot on something that is relevant not on statistics or numbers.

Secondly, the church was the mystery hid from ages. Colossians 1:26 says "the mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations but now has been manifested to His saints". There would be less references in the Bible about the church for that reason alone. Is the church any less significant to God or to us if it were mentioned only 17% of the time in the Bible? Of course not.

I agree on the points you made on how to approach the Bible through prayer study and multiple references. Yet, I think you miss something that is also extremely important. We should not come to the Bible with filters on our glasses. When you approach the Bible thinking that "83% of the Bible is about Israel" you will be looking for confirmation in all that you read. That will cause a bias in your understanding. I believe that you are reading into the scriptures references to Israel any and every chance you get. By taking that approach you will get to 83% whether it is really there or not because your mind directs you to confirm it.

If you believe Israel is the dominant topic in the thought of God, and therefore should be in ours, you should justify this based on the scripture not on statistics and numbers.

Drake

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg,

Thanks for your post. I'm going to respond in three parts. Otherwise a single post to cover different lines of thought will become too unwieldy. The three parts will be Israelology, interpretation of Revelation 12, and what Witness Lee actually taught concerning Israel. A fourth part concerning "allegory" has already been addressed in post #14. If you care to respond to that then please do so otherwise it stands as is.

Israelology: you have made the point several times that "83% of the Bible is related to Israel". At first I thought this was just a statistic you found interesting but since you are repeating it and placing so much value on it I see that it is central to your belief system. Let's have a closer look at that.

No matter how you calculate the 83% the way that you use it is a fallacy in argumentation. It is an Argumentum Ad Numerum and like the Tiny Percentage Fallacy that states "an action that is quite significant in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant simply because it's a tiny percentage of something much larger." Your argument is a Large Percentage Fallacy. By frequently referring to "83% of the Bible is about Israel" you are inflating it's significance based on statistics. For example, the word "law" is mentioned over twice as many times as the word "grace" in the Bible. What does that tell you? Nothing of significance because an argument needs to pivot on something that is relevant not on statistics or numbers.

Secondly, the church was the mystery hid from ages. Colossians 1:26 says "the mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations but now has been manifested to His saints". There would be less references in the Bible about the church for that reason alone. Is the church any less significant to God or to us if it were mentioned only 17% of the time in the Bible? Of course not.

I agree on the points you made on how to approach the Bible through prayer study and multiple references. Yet, I think you miss something that is also extremely important. We should not come to the Bible with filters on our glasses. When you approach the Bible thinking that "83% of the Bible is about Israel" you will be looking for confirmation in all that you read. That will cause a bias in your understanding. I believe that you are reading into the scriptures references to Israel any and every chance you get. By taking that approach you will get to 83% whether it is really there or not because your mind directs you to confirm it.

If you believe Israel is the dominant topic in the thought of God, and therefore should be in ours, you should justify this based on the scripture not on statistics and numbers.

Drake

Answer:

I keep repeating Israelology because you keep asking and I think you are not understanding. Remember the title of my post and the development of the points.

Here I am repeating myself again, because you asked. Israelology: Making very simple math (there are more sophisticated detailed calculations, you should check them out).

OT books 39: 59 %
NT books 27: 41 %
Total books 66: 100 %

Since the NT has 27 books (41 % of the Bible)
But, 58 % of the NT is from the OT.

If you put together the 59 % of the OT and the 58 % of the OT that is in the NT (or the 58 % of the 41 %), you get approximately 83 %.

You can see in every book of the NT, how many quotations are from the OT. After doing this exercise, we will realize why we need to be clear about the customs, habits, culture, practices, etc, etc, …. of Israel, so we can understand correctly the OT and with that correct understanding of the OT, we can understand correctly the NT. If we “ignore Israelology” our understanding of the Scriptures will be wrong. The whole Bible is deliberately engineered and perfectly designed by God as a UNIT. Remember the 66 books constitute the Bible.

The point here is that we should be AWARE of the big role that Israel plays (Rom 9:4; Eph 2:11, 12) in the Bible, why? Because, this very point (absence of Israelology), is one of the reasons why W. Lee’s teachings have errors. W. Lee, applies to the church what is for Israel and also freely allegorizes the Scriptures. It is not a matter to try to say who is more important? Israel or the church? Similarly, Eschatology is 33 % of the Bible. Under W. Lee’s teaching I barely knew Eschatology because he did not teach much, and the little that I knew, all of it was wrong. Then the Bible also has Ecclesiology, and W. Lee’s Ecclesiology also is wrong, because he ignores Israelology and his Eschatology is wrong. All we have to do is to “honor and follow” what the Bible is showing to us. For this, we need to get very familiar with the text, context, structure, where different topics or words are mentioned, recognize what is a parable, a type, an allegory, a pun, a figure of speech (there are over 200 in the Bible), a simile, a metaphor, an analogy, an idiom (which there are many in the Jewish culture used in the Bible), a hypocatastasis, etc., etc., etc., …. There are over 200 in the Bible. If you read Rom 9, 10, 11; you will see how Israel and the church are related. By the way, the one (Paul, THE expert of Ecclesiology) who wrote about the church (Eph 3:3,4); is the same one who wrote 3 chapters (9-11) about Israel in Romans. Israel and the church have different roles in God’s plan (please read Rom 9, 10, 11). It is not a matter to try to say who is more important. But to understand what the Bible is telling us according to the whole counsel of God (Rev 1:1; 19:10; Jn 5:39; Ps 40:7; Mt 5:17, 18; Rom 15:4; Acts 20:27). By the way, Israel and the church belong to God, but please understand, their roles are different. It will be very helpful for yourself, if you check with some “respected” theologians this matter of “Israelology”. I did not come up on my own about this topic. I was ignorant in this respect (because I was studying ONLY W. Lee’s teachings), but thanks to God’s Mercy and Compassion I got to learn some and I am still learning.

The proper way to study the Bible and to avoid to be deceived by following the wrong teaching or interpretation is: First to have prayer and relationship with the Author (God) of the Bible (Jn 5:39,40), then we need to take notes as we read and study the Bible (God’s Word), lastly we can check with the commentaries of the theologians; NOT just ONE author, but 3 or 4. And try to understand why the interpretations differ. We need to do our homework and NOT to blindly believe the commentaries, learn from the Berean believers (Act 17:10,11).

You agree with the above paragraph about being the proper way to study, but in W. Lee’s group most of them when reading or studying the Bible, the first thing they do, is to look at what the footnotes are saying and even many of their leading ones, if there is a verse without a footnote, they say: “I cannot comment on this verse because there is no footnote”.

Again, I am not trying to convince you. All I want to do is to point out some things and show “why” I am saying what I am saying according to the Scriptures. Now everyone should do their homework and come to their own conclusions. Otherwise we will fall “again” in the same deception of W. Lee’s teaching and practices, where only one person knows everything and everyone follows blindly, and only they know everything, and only they are correct. This is all I can do for you at this point, again I am not trying to convince you, I am not claiming I know everything, you don’t have to believe what I say. You make your own conclusions.

[JesusLover]

Originally Posted by Drake

Unreg,

Thanks for your post. I'm going to respond in three parts. Otherwise a single post to cover different lines of thought will become too unwieldy. The three parts will be Israelology, interpretation of Revelation 12, and what Witness Lee actually taught concerning Israel. A fourth part concerning "allegory" has already been addressed in post #14. If you care to respond to that then please do so otherwise it stands as is.

Israelology: you have made the point several times that "83% of the Bible is related to Israel". At first I thought this was just a statistic you found interesting but since you are repeating it and placing so much value on it I see that it is central to your belief system. Let's have a closer look at that.

No matter how you calculate the 83% the way that you use it is a fallacy in argumentation. It is an Argumentum Ad Numerum and like the Tiny Percentage Fallacy that states "an action that is quite significant in and of itself somehow becomes insignificant simply because it's a tiny percentage of something much larger." Your argument is a Large Percentage Fallacy. By frequently referring to "83% of the Bible is about Israel" you are inflating it's significance based on statistics. For example, the word "law" is mentioned over twice as many times as the word "grace" in the Bible. What does that tell you? Nothing of significance because an argument needs to pivot on something that is relevant not on statistics or numbers.

Secondly, the church was the mystery hid from ages. Colossians 1:26 says "the mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations but now has been manifested to His saints". There would be less references in the Bible about the church for that reason alone. Is the church any less significant to God or to us if it were mentioned only 17% of the time in the Bible? Of course not.

I agree on the points you made on how to approach the Bible through prayer study and multiple references. Yet, I think you miss something that is also extremely important. We should not come to the Bible with filters on our glasses. When you approach the Bible thinking that "83% of the Bible is about Israel" you will be looking for confirmation in all that you read. That will cause a bias in your understanding. I believe that you are reading into the scriptures references to Israel any and every chance you get. By taking that approach you will get to 83% whether it is really there or not because your mind directs you to confirm it.

If you believe Israel is the dominant topic in the thought of God, and therefore should be in ours, you should justify this based on the scripture not on statistics and numbers.

Drake

Finally I took the time to register.
My user name is : JesusLover. Hopefully this will make things easier.

Answer:
I keep repeating Israelology because you keep asking and I think you are not understanding. Remember the title of my post and the development of the points.

Here I am repeating myself again, because you asked. Israelology: Making very simple math (there are more sophisticated detailed calculations, you should check them out).
OT books 39: 59 %
NT books 27: 41 %
Total books 66: 100 %
[COLOR=black]Since the NT has 27 books (41 % of the Bible) [COLOR]

But, 58 % of the NT is from the OT.

If you put together the 59 % of the OT and the 58 % of the OT that is in the NT (or the 58 % of the 41 %), you get approximately 83 %.

You can see in every book of the NT, how many quotations are from the OT. After doing this exercise, we will realize why we need to be clear about the customs, habits, culture, practices, etc, etc, …. of Israel, so we can understand correctly the OT and with that correct understanding of the OT, we can understand correctly the NT. If we “ignore Israelology” our understanding of the Scriptures will be wrong. The whole Bible is deliberately engineered and perfectly designed by God as a UNIT. Remember the 66 books constitute the Bible.

The point here is that we should be AWARE of the big role that Israel plays (Rom 9:4; Eph 2:11, 12) in the Bible, why? Because, this very point (absence of Israelology), is one of the reasons why W. Lee’s teachings have errors. W. Lee, applies to the church what is for Israel and also freely allegorizes the Scriptures. It is not a matter to try to say who is more important? Israel or the church? Similarly, Eschatology is 33 % of the Bible. Under W. Lee’s teaching I barely knew Eschatology because he did not teach much, and the little that I knew, all of it was wrong. Then the Bible also has Ecclesiology, and W. Lee’s Ecclesiology also is wrong, because he ignores Israelology and his Eschatology is wrong. All we have to do is to “honor and follow” what the Bible is showing to us. For this, we need to get very familiar with the text, context, structure, where different topics or words are mentioned, recognize what is a parable, a type, an allegory, a pun, a figure of speech (there are over 200 in the Bible), a simile, a metaphor, an analogy, an idiom (which there are many in the Jewish culture used in the Bible), a hypocatastasis, etc., etc., etc., …. There are over 200 in the Bible. If you read Rom 9, 10, 11; you will see how Israel and the church are related. By the way, the one (Paul, THE expert of Ecclesiology) who wrote about the church (Eph 3:3,4); is the same one who wrote 3 chapters (9-11) about Israel in Romans. Israel and the church have different roles in God’s plan (please read Rom 9, 10, 11). It is not a matter to try to say who is more important. But to understand what the Bible is telling us according to the whole counsel of God (Rev 1:1; 19:10; Jn 5:39; Ps 40:7; Mt 5:17, 18; Rom 15:4; Acts 20:27). By the way, Israel and the church belong to God, but please understand, their roles are different. It will be very helpful for yourself, if you check with some “respected” theologians this matter of “Israelology”. I did not come up on my own about this topic. I was ignorant in this respect (because I was studying ONLY W. Lee’s teachings), but thanks to God’s Mercy and Compassion I got to learn some and I am still learning.

The proper way to study the Bible and to avoid to be deceived by following the wrong teaching or interpretation is: First to have prayer and relationship with the Author (God) of the Bible (Jn 5:39,40), then we need to take notes as we read and study the Bible (God’s Word), lastly we can check with the commentaries of the theologians; NOT just ONE author, but 3 or 4. And try to understand why the interpretations differ. We need to do our homework and NOT to blindly believe the commentaries, learn from the Berean believers (Act 17:10,11).

You agree with the above paragraph about being the proper way to study, but in W. Lee’s group most of them when reading or studying the Bible, the first thing they do, is to look at what the footnotes are saying and even many of their leading ones, if there is a verse without a footnote, they say: “I cannot comment on this verse because there is no footnote”.
Again, I am not trying to convince you. All I want to do is to point out some things and show “why” I am saying what I am saying according to the Scriptures. Now everyone should do their homework and come to their own conclusions. Otherwise we will fall “again” in the same deception of W. Lee’s teaching and practices, where only one person knows everything and everyone follows blindly, and only they know everything, and only they are correct. This is all I can do for you at this point, again I am not trying to convince you, I am not claiming I know everything, you don’t have to believe what I say. You make your own conclusions.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JesusLover

.. in W. Lee’s group most of them when reading or studying the Bible, the first thing they do, is to look at what the footnotes are saying and even many of their leading ones, if there is a verse without a footnote, they say: “I cannot comment on this verse because there is no footnote”.

Some years ago I was in discussion of the Christian experience with an LC elder and a rank-and-file LC brother. I mentioned something that had touched me deeply from a set of verses, which had no RecV footnote or commentary. The elder simply looked straight ahead, mouth closed. The LC brother also froze because the elder didn't give him an opening. We sat there, quiet and motionless, for some time.

They couldn't deny that the point I had made was from the "clear words" in front of us, as Witness Lee used to say. But Lee hadn't made my point, so they couldn't receive it. But they couldn't argue against it, either. So they sat there.

Eventually one of us spoke on something else, and the conversation continued. But it was rather subdued after that. The "mutuality" had been damaged. I was apparently an independent thinker, and not a program zealot.

What was strange to me, was that my point wasn't on something obscure, but was directly related to the very person of Christ and His journey on earth, and His heart of love, and subsequent return in triumph and glory to the Father's house. But Lee hadn't commented, so neither could we. It could hardly have been any more wonderful, but to them it couldn't exist. (Even though they couldn't say that it didn't exist).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by JesusLover

Here I am repeating myself again, because you asked. Israelology: Making very simple math (there are more sophisticated detailed calculations, you should check them out).
OT books 39: 59 %
NT books 27: 41 %
Total books 66: 100 %
[COLOR=black]Since the NT has 27 books (41 % of the Bible) [COLOR]

But, 58 % of the NT is from the OT.

If you put together the 59 % of the OT and the 58 % of the OT that is in the NT (or the 58 % of the 41 %), you get approximately 83 %.

Yes, I understand your math and it is fatally flawed. What is this 58% of the OT that is in the NT? Is it the genealogy of Jesus showing us that Jesus is the Messiah, the one we should listen to, the one that the OT was pointing to? That doesn't weight the Bible towards the OT, it tilts it toward the NT.

Or is it all the verses where the Pharisees quoted OT laws about stoning sinners only to be rebuffed by Jesus. Once again, this does not tilt the NT towards an OT understanding, rather it tilts the Bible to seeing the OT through the eyes of Jesus.

Or is it the reference to Jesus as the lamb of God. All of the verses that demonstrate that Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT promises. Once again, this doesn't tilt the Bible towards Israelogy, rather it shows the NT was a type and shadow of the coming Jesus and the Church.

Your % of verses may be correct, but your interpretation of this tilting the understanding of the Bible to Israelogy and the OT is fatally flawed.

[countmeworthy]

In 2005, the Holy Spirit Who is the Person of the Godhead WHO reveals JESUS, THE TRUTH and reveals the FATHER revealed to me we were truly now living in the last days.

I began doing my homework and searching the scriptures prayerfully for understanding. I did not know the difference between the rapture and the second coming of Christ and neither could I find clarity in the RcV that I had!!!

Little by little I learned that even though Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are considered NT and the Jews do not read the gospels, those books are mainly written TO THE JEWS. Jesus came for the JEWS FIRST.

The NT does not truly begin until the death of Jesus and it is stated quite clearly in Hebrews 9.
For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a Testament is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even the first testament was not inaugurated without blood.

But most of the time, we believers think that everything in the gospel applies to us. Grant it, in some ways it does but when Jesus is talking to His disciples about His return, He is not referring to the Bride. The church is not really born until the Holy Spirit descended upon the 120 in the upper room on Pentecost, known as the Feast of Weeks or Shavout in Exodus 23, Leviticus 23 and Numbers 28.

The Bride is caught up before Jesus reveals Himself to the Jews as their Messiah at the Great Tribulation and the battle of Armageddon. Matthew 24 refers to the Tribulation that Israel and the non believers will undergo AFTER the Bride is caught up in the clouds to meet Jesus in the air in the twinkling of an eye.

I totally concur Revelation 12 is Israel and the Manchild is Jesus, their Messiah. The church is never MALE. The church is always female. Therefore the manchild cannot be the stronger part of the church! God never refers to any part of the church as male!

And btw.. there is going to be a great sign in the heavens in the constellation of Virgo on Sept 23rd. Look it up. It is a sign for Israel.

Blessings

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Answer: Satan’s seed is the Red Dragon, the coming world leader and the false prophet in Rev 12:3,…