LSM versus Christian teaching, 1965 - 2015

[aron]

On another thread, I challenged another person to find one minister that Witness Lee acknowledged between the years 1945 - 1995. That's 50 years. As far as I know, there were none.

The poster challenged me to come up with someone that Witness Lee should have listened to. I gave some names, and my reason. The person pressed the issue, and I'd like to take it up here, so as not to drag another person's thread off its track.

Originally Posted by Drake

Let’s stay with the argument you introduced and there is ample and endless time afterward for you to revert to your usual talking points.

You have recommended 5 men that should have guided Brother Lee between 1945 and 1995. Why these 5? What focus or insight would they EACH bring to the ministry of Witness Lee or to him personally?

I recommended about 10 ministers that I've felt easily had things to say, worth listening to. By Witness Lee and the Blendeds, as well as any seeking Christian.

1. They spoke Greek and Hebrew, and could access the text themselves, without Vincent or Vine or Wuest to coach them. Not a minor thing. To actually be able to read the text yourself.
2. They also learned from one another, and none of them presumed to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth. Lee with his various scandals easily showed fruit (to me) that he was not the end-all and be-all he claimed, and was thus a charlatan presiding over naifs and dupes.

Now, to the challenge. Are there any ministers out there between the years 1965 and 2015 that are worth listening to? Has anyone learned anything at all? Or is the LSM the only source of truth and light? I'd like to open the floor.

(I've changed the years to reflect newer sources. I've read some work published since 1995 that was worth reading, and we should keep the discussion up-to-date. So word studies from 1887 are not included, here. They are not bad, per se, but that isn't the challenge. Lee said "there's nothing new").

[aron]

First off, for reasons 1 and 2, I feel that ANYTHING written by the 10 ministers that I cited is preferable to Witness Lee's output.

But I'd like to be more specific.

First off, the perils of being a teacher in a subject you don't know. On the forum, I learned that 'ekklesia' meant 'assembly', or 'meeting', not 'church'. Lee never told me that. He translated 'ekklesia' one way or another depending on if he could call it 'church' or not. So "one church per city" is based on a false premise, not knowing what the Greek actually meant.

Second, I learned that "oikonomia" meant "Stewardship", which implied responsibility and obedience. Look at the parable of the "unrighteous steward" that Jesus taught. Lee instead focused on Paul's use, and ignored Jesus' parable. Lee said it was "dispensing". Again, ignorance is okay if your audience is more ignorant than you, and you can convince them of your word tricks.

[aron]

Now, to my scholars. I will pick one, and open it up to the floor.

Boyarin. Teaches at Berkeley. Knows more about early Christian history than I do, and Lee and the Blendeds. Not a believer. But what a read!

He says ("Border Lines") that the Christians (e.g., Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Cyril of Alexandria) were antagonistic to the Jews. Can't be a Jew and a Christian, says Irenaeus. But I think, if there is every tribe and tongue and nation, all come in, why not the Jews? If Paul says you can't force the Greeks to live like the Jews, why can you force the Jews to live like the Greeks? I perceive big trouble, brewing here.

Notice that at this time, Christianity was spreading. There was no Islam in the Levant. Iran(Persia) was becoming Christian. Turkey was Christian. Greece. Iraq. Jordan. Syria. North Africa. Europe. Asia (India). Egypt. Ethiopia.

But what happened when the Greeks took over, and the Jews were pushed out? They (the Greeks) fought over words like "nature" and "essence" and were divided. Now Islam could come onto the scene, because Christianity was divided.

Look up the Council of Chalcedon. 600 years before the Great Schism, 6 groups left the one faith because they couldn't agree over Greek terms that even today they struggle to interpret. Philosophy rent asunder the tree of life. And I connect this to the loss of the Jews from the Christian testimony. Boyarin helped me see this.

An example. I can learn today, from reading other witnesses, besides Witness Lee. I'm sure there are other examples out there. I open it up to the floor. Thank you, and peace.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

First off, the perils of being a teacher in a subject you don't know. On the forum, I learned that 'ekklesia' meant 'assembly', or 'meeting', not 'church'. Lee never told me that. He translated 'ekklesia' one way or another depending on if he could call it 'church' or not. So "one church per city" is based on a false premise, not knowing what the Greek actually meant.

Not to naysay your thread, but here I'm having trouble following here.

As a rule, the Lord and the Apostles did take common words, mostly Greek ones, and attach special meanings to them that carried spiritual connotations. For example the Greek word "pneuma" which to the Greeks meant (Kittel abridged p. 876) "wind or breath" and by extension "life or even soul." To the Biblical Authors, however, pneuma took on a whole new semantic. We could discuss dozens of other Greek words, like ekklesia or charis, in a similar construct. Thus the translator must decide, often with some difficulty, what the writer originally intended, hence the variant translations of "church, assembly, or congregation."

Concordant translations attempt to remedy this apparent translation incongruity by fixing one English word to each Greek word. If you have ever read one of these translations, such as the Concordant Literal New Testament by A.E. Knoch you readily understand the difficulty. (Btw, he was the grandfather of the former, and quite beloved Anaheim elder, who resigned under pressure with John Ingalls during the Philip Lee scandal.)

The "one church per city" doctrine is based on false premises, but in my view not a translation problem. The New Testament never prescribes "one church per city" nor "one assembly per city."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Concordant translations attempt to remedy this apparent translation incongruity by fixing one English word to each Greek word.

But sometimes we can't use one word, and have to use several. The RecV does the same thing as the other translations. Acts 17:41 "And with these words he dismissed the assembly". We can't use the word church because it doesn't fit.

But I was left to find this out on my own. So am I the sole oracle of God, unable to learn from others? No. I'm just another bozo on the bus. Like you and Witness Lee. The LSM problem wasn't that they were imperfect. It is that they pretended to be the end-all and be-all. "Nobody else has anything of value."

So I ask, Does anyone out there besides Witness Lee have anything of value? Is Drake right?

I used Daniel Boyarin as an example of someone who showed me something. The Christian schism was not caused by unbelievers but by believers, fighting over abstract overlays like "nature". And this followed hard upon the expulsion of the Jews from the assembly of the faith.

Originally the assembly was all Jews. Then they let in the gentiles. Then the gentiles expelled the Jews (See e.g., 'Dialog with Trypho the Jew'). Then the gentiles turned on each other.

So I learned something, and not from Lee or the LSM. Fancy that.

Anyone else?

[aron]

The LSM model says, "Christianity got degraded", and so there's this need of recovery. But how did it get degraded? I always read people like Cyril uncritically. I mean, he's a doctor of the church!

But then I read of his expulsion of the Jews from Alexandria, and the 'Christian' mob that literally tore apart the pagan philosopher Hypatia at his incitement. I read Justin with new eyes. I think about what Ireneaus said. I negin to think, to consider, to possibly see. Lee never brought me any of that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

First off, the perils of being a teacher in a subject you don't know. On the forum, I learned that 'ekklesia' meant 'assembly', or 'meeting', not 'church'. Lee never told me that. He translated 'ekklesia' one way or another depending on if he could call it 'church' or not. So "one church per city" is based on a false premise, not knowing what the Greek actually meant.

On this matter I think you have no case because "called out assembly" is Lee's preferred definition for the word ekklesia, not church. If you had read Lee's books you would have understood well that ekklesia means assembly. In a number of his books Lee defines ekklesia as the assembly or congregation. Lee writes it is best to translate ekklesia as assembly, not church. He also cites Darby who renders ekklesia as "assembly".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On this matter I think you have no case because "called out assembly" is Lee's preferred definition for the word ekklesia, not church. If you had read Lee's books you would have understood well that ekklesia means assembly. In a number of his books Lee defines ekklesia as the assembly or congregation. Lee writes it is best to translate ekklesia as assembly, not church. He also cites Darby who renders ekklesia as "assembly".

But there can clearly be more than one assembly per city. In the LSM/lc they do it all the time - they just relabel them meetings. But the Greek is the same.

Do you think anyone out there besides Lee had value, in the years 1965 - 2015?

I give Boyarin as my example.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Second, I learned that "oikonomia" meant "Stewardship", which implied responsibility and obedience. Look at the parable of the "unrighteous steward" that Jesus taught. Lee instead focused on Paul's use, and ignored Jesus' parable. Lee said it was "dispensing". Again, ignorance is okay if your audience is more ignorant than you, and you can convince them of your word tricks.

Lee says oikonomia means stewardship, right here:

http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...T-ECONOMY.HTML

and here:

http://www.ministrysamples.org/excer...ODS-GRACE.HTML

Lee taught responsibility and obedience towards "God's economy", or house-management, stewardship, administration , so again, you have no case.

What Lee did, in Life-Study of Ephesians for example, is tie God's economy back to God's grace and our salvation. This is where the meaning of dispensing (of God as Grace) comes in. If you take out the dispensing you are taking out God's grace!

Did any of these other authors you cite who talk about oikonomia talk about the dispensing of God's grace (as Lee did)?

If not, I cannot see how these would add more value or be more valuable to a born again Christian.

On the one hand, we can have a "dry" definition of what oikonomia means from very knowledgeable people and they are in most cases correct. Now anyone could interpret God's administration as the religious organizations and authorities and the rules and traditions that they should or must follow.

But Lee presents it in a way which ties it back to God's grace and our fellowship with other believers - this is the dispensing, and comes back to the core essence of what God's administration is about. This is why Lee is more valuable than Boyarin, who as an unbeliever does not know about God's grace.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But there can clearly be more than one assembly per city. In the LSM/lc they do it all the time - they just relabel them meetings. But the Greek is the same.

Do you think anyone out there besides Lee had value, in the years 1965 - 2015?

I give Boyarin as my example.

"One church per city" does not mean one assembly or meeting per city.

If it did, we would not have multiple meetings per city would we?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On this matter I think you have no case because "called out assembly" is Lee's preferred definition for the word ekklesia, not church. If you had read Lee's books you would have understood well that ekklesia means assembly. In a number of his books Lee defines ekklesia as the assembly or congregation. Lee writes it is best to translate ekklesia as assembly, not church. He also cites Darby who renders ekklesia as "assembly".

Aron,

Thanks for starting this thread.

The above is correct. The called out assembly definition iwas one of the first changes to my understanding of "a church" when I came into the Lord's Recovery.

It's well documented.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Aron has asked

"Do you think anyone out there besides Lee had value, in the years 1965 - 2015?"

To answer such a question we must first define value, or what is valuable, and it really depends.

I found the writings of Daniel Wallace valuable on the topics of the role of women in the church and whether or not the English bible has significant translation errors in it. I could not address these matters using Lee's life studies, for example, as they are not for that purpose.

Aron has said that he found Boyarin valuable. On the matter of oikonomia I find Lee to be valuable because he ties it back to God's grace. I doubt that Boyarin's definitions would be valuable to me because he does not know about God's grace.

In general I find that Lee or Nee has already covered the most important things that we should know, in relation to our salvation. While there are many authors out there who can cover the same or similar ground, they generally do not present it in a holistic way or in terms of our salvation that we can understand on a personal level. I find Lee's books often have more depth and detail but without becoming too unnecessarily theological or doctrinal.

For example Rick Warren's purpose driven life has nothing on Lee's book "The Purpose of God’s Salvation" which starts with Christ being the purpose which I think is a fundamental truth. Warren's book is more about us using our gifts and talents and becoming what God wants us to be.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Now, to my scholars. I will pick one, and open it up to the floor.

Boyarin. Teaches at Berkeley. Knows more about early Christian history than I do, and Lee and the Blendeds. Not a believer. But what a read!.

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

... you never offered the scriptural basis for a ministry needing surround themselves with other ministries or theologians.

In the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem there was "much discussion" before consensus was reached. In the Lee Model - One Ministry Solo - much discussion is akin to rebellion, or at least uncertainty. Decisions are made by fiat.

The Lee Model is not biblical. It is Oriental Despotism.

That's fine when the Despot is Jesus. Not fine when the Despot is a fellow sinner, struggling to make it home to the Father. In the Lee Model we have to naively assume that the Max Minister Solo is somehow transformed beyond failure.

Instead we have Max Minister Solo installing his sinful son who ravages the churches. Failure. This does not "build up the church", all the published books notwithstanding.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

Boyarin sees that the Christian theology necessitated itself on defining an "Other" which was the Jews. They defined themselves out of their source.

Then (this is my idea, not from Boyarin) the gentile-only Church began to break apart as the abstract overlays, undefinable and unprovable, became levers and wedges for Satan to install himself in the flock.

Lee and now Kangas and Philips say, "The church became degraded". They don't show how. Boyarin shows us how.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Aron has said that he found Boyarin valuable. On the matter of oikonomia I find Lee to be valuable because he ties it back to God's grace. .

On the matter of Oikonomia I do not find Lee to be valuable because in the parable of Jesus (Luke 16:1-8) Oikonomia is not about grace but about stewardship, or responsibility, or obedience. (See the Greek of verse 3: "Oikonomian") It goes all the way back to the fall in Genesis 3. Obedience.

Jesus was the Obedient Lamb of God. He was the Obedient Steward. We see Him by faith, and live. That is grace. But even then He asks us to obey.

The Lee-esque cheap grace is worthless, because we don't see Jesus' obedience. It's just the Processed Triune God. A conceptual, abstract smoothie.

No value to me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Thanks for starting this thread.

The above is correct. The called out assembly definition iwas one of the first changes to my understanding of "a church" when I came into the Lord's Recovery.

It's well documented.

Drake

Then why is Psalm 22 translated "assembly" but Hebrews 2:12 which quotes Psalm 22 it is translated "church"? If "assembly" is preferred, why not consistency?

Did Lee bend to convention here, and go against his preference? Why doesn't Lee explain this discrepancy - where is the documentation you say exists? I've never seen it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example Rick Warren's purpose driven life has nothing on Lee's book "The Purpose of God’s Salvation" which starts with Christ being the purpose which I think is a fundamental truth. Warren's book is more about us using our gifts and talents and becoming what God wants us to be.

You'll notice in the conversation that began this thread (elsewhere) I never cited Warren. I don't find him bad per se, but not very interesting.

If Lee is 3rd grade, Warren is also 3rd grade. Neither one is very substantive.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem there was "much discussion" before consensus was reached. In the Lee Model - One Ministry Solo - much discussion is akin to rebellion, or at least uncertainty. Decisions are made by fiat.

The Lee Model is not biblical. It is Oriental Despotism.

That's fine when the Despot is Jesus. Not fine when the Despot is a fellow sinner, struggling to make it home to the Father. In the Lee Model we have to naively assume that the Max Minister Solo is somehow transformed beyond failure.

Instead we have Max Minister Solo installing his sinful son who ravages the churches. Failure. This does not "build up the church", all the published books notwithstanding.

I followed the GLA quarantines fairly closely, having lived thru this stuff for years. The closest they ever got to an Acts 15 conference was the Phoenix Accord. LSM and its Blendeds never honored that dictum.

LSM's basis for quarantine was never the Word of God. They constantly went back to the biased and self-serving teachings of Lee. How else do you justify excommunications for young people playing guitars and old people writing books?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

Why would you have a problem with that?

LSM had an unsaved profligate running the show for years, with all the elders and co-workers submitting to him.

What value did Philip Lee bring to your Christian ministry?

Oh yeah, he was Witness Lee's most trusted co-worker.

Oriental Despotism at its best.

[aron]

Drake, the scripture repeatedly says that in many counselors is safety. Where were the many counselors when Daystar was launched? When the Young Galileans or the New Move was enrolled? Who if anyone counseled when Philip Lee was installed?

And that went for theology too. No idea was too wacky. If Lee liked it, we sang a ditty forthwith. Nobody counseled.

That's why I said that he only listened to the voices in his head.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

On the matter of Oikonomia I do not find Lee to be valuable because in the parable of Jesus (Luke 16:1-8) Oikonomia is not about grace but about stewardship, or responsibility, or obedience. (See the Greek of verse 3: "Oikonomian") It goes all the way back to the fall in Genesis 3. Obedience.

Jesus was the Obedient Lamb of God. He was the Obedient Steward. We see Him by faith, and live. That is grace. But even then He asks us to obey.

The Lee-esque cheap grace is worthless, because we don't see Jesus' obedience. It's just the Processed Triune God. A conceptual, abstract smoothie.

No value to me.

Possibly many Christians, especially evangelicals, and especially Calvinists, would struggle to accept this idea of God's grace, i.e. unmerited favor, being so tied to obedience. The whole point of salvation is that mankind could not obey, and this is why God had to give us grace:

Gal 3:2
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

God's administration, depends upon His grace (and Christ's obedience), and not our obedience.

The ekklesia, or the called-out ones assembling together are existing and depend on God's grace, and not their own obedience.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee and now Kangas and Philips say, "The church became degraded". They don't show how. Boyarin shows us how.

How does Boyarin show us how Ephesus degraded?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

... where is the documentation you say exists? I've never seen it.

Too numerous to list. Go to lsm.org, click "online publications" and in the search field type ekklesia.

Here is one reference posted here for your convenience.


1. The Called Out Assembly, or the Assembly of the Called Out Ones

In the Bible the church is first called the assembly. This is revealed by the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 16:18, where He speaks concerning the universal aspect of the church, and in 18:17, where He speaks concerning the local aspect of the church. The Greek word translated “church” in these verses is ekklesia, composed of two words: ek, out, and kaleo, called. Put together, these two words mean a called out congregation or an assembly of the called ones. Hence, according to the literal sense of the word, the church is the assembly of those called out of the world by God.

In ancient times the mayor of a city would sometimes call the people together as a congregation, as an assembly, for a particular purpose. The Greek word used to denote such a gathering is ekklesia (cf. Acts 19:41). The point we would emphasize here is that the word ekklesia, according to biblical usage, refers to the church as a called out congregation. The church is a congregation called out of the world unto God for His purpose. It is much better to translate ekklesia not as church but as assembly. The Brethren teachers insisted on this, and the congregations among the Brethren were known as the Brethren assemblies. I agree with their use of the word assembly. The word assembly is better than the word church.

Although there is no plain mentioning of the church in the Old Testament, there is a picture concerning the church as the assembly. When the children of Israel went out of Egypt, they came to the foot of Mount Sinai. There they were formed into one coordinated entity to assemble before God with the tabernacle as the center and the twelve tribes as the circumference encamping around the tabernacle (Num. 2). Thus, they became one corporate body, the ekklesia, the assembly of God’s called ones. For this reason, the New Testament calls them the ekklesia (Acts 7:38, the word assembly is ekklesia). On the one hand, they were called out by God from Egypt (signifying the world); on the other hand, they were the congregation gathering before God. The children of Israel did not have the nature of the church; they were merely a type, a picture, showing us that the church is the assembling together of those who have been called out of the world by God through His redemption and saving power."

Conclusion of the New Testament, Message 207, Witness Lee

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem there was "much discussion" before consensus was reached.

Try again, aron.

In Acts 15 those in fellowship were all in the same ministry.. The law mentality was the problem in the first place as stated plainly in v5. They did not invite unbelieving scribes and Pharisees to advise them. That would have been against the NT principle. In the same way, your idea to include Boyarin or unbelieving scholars like him as a counselor to a christian ministry is unscriptural and violates the principle of the NT ministry.

Drake

[HERn]

I don't think what you copied and pasted above is documentation. It's more like self-publication. WL had his own publishing house, his own being blended coworkers and compliant elders. I don't think you are a scholar and know what documentation really is? Anybody can self-publish anything.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

You are advocating that a Christian ministry add as counselor and advisor a man (Boyarin) who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Exactly, what value could he add to this or any other Christian ministry in that role?

Drake

I also don't think it is helpful to your argument, aron, that you would choose an unbeliever as your first example.

[Drake]

-2

HERn, that is documentation referencing how Brother Lee defined ekklesia. That is what I was asked to provide.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The whole point of salvation is that mankind could not obey, .

But mankind did eventually obey. Jesus was a man, obedient even to the death. Without this there is nothing.

Even our faith is His faith, transposed. "He [Jesus] trusted Him [the Father]; let Him [the Father] save Him [Jesus the Christ] now"

Notice that the NT calls it the "faith of Christ", not the "faith in Christ"; it is His faith now operating in us that saves.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The ekklesia, or the called-out ones assembling together are existing and depend on God's grace, and not their own obedience..

It is not our obedience but His. Jesus is forevermore the Obedient Lamb of God. It is only through this that He is our Great Shepherd. Our so-called grace without His faith and obedience is nothing.

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

I feel that the 'ekklesia' should be teaching the 'oikonomeia' of Luke 16. The stewardship, the kingdom, the obedience of one lonely Man. But the Father was always with Him. The distribution or dispensing that Lee always referenced requires stewardship: continual, diligent, sustained responsibility. Jesus is ever before us, showing us the way.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

"I agree with their use of the word assembly. The word assembly is better than the word church."

Conclusion of the New Testament, Message 207, Witness Lee

So why did Lee use the word that he admits was worse? Mere convention? That's the explanation I sought. Why would one translate a word - 'ekklesia' - one manner in one place and another elsewhere? A sop to the unruly mob?

Same with 'oikonomeia' for that matter - he does it willy-nilly and doesn't explain why. I feel it's a combination of ignorance and indifference. (And in this I don't judge. We're all myopic. But I didn't re-write the Bible - Lee did, and it's his deliberate [and degenerate] act of revisionism that I'm challenging).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I also don't think it is helpful to your argument, aron, that you would choose an unbeliever as your first example.

Okay. I used it as an example of how we could learn from someone's ministry, other than Lee. I learned to think critically about the "Fathers", where before I was passively uncritical.

Something went terribly wrong with the faith. And, why did the faith of Christ go from 100% Jewish to 100% gentile? And are these two statements related, and how?

And what was the consequence of that transition, from Jewish to Greek? Chalcedon [philosophy, camps, schisms, rupture]? And thus an open doorway for Islam?

But if it makes people uncomfortable nevermind. I'll use another example, an overtly Christian one.

(And most of Boyarin's thought I don't follow. He just gave me a fresh set of eyes to look at an old problem. Valuable)

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Try again, aron.

In Acts 15 those in fellowship were all in the same ministry.. The law mentality was the problem in the first place as stated plainly in v5. They did not invite unbelieving scribes and Pharisees to advise them. That would have been against the NT principle. In the same way, your idea to include Boyarin or unbelieving scholars like him as a counselor to a christian ministry is unscriptural and violates the principle of the NT ministry.

Drake

Okay so where are the Christians who advised Lee circa 1945-1995? I see none. Where are the 'many counselors' that the scripture repeatedly recommends? You say none existed to counsel Lee. I started this thread to address that assertion.

Maybe you are right. We shall see.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

How does Boyarin show us how Ephesus degraded?

The denial of their Jewish roots was ultimately as devastating for Christian (and world) history as the denial of their Messiah was for the Jews. Witness Lee never suggested that to me. Boyarin suggested that. In Ephesus the love for abstract philosophy (very Greek) may have already been supplanting the love for God, which is our faint reflection of God's love for us in sending His Son.

In Ephesus the light was already dimming.

[aron]

https://www.amazon.com/Psalms-Hebrew.../dp/0567198847

This is an example of Christian scholarship that the LSM/lc would do well to heed.

Why? Because the authors don't arrogantly assume they know everything. "I sit a queen, I am rich and need nothing."

Also, these authors actually learned the languages, and studied. (I know, Lee was too busy building the Body. Besides he had revelation straight from God. Who needs to study? But still . . .) Instead of looking at the scripture and saying "this means that", they also look at primary and secondary sources. (Which means you probably need to be able to read.)

The LSM would do well to humble themselves and learn from others. Then maybe others would be able to learn something from them. All one can learn today is arrogance and separatism. That is not holiness.

I said that Lee was a megalomaniac, and received counsel from no one. Drake said no one was qualified. Perhaps he is right. . . I open the discussion to our readers.

Are or were there any Christian ministries/ministers that the LSM/lc would do well to heed?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Okay so where are the Christians who advised Lee circa 1945-1995? I see none. Where are the 'many counselors' that the scripture repeatedly recommends? You say none existed to counsel Lee. I started this thread to address that assertion.

Maybe you are right. We shall see.

To be precise.... what I said is that your idea of a Christian ministry surrounding itself with theologians, believers and/or unbelievers alike, as advisers and counselors to carry out that ministry is unscriptural and violates the NT ministry principle.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The denial of their Jewish roots was ultimately as devastating for Christian (and world) history as the denial of their Messiah was for the Jews. Witness Lee never suggested that to me. Boyarin suggested that. In Ephesus the love for abstract philosophy (very Greek) may have already been supplanting the love for God, which is our faint reflection of God's love for us in sending His Son.

In Ephesus the light was already dimming.

Aron, you said something ....but not exactly ...so I will ask you to clarify this or acknowledge it.

Ephesus left her first love. Your saying that the first love there is the love for God tied to its Jewish roots and Ephesus left that for the love for abstract Greek philosophy. Boyarin suggested that to you.

Correct? If not, please clarify.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

To be precise.... what I said is that your idea of a Christian ministry surrounding itself with theologians, believers and/or unbelievers alike, as advisers and counselors to carry out that ministry is unscriptural and violates the NT ministry principle.

Drake

Yes, except "Jewish roots" is imprecise.

To be precise, the Man who loved the LORD was Jewish. His name was Jesus. He loved God and obeyed Him. In this Obedient Man we have the pathway home. Both Jews and Greeks.

He is the Messiah, the King.

Now, why did the Greeks split? (Remember, by the split(s) the Jews were long gone). Over abstract concepts like "nature", which if you ask the Eastern Orthodox and Greek Orthodox today, they just shrug and say, "It's hard to understand". So I see the tree of knowledge, "doctrinal truth", coming in and ruining the assembly.

And I sense that this may be the case in Ephesus as well.

But no, not "Jewish roots". Jesus. The Obedient Jew. The King of the Jews. The Lamb of God. The Messiah. His template was entirely Jewish. Entirely.

Psalm 116
1*
I love the Lord, for he heard my voice;
****he heard my cry for mercy.
2*
Because he turned his ear to me,
****I will call on him as long as I live.


Who loved the LORD? The Son, Jesus. The Father heard His cry, and saved Him from the pit of death. Peter's gospel message in Acts 2 is all too clear to me. This is the Messiah. "God has saved Him from death, and has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

The context was all lost when the Greeks took over. It all became abstract theology, and we took to knives over our truths. And that goes all the way to today. So Boyarin helped me, to see critically some of the early writings, that there was bias.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

To be precise.... what I said is that your idea of a Christian ministry surrounding itself with theologians, believers and/or unbelievers alike, as advisers and counselors to carry out that ministry is unscriptural and violates the NT ministry principle.

Drake

So why did Watchman Nee read 3,000 theologians? And we are not supposed to? Why did Nee get a pass to study, and then when he put pen to paper, suddenly all Christian scholarship was rendered null and void?

To me you are flip-flopping. Why could Nee do it in 1923 but Joe Christian can't do it in 2017?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

So why did Watchman Nee read 3,000 theologians? And we are not supposed to? Why did Nee get a pass to study, and then when he put pen to paper, suddenly all Christian scholarship was rendered null and void?

To me you are flip-flopping. Why could Nee do it in 1923 but Joe Christian can't do it in 2017?

Wait. No flip flopping. We are talking about two different things. One is surrounding a ministry with counselors. The other is reading, watching, or listening to different perspectives. I myself read many authors ancient and contemporary.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Wait. No flip flopping. We are talking about two different things. One is surrounding a ministry with counselors. The other is reading, watching, or listening to different perspectives.

Proverbs 15:22 Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers

Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Are you telling me the Proverbs are not scriptural? Or are the Proverbs are against a "NT principle" that you've derived? If so, why did Paul allow many counselors in Acts 15? Wasn't he the Big Boffo Apostle at that point?

Originally Posted by Drake

I myself read many authors ancient and contemporary.

Well Lee didn't, and I'm wondering why he told us he hadn't learned anything in 45 years from anyone? Was he really that enlightened, and spiritually mature? Or was he hiding his ignorance? I strongly suspect the latter. But if nobody comes forward with anything, maybe you are right. Maybe "Christianity" is the barren wasteland Lee and his Blendeds told us it was.

But I believe they're trying to hide their impoverishment - that's what's behind the One Publication Edict. Don't let the sheep know there's food out there. It's a way to hide ignorance. Don't let your children go to school. Then they'll never be ashamed that Mommy and Daddy can't read.

Here's what we give the LSM/lc sheep instead -- Jesus was a Prophet like Moses. Acts 2 and 7 quote Deuteronomy in this. Why? Because Jesus was a human, and Moses was a human, and also because Jesus prophesied, as Moses did. They both "spoke forth God". There's your high peak ministry. "Here we have all His riches, here we have given up our search."

Maybe Drake is right. Maybe there is no Christian ministry out there, circa 1965 - 2015 that added anything of merit. Maybe that's the best we can do. I leave it open to the forum.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Proverbs 15:22 Plans fail for lack of counsel,
****but with many advisers they succeed.

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers

Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Are you telling me the Proverbs are not scriptural? Or are the Proverbs against a "NT principle" that you've derived? If so, why did Paul allow many counselors in Acts 15? Wasn't he the Big Boffo Apostle at that point?

Let’s put to rest this point.......this is not about reading, listening, or watching other perspectives. You like Boyarin, have at it and read away. I have many authors I like for the same reason. No one has ever told me otherwise. I prefer the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee because they include in them three parts. First, they incorporate the best of the scriptural and orthodox teachings that have been recovered since Martin Luther, those are the shoulders we are standing on. Secondly, they include the revelation of the building of the Body of Christ through the local churches as the basis of the unity of all believers to bring the Lord back and establish His kingdom on earth with a His bride. Third, they impart the life of Christ that we may grow in Him and participate in the building up of a His Body by the experience of grace upon grace with all those who meet in mutuality.

Now, to your question about counselors. Let’s use Acts 15. If you mean by counselors the example in Acts 15 then I agree. But they are not the type of counselors you were suggesting. They were all in the same ministry and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit directly in that fellowship. That is the NT principle. It is Christ the Head directing the members of His Body to carry out His will in each and every situation.

Drake

[Ohio]

Drake, I know you can't bear to respond to my trying posts, so I write for others.

Originally Posted by Drake

I prefer the writings of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee because they include in them three parts. First, they incorporate the best of the scriptural and orthodox teachings that have been recovered since Martin Luther, those are the shoulders we are standing on.

I found this statement nothing more than age old talk. Perhaps you believe it for yourself, but the LSM bosses don't practice the same. For example:

• W. Lee claimed to to stand on WN's vision, but in reality he made up the rules as needed. His leadership never matched Nee's book TNCCL
• The Blendeds never followed Lee's teachings, but made up their own rules as needed in order to eliminate potential rivals.

"Standing on the shoulders" can mean anything you like today.

Originally Posted by Drake

Secondly, they include the revelation of the building of the Body of Christ through the local churches as the basis of the unity of all believers to bring the Lord back and establish His kingdom on earth with a His bride.

It does take some of us a little time to see thru this, but your "revelation" is nothing more than heaps of doctrine, based on Exclusive Brethren writings. Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that knowledge only puffs up, while love builds up. Sure you can use grandiose and flowery verbiage to tickle the ears of the faithful, but nothing more will ever happen without the Lord's command to "love one another." Endless lawsuits and quarantines are merely evidence of the long lost love of God.

Originally Posted by Drake

Third, they impart the life of Christ that we may grow in Him and participate in the building up of a His Body by the experience of grace upon grace with all those who meet in mutuality.

Over time, due to unrighteousness at LSM, the anointing on this ministry has all but vanished. In place of love, life, and grace upon grace are endless doctrines loosely based on scripture. Even Lee realized that the LC's were Laodicean in every way, and told us so. Today there is little more than the ministry of condemnation upon all except those few ministry loyalists, and for them a legalistic system of demands in order to stay in LSM's good graces.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Proverbs 15:22 Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.

Proverbs 11:14 For lack of guidance a nation falls, but victory is won through many advisers

Proverbs 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Are you telling me the Proverbs are not scriptural? Or are the Proverbs are against a "NT principle" that you've derived? If so, why did Paul allow many counselors in Acts 15? Wasn't he the Big Boffo Apostle at that point?

Well Lee didn't, and I'm wondering why he told us he hadn't learned anything in 45 years from anyone? Was he really that enlightened, and spiritually mature? Or was he hiding his ignorance? I strongly suspect the latter. But if nobody comes forward with anything, maybe you are right. Maybe "Christianity" is the barren wasteland Lee and his Blendeds told us it was.

But I believe they're trying to hide their impoverishment - that's what's behind the One Publication Edict. Don't let the sheep know there's food out there. It's a way to hide ignorance. Don't let your children go to school. Then they'll never be ashamed that Mommy and Daddy can't read.

Here's what we give the LSM/lc sheep instead -- Jesus was a Prophet like Moses. Acts 2 and 7 quote Deuteronomy in this. Why? Because Jesus was a human, and Moses was a human, and also because Jesus prophesied, as Moses did. They both "spoke forth God". There's your high peak ministry. "Here we have all His riches, here we have given up our search."

Maybe Drake is right. Maybe there is no Christian ministry out there, circa 1965 - 2015 that added anything of merit. Maybe that's the best we can do. I leave it open to the forum.

I know what you are doing.

People have tried the 'we don't need teachers' line before. Now you are trying the 'we need lots of other teachers' line.

I'm surprised that at this point no one has told you that the only counsellor or teacher we need is the Holy Spirit. At least that's what they told me. If I had written what you did someone would have pounced and wrote that. Maybe they give you a free pass since you are giving it to Lee. Maybe their silence is indicative of their hypocrisy.

Note that the verse you quoted says wise counsel. It is not the quantity of counselors but the quality. The unbelieving counsellors would not be considered wise counsel. It is unwise for believers to get counsel from an unbeliever or anyone from another religion.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Let’s put to rest this point.......this is not about reading, listening, or watching other perspectives.

Well I guess I have not done a very good job. Sorry.

Just find it surprising that there were 3,000 quality Christian works for Nee to draw on in the 1920s, and none since. Something worth remarking upon, no? Once Nee began to write, "fallen and degraded Christianity" had its inspirational well run dry. Right? Or, no?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is not the quantity of counselors but the quality.

So if Witness Lee counsels me that Jesus Christ was a prophet like Moses, and that is because Jesus was a human being like Moses and he prophesied like Moses, do I have the right to say this is poor quality counsel? Do I have the right to find other counsel? Or is that "rebellion" and "division"?

The LSM/lc line is that God raised up Watchman Nee and Witness Lee to shed the light on darkened humanity in this last age. All other Christian counsel was rendered moot by these ministers. But I find them as unsatisfying as Drake & you find them satisfying. And I find others as satisfying as Drake and you say they're poor quality.

I just think it is interesting that a movement that was 100% Jewish became 100% gentile within several centuries. And if a writer points out the anti-Jewish cant of some of the Fathers (Irenaeus, Cyril, Jerome) it really doesn't matter to me what that person's nationality or culture is.

Now, it may be that the writer is incorrect. It may be that they have a bias. But the fact that it caused me to consider something, I take it as from the Holy Spirit. And the fact that none of the Christian writers that I'm familiar with have covered this, in this case Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Protestant writers, makes me very interested.

Why did the church go from being 100% Jewish to 100% non-Jewish so quickly? What was lost in the transition? Did that connect with the schisms that erupted (Chalcedon)?

I'm amazed that nobody is curious. "We love the Lord!!" we all cry in unison, but we are studiously indifferent to our own history, to questioning. I find it simply amazing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

So if Witness Lee counsels me that Jesus Christ was a prophet like Moses, and that is because he was a human being like Moses and he prophesied like Moses, do I have the right to say this is poor quality counsel? Do I have the right to find other counsel? Or is that "rebellion" and "division"?

The LSM/lc line is that God raised up Watchman Nee and Witness Lee to shed the light on darkened humanity in this last age. All other Christian counsel was rendered moot by these ministers.

But I find them as unsatisfying as Drake & you find them satisfying. And I find others as satisfying as Drake and you say they're poor quality. So it is a subjective assessment. Neither you nor I are "right" perhaps, it is a preference thing. And you outvote me 2 to 1 so congratulations.

I just think it is interesting that a movement that was 100% Jewish became 100% gentile. And if a writer points out the anti-Jewish cant of some of the Fathers (Irenaeus, Cyril, Jerome) it really doesn't matter to me what that person's nationality or culture is.

Now, it may be that writer is incorrect. It may be that they have a bias, and are pulling me away. But the fact that it caused me to consider something, I take from the Holy Spirit. And the fact that none of the Christian writers that I'm familiar with have covered this, in this case Witness Lee and Watchman Nee and the Protestant writers, makes me very interested.

Why did the church go from being 100% Jewish to 100% non-Jewish so quickly? What was lost in the transition? Did that connect with the schisms that erupted (Chalcedon)?

I'm amazed that nobody is curious. "We love the Lord!!" we cry in unison, but we are studiously indifferent to our own history, to questioning. Well, that is my counsel. Perhaps it isn't wise. But what can I do? I must follow my path. Peace.

Have you seen the film Agora?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Why did the church go from being 100% Jewish to 100% non-Jewish so quickly? What was lost in the transition? Did that connect with the schisms that erupted (Chalcedon)?

My take was two-fold. First, most Jews quickly returned to the law, especially those in Jerusalem. Those scattered among the nations learned from the Galatians that it's hard to be both Jewish and Christian.

Second, Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Lord's prophecy.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Well I guess I have not done a very good job. Sorry.

Just find it surprising that there were 3,000 quality Christian works for Nee to draw on in the 1920s, and none since. Something worth remarking upon, no? Once Nee began to write, "fallen and degraded Christianity" had its inspirational well run dry. Right? Or, no?

No.

Aron, there are many insightful Christian writers, authors, and theologians on a variety of subjects in the last century. They did not have the same focus as Watchman Nee or Witness Lee.

In the last century the Lord showed Watchman Nee something more. Yet, not out of the blue. You rightly said he read thousands of books by many authors. He had a wide view of Christian teaching dating all the way back to the first century. There are not enough hours left in our lives to read all that he did. But, it is not necessary. In his ministry he incorporated the best of the best orthodox Christian teachings. I read some of the same books he read but I do not need to read them all. Then the Lord showed Watchman Nee something more concerning the church. That was a special calling and apart from that calling there was no need to exist separately as a Christian group. He and his coworker Witness Lee devoted their lives to it. In the last half of that century Witness Lee was faithful to that vision, expounded and built on it. Were there other men and women and writers and preachers with a teaching and a message at that time? Yes, of course. But not with the same mission or purpose. I understand it when Brother Lee indicates there was nothing like it or close to it. It’s true and just a fact. It’s not a boast but rather we cherish what the Lord has shown us.

I read, appreciate, and derived benefit from many authors who were contemporaries of Brother Lee but they were not focused in the same way.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But mankind did eventually obey. Jesus was a man, obedient even to the death. Without this there is nothing.

Even our faith is His faith, transposed. "He [Jesus] trusted Him [the Father]; let Him [the Father] save Him [Jesus the Christ] now"

Notice that the NT calls it the "faith of Christ", not the "faith in Christ"; it is His faith now operating in us that saves.

It is not our obedience but His. Jesus is forevermore the Obedient Lamb of God. It is only through this that He is our Great Shepherd. Our so-called grace without His faith and obedience is nothing.

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

I feel that the 'ekklesia' should be teaching the 'oikonomeia' of Luke 16. The stewardship, the kingdom, the obedience of one lonely Man. But the Father was always with Him. The distribution or dispensing that Lee always referenced requires stewardship: continual, diligent, sustained responsibility. Jesus is ever before us, showing us the way.

I don't think anything you say is incorrect, it's looking at it from another angle, even a more foundational angle, as you are correct that Christ's obedience comes before grace. You feel that Lee overemphasized the dispensing rather than the obedience. The obedience is definitely in there, but grace trumps obedience, or His dispensing trumps our ability to obey. Looking at it from the angle of grace, unmerited favor, our participation and inclusion in God's household or "house order" 'oikonomeia' because of that grace, accessible to us because of Christ's obedience to the Father. God's house-order, in practice, means what? The local churches teach and practice responsibility, stewardship, more than any denomination - everyone can function, not just a few, and accountability.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

In the last half of that century Witness Lee was faithful to that vision, expounded and built on it.

Faithful to what vision?

What about all of his money-making schemes, fleecing the saints.

What about covering up for his sexual predator son? How was he any different than Hollywood or Politicians?

Lee pretended to be like Paul by continually invoking his "heavenly vision," but Lee's vision was nothing like Paul's. Paul was never disobedient to his vision, and "exercised himself to always have a conscience without offense toward God and man." (Acts 24.16) Paul commended himself to every man's conscience before God, by not walking in craftiness nor adulterating the word of God. (II Cor 4.2)

Lee on the other hand took advantage of many saints, and though he became quite wealthy he never repaid his debts. Was not this walking in craftiness? Lee was one of the very few ministers who charges admission for his teachings. Was he not "peddling the word of God." (II Cor 2.17) Many of his business dealings were illegal, and even his officers resigned in protest rather than break laws. Lee always felt the law was for others, but not for him or his sons. Does this sound like a ministry that we should learn from?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think anything you say is incorrect, it's looking at it from another angle, even a more foundational angle, as you are correct that Christ's obedience comes before grace. You feel that Lee overemphasized the dispensing rather than the obedience. The obedience is definitely in there, but grace trumps obedience, or His dispensing trumps our ability to obey. Looking at it from the angle of grace, unmerited favor, our participation and inclusion in God's household or "house order" 'oikonomeia' because of that grace, accessible to us because of Christ's obedience to the Father. God's house-order, in practice, means what? The local churches teach and practice responsibility, stewardship, more than any denomination - everyone can function, not just a few, and accountability.

You say grace trumps obedience, which is true, but only because of the obedience of Christ. Lee taught us to look away from the obedience of Christ. His OT footnotes are full of mis-aimings, looking at the writer or the "NT believer enjoying grace", but not at Jesus the Nazarene, the Obedient Son.

So I don't consider Lee to be a "wise counselor", and feel free to look elsewhere.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

My take was two-fold. First, most Jews quickly returned to the law, especially those in Jerusalem. Those scattered among the nations learned from the Galatians that it's hard to be both Jewish and Christian.

Second, Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years after the Lord's prophecy.

Ohio, I was helped by a non-Christian (Jewish) historian to see that anti-semitism may have taken root early in the process. The spirit of wisdom and revelation requires that we read everyone carefully, not just the epistle of James!! So Justin and Cyril became fair game. Irenaeus. Etc.

Your observations are not incorrect, but the process of converting the Christian faith from 100% semitic to 100% non-semitic and even fairly anti-semitic (antagonistic, adversarial) may also partly rest on the bias of Church Fathers.

And look how much understanding was lost in the process. "Rabbi, You are the King of Israel" (John 1:49)and "Where is He that is born King of the Jews" (Matt 2:2) were passed over without much notice. But the words were full of meaning to the original audience.

I began to consider this: The faith originally was from 100% Hebrew soil. Then through Jesus the King of the Jews, the nations were invited into God's house. Then the nations kicked out the Jews. Then the Nations began to confuse themselves with abstract overlays, and fell to fighting (Chalcedon in 450 AD, The Great Schism in 1050 AD etc).

A "counselor" from the literature cued me to the first issue, of early anti-semetism. That of the second, the dissolution of the faith, may or may not be related. I suspect it is.

Think of this: When John the Baptist showed up, they asked, "Are you the Prophet?" (John 1:20) Clearly that title had special meaning. Acts 2 and Acts 7 confirm this. The speakers Stephen and Peter, the writer Luke, and the listeners would have got it - Jesus was the Prophet, raised up, like Moses. The one who made it to the mountain and talked to God face-to-face. Nobody else could even touch the mountain or they would die. But Jesus was there - the Mediator of the new covenant.

But Witness Lee passed over it with the barest notice. Jesus was a prophet like Moses because a) he was a human being like Moses, and b) because he prophesied. But so were Jeremiah and Amos (and Paul - 'you can all prophesy one by one') but none of them were the "Prophet like Moses".

We lost so much that we didn't realize how much we lost. So we accepted charlatans like Witness Lee. We accepted his interpretations, his conferences, his organizational flowchart & his footnotes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You say grace trumps obedience, which is true, but only because of the obedience of Christ. Lee taught us to look away from the obedience of Christ. His OT footnotes are full of mis-aimings, looking at the writer or the "NT believer enjoying grace", but not at Jesus the Nazarene, the Obedient Son.

So I don't consider Lee to be a "wise counselor", and feel free to look elsewhere.

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ and we gain everything He is and has done including his PRESENT obedience to the Father.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ.

So you say, but your statements reveal otherwise. "Mankind could not keep the law" - was Christ not a man? Or, did Christ fail at the law? Again and again, you reveal your training. Lee taught us to look away from Jesus, not unto Jesus.

Again and again, his interpretations dismiss [OT] scripture as "fallen human concepts" or segue neatly - far too neatly - into the "NT believer enjoying grace". Yet the NT points us to Jesus, a man born under the law. It is this Man, and only this Man, who saves from the consequences of disobedience.

Lee's exposition has a big hole in the middle, full of fallen human concepts. But the NT exposition itself has no such hole. On the contrary. It's constant theme is Jesus Christ, and this theme is fully built on exposition of [OT] scripture pointing us to Jesus. Obedient and righteously suffering on our behalf. "Everything he is and has done" was missed by Lee. I've already gone into this in tedious detail, not only in Psalms but in Deuteronomy. Who is the obedient king of Israel, hiding God's word in his heart that he might sin not? The LSM/lc elder "enjoying grace", says the footnote. Yet the NT plainly says Jesus is the King of Israel. (Deut 17:14-20; Gal 4:4; John 1:49)

The footnote never mentions Jesus Christ. Just our "enjoyment".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

So you say, but your statements reveal otherwise. "Mankind could not keep the law" - was Christ not a man? Or, did Christ fail at the law? Again and again, you reveal your training. Lee taught us to look away from Jesus, not unto Jesus.

Again and again, his interpretations dismiss scripture as "fallen human concepts" or segue neatly - far too neatly - into the "NT believer enjoying grace". Yet the NT points us to Jesus, a man born under the law. It is this Man, and only this Man, who saves from the consequences of disobedience.

Lee's exposition has a big hole in the middle, full of fallen human concepts. But the NT exposition itself has no such hole. On the contrary. It's constant theme is Jesus Christ, and this theme is fully built on exposition of scripture pointing us to Jesus. Obedient and righteously suffering on our behalf. "Everything he is and has done" was missed by Lee. I've already gone into this in tedious detail, not only in Psalms but in Deuteronomy. Who is the obedient king of Israel, hiding God's word in his heart that he might sin not? The LSM/lc elder "enjoying grace", says the footnote. Yet the NT plainly says Jesus is the King of Israel. (Deut 17:14-20; Gal 4:4; John 1:49)

The footnote never mentions Jesus Christ. Just our "enjoyment".

The statement "Mankind could not keep the law" clearly implies sinful or fallen mankind born of Adam and similar statements can be found throughout Christian literature, that do not go into such detail or qualify the statement to say "sinful mankind except Christ could not keep the law". Your claim that it shows that Lee taught us to look away from Jesus is irrational and absurd.

What is also absurd is your claims that Christ not being mentioned in the footnotes is somehow indicative of Lee turning us away from Christ. Christ is referenced plenty throughout the Recovery Version footnotes and anyone who has spent time with the Recovery and called on the name of Christ over and over, or singing the phrase "everything is in Christ and Christ is everything", would know that.

Overall I think you are being inconsistent and irrational in what you write. On the one hand you say we need many teachers, on the other you blame Lee for not referencing Christ in every footnote. Add to this the fact that you cite a nonbeliever as a valuable resource who I doubt would have much to say about Christ, yet pick apart any failure to mention Christ in the OT footnotes. Maybe Lee did not "miss" anything in the old testament footnotes ,maybe that it refers to Christ is obvious, or unnecessary to add, maybe there was no room for it. All in all with the RCV I believe more effort went into the NT footnotes than the Old Testament but I would not take the absence of Christ being mentioned in an OT footnote as indicative of Lee pointing anyone away from Christ when if you come to the meetings this Sunday the only name you will hear, pray and sing, above all others is Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Ohio, I was helped by a non-Christian (Jewish) historian to see that anti-semitism may have taken root early in the process. The spirit of wisdom and revelation requires that we read everyone carefully, not just the epistle of James!! So Justin and Cyril became fair game. Irenaeus. Etc.

Your observations are not incorrect, but the process of converting the Christian faith from 100% semitic to 100% non-semitic and even fairly anti-semitic (antagonistic, adversarial) may also partly rest on the bias of Church Fathers.

I don't dispute any of your points, and they are quite informative.

Paul's own admonitions are in order here. He distinctly warns the Gentiles not to be high-minded regarding Israel, but to fear God lest they be cut off also. (Romans 11.19-22)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ and we gain everything He is and has done including his PRESENT obedience to the Father.

Not so!

Apostle Paul warned the church of God that, "from among yourselves men will rise up speaking perverted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." That is why the Holy Spirit placed the elders as overseers to shepherd the church of God, purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20.28,30)

Let's summarize some of Lee's perversions that fulfill Paul's warning:

• Emasculate the elders, removing their God-given authority over the flock
• Replace the Word of God with his own teachings
• Exalt himself as today's Paul, and Minister of the Age

W. Nee called the local eldership the highest court authority in the church, which no outsider can overrule, but Lee has circumvented both the scriptural patterns and Nee's own so-called "recovery" teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

if you come to the meetings this Sunday the only name you will hear, pray and sing, above all others is Christ.

But only the Christ in the carefully vetted, approved, and "interpreted" scriptures. Not the fallen natural scriptures. And there are a lot more of the latter than you'd be willing to admit. A lot more. I am not being inconsistent at all. Lee was being consistent. His "Christ only Christ" didn't carry all through the text. Instead it was, "This writer has vain concepts". Well my interpretation is that Lee had vain concepts. The scripture stands firm.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The statement "Mankind could not keep the law" clearly implies sinful or fallen mankind born of Adam and similar statements can be found throughout Christian literature, that do not go into such detail.

Yes, you are looking at mankind without Christ. What vanity. And suddenly "Christian literature" is your prop, your fallback position.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Disagree.
Lee teaches us to look at Christ and we gain everything He is and has done including his PRESENT obedience to the Father.

But you don't see His obedience in Deuteronomy 17:14-20? It's not even implied, in the RecV footnote. His PRESENT obedience is then based on your vain human imagination. Your scripture has become untethered - where then is your "grace"? Your "enjoyment"?

The problem isn't in our ignorance, but rather when we're so blinded by presumptions that our ignorance remains. John 9:41

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, you are looking at mankind without Christ. What vanity. And suddenly "Christian literature" is your prop, your fallback position.

Yes, because sinful and fallen mankind IS without Christ. So why would I ever imply that Christ is part of fallen mankind.

Its not a fallback position it is to show that the term and use of it is innocent and you are presenting mere concoctions and fanciful theories on the basis of a very normal and innocent thing to say.

I suppose that if I wrote 'Mankind fell away from God' you would say that Christ fell away from God too. I think it is obvious that I speak of mankind without Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

But you don't see His obedience in Deuteronomy 17:14-20? It's not even implied, in the RecV footnote. His PRESENT obedience is then based on your vain human imagination. Your scripture has become untethered - where then is your "grace"? Your "enjoyment"?

The problem isn't in our ignorance, but rather when we're so blinded by presumptions that our ignorance remains. John 9:41

Originally Posted by aron

But only the Christ in the carefully vetted, approved, and "interpreted" scriptures. Not the fallen natural scriptures. And there are a lot more of the latter than you'd be willing to admit. A lot more. I am not being inconsistent at all. Lee was being consistent. His "Christ only Christ" didn't carry all through the text. Instead it was, "This writer has vain concepts". Well my interpretation is that Lee had vain concepts. The scripture stands firm.

I will try and address both these paragraphs in this one post.

Firstly, the use of the term "mankind" is innocent and the context in which I used it was clearly in reference to fallen/sinful mankind, so you have no argument really. A quick Google search finds the term is also used in a similar way by other people (not associated with the ministry of Lee).

Secondly, there is no basis for your claims that the absence of Christ in OT footnotes means
a) Christ didn't carry all through the text
b) our scripture has become "untethered".

Because we see Christ in the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation. There are enough life studies to go around to describe Christ in the bible. Christ's obedience is probably covered in one of the life studies or other books.

By the way, how do you define "Christ's obedience"? The obedience of Christ is what He did on the cross and not the keeping of the Law of Moses. Christ did not please the Father by keeping the Law of Moses, but by dying on the cross. Christ was not sent to be one who keeps the Law perfectly (though He did) but as a ransom for sinners, or a sacrificial Lamb. I am thinking that your objection to Christ's obedience not mentioned in the footnotes is possibly because you value law-keeping, in a Messianic or Jewish kind of way.


Let's look at verses 18-20:

18 “Now it shall come about when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll [d]in the presence of the Levitical priests. 19 It shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, [e]by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes, 20 that his heart may not be lifted up above his [f]countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.


To me this is describing a person who carefully observes all the law and statutes and "learns to fear the Lord", as a king would. To me this is not referring to Christ whose obedience was defined by going to the cross. Christ did not have to "learn to fear the Lord", as God's Son he already feared Him from birth. Also, Christ did not have to carefully observe all the law and statues - Christ, being God's Son, was not "under law", just as those "in Christ" are not under law (Rom 6:14). The law was made for sinful mankind and Christ being perfect, could not be "under law", and Christ being the Lord of the Sabbath was also the Lord of the law.

By the way, the bible commentaries on biblehub are fairly silent about Christ and his obedience as well. So in this respect Lee's footnotes are no worse:

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
17:14-20 God himself was in a particular manner Israel's King; and if they set another over them, it was necessary that he should choose the person. Accordingly, when the people desired a king, they applied to Samuel, a prophet of the Lord. In all cases, God's choice, if we can but know it, should direct, determine, and overrule ours. Laws are given for the prince that should be elected. He must carefully avoid every thing that would turn him from God and religion. Riches, honours, and pleasures, are three great hinderances of godliness, (the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the eye, and the pride of life,) especially to those in high stations; against these the king is here warned. The king must carefully study the law of God, and make that his rule; and having a copy of the Scriptures of his own writing, must read therein all the days of his life. It is not enough to have Bibles, but we must use them, use them daily, as long as we live. Christ's scholars never learn above their Bibles, but will have constant occasion for them, till they come to that world where knowledge and love will be made perfect. The king's writing and reading were as nothing, if he did not practise what he wrote and read. And those who fear God and keep his commandments, will fare the better for it even in this world.

[Evangelical]

Aron has stated that more teachers is better. The Bible also says we should not gather a great number of teachers:

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

At least by sticking with Lee/Nee, you can't accuse us of having itching ears!

And consider how many "teachers" there are in the Bible:

Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude others. Only about 8 in all, for the New Testament, not that many, and most Christians/churches/pastors only focus on the mainly useful ones anyway! i.e. the gospels, Paul and John.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

At least by sticking with Lee/Nee, you can't accuse us of having itching ears!

Bahahahahaha ... good one Evan.

[aron]

Evangelical,

Defending your assertions of Christless humankind, you cite custom and convention. So much for the idea of recovery. Then you say Lee did "no worse" than Matthew Henry and the 19th-century Bible studies he cribbed from. So much for the vision of the age.

The text of Deuteronomy 17 speaks of the king of Israel's relation to God via the binding tie of scripture, and Psalms 1and 2, perhaps not coincidentally, show us the righteous man and his relation to God's law, and then that righteous Man being installed as King of Israel and as God's Son. So the impetus is repeated NT use of [OT] scripture - the use of Psalm 2, for example, is well known. This isn't unconventional but follows apostolic precedent. The epistle to the Hebrews extensively cites [OT] text and says that Christ learned obedience, though He was the Son. Lee declined this open invitation to "see Jesus" in the [OT] text, but I'd rather not. (And Hebrews 5:7,8 doesn't focus on the cross but rather on the "days of his life.")

So an example of "untethered scripture" is exposition of Psalm 2 divorced from that of Psalm 1, Deuteronomy etc. I recall reading Psalm 34 Life-Study. . . Lee wrote, "Natural, natural, natural. . . " then came to the verse "not one of His bones will be broken" and said, "Voila!! A revelation of Christ!!". Then we went back to "natural, natural, natural. . ." It was borderline schizophrenic. What makes us think Jesus and the writers of the NT read scripture that way?

Lee with his "scripture was written by people with fallen concepts" teaching was the one who broke with apostolic precedent.

As far as learning from a non-Christian historian, if early Church Fathers were indeed tainted by anti-semitism then I should find independent corroboration from Christian sources. And any peril of having itching ears is more than balanced by that of the mark of the beast: the One Pub Bull says, with eerie similarity, that no one can buy or sell in the local churches without the imprimateur of LSM. What lies behind such controlling despotism is merely fear: "If I could just get everyone else to do exactly what I say, then I can be happy." The beast is afraid because the beast is mortal, and numbered.

In and of itself LSM/lc exposition isn't that bad. I've seen much worse, and done worse. But Witness Lee's claim to be the end-all of contemporary Christian ministry is farcical and delusional. That's why I started this thread, to see if there are viable alternatives to his megalomania. It's a sort of challenge. Drake and Evangelical say, No. Well, okay, then. Let's see.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical,

Defending your assertions of Christless humankind, you cite custom and convention. So much for the idea of recovery. Then you say Lee did "no worse" than Matthew Henry and the 19th-century Bible studies he cribbed from. So much for the vision of the age.

The text of Deuteronomy 17 speaks of the king of Israel's relation to God via the binding tie of scripture, and Psalms 1and 2, perhaps not coincidentally, show us the righteous man and his relation to God's law, and then that righteous Man being installed as King of Israel and as God's Son. So the impetus is repeated NT use of [OT] scripture - the use of Psalm 2, for example, is well known. This isn't unconventional but follows apostolic precedent. The epistle to the Hebrews extensively cites [OT] text and says that Christ learned obedience, though He was the Son. Lee declined this open invitation to "see Jesus" in the [OT] text, but I'd rather not. (And Hebrews 5:7,8 doesn't focus on the cross but rather on the "days of his life.")

So an example of "untethered scripture" is exposition of Psalm 2 divorced from that of Psalm 1, Deuteronomy etc. I recall reading Psalm 34 Life-Study. . . Lee wrote, "Natural, natural, natural. . . " then came to the verse "not one of His bones will be broken" and said, "Voila!! A revelation of Christ!!". Then we went back to "natural, natural, natural. . ." It was borderline schizophrenic. What makes us think Jesus and the writers of the NT read scripture that way?

Lee with his "scripture was written by people with fallen concepts" teaching was the one who broke with apostolic precedent.

As far as learning from a non-Christian historian, if early Church Fathers were indeed tainted by anti-semitism then I should find independent corroboration from Christian sources. And any peril of having itching ears is more than balanced by that of the mark of the beast: the One Pub Bull says, with eerie similarity, that no one can buy or sell in the local churches without the imprimateur of LSM. What lies behind such controlling despotism is merely fear: "If I could just get everyone else to do exactly what I say, then I can be happy." The beast is afraid because the beast is mortal, and numbered.

In and of itself LSM/lc exposition isn't that bad. I've seen much worse, and done worse. But Witness Lee's claim to be the end-all of contemporary Christian ministry is farcical and delusional. That's why I started this thread, to see if there are viable alternatives to his megalomania. It's a sort of challenge. Drake and Evangelical say, No. Well, okay, then. Let's see.

I cite custom and convention in the English language and the Recovery version of the bible is not meant to Recover the English language.

If a person says mankind sinned or mankind could not keep the law most people would understand this to not include Christ and refer to fallen mankind.

Even the bible does this e.g.

Romans 3.23 says all have sinned. Do you think the all includes Christ?

Clearly you have no argument.

It seems you don't understand how bible prophecy works. Often spiritual truths about Christ are hidden or embedded in very natural sounding things. For this reason it is no surprise to find hints about Christ within natural verses. But a lot of the old testament is historical relating to Israel and that's why we have the new testament. There is not enough Christ in the old testament alone to be sufficient.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cite custom and convention in the English language and the Recovery version of the bible is not meant to Recover the English language.

If a person says mankind sinned or mankind could not keep the law most people would understand this to not include Christ and refer to fallen mankind.

Even the bible does this e.g.

Romans 3.23 says all have sinned. Do you think the all includes Christ?

Clearly you have no argument.

It seems you don't understand how bible prophecy works. Often spiritual truths about Christ are hidden or embedded in very natural sounding things. For this reason it is no surprise to find hints about Christ within natural verses. But a lot of the old testament is historical relating to Israel and that's why we have the new testament. There is not enough Christ in the old testament alone to be sufficient.

When the NT writer says all have sinned, they must IMMEDIATELY say "except Christ", which Paul to his credit does. Witness Lee, on the other hand, blithely dismisses "mankind" as failures, and moves on, looking for his subjective "Christ".

The focus of the Bible is Jesus Christ. The focus of Lee's hermeneutics is the NT believer enjoying the dispensing of the Processed and Consummated Triune God. In his self-focused world, "Christ" is a prop to be waved, and then ignored, at convenience.

The window of Noah's ark is a type of Christ, pointing the church to heaven; the porpoise skin covering the tabernacle is a type of Christ covering the church from the wind and rain; but the King of Israel obeying God's word is a type of the local church elder enjoying grace. Comical.

In Psalm 1, when Lee writes of the vanity of humans seeking God in His law, Christ is never even implied. Supposedly Christ shows up in Psalm 2. In Psalm 1:3 the tree growing by the streams of water, bearing fruit in season, whose leaf never withers - ignored. It's vain you know. . . just vain human concepts. Nevermind that the apostle John saw this same tree in the New Jerusalem! And the assembly of the righteous in v.5? Again ignored. Where's the church? Doesn't exist, I guess.

"Psalm 1, concerning the law in man's appreciation, is for the personal benefit of the saints, such as their being blessed in prosperity. Psalm 2, concerning Christ and His attainments, is for the accomplishing of God's economy." (footnote on 2:1)

Again I say there's no precedent in the reception of the [OT] scripture in the NT exegesis to make such comments. We must never forget there was one Man who obeyed the law and brought it to the cross, erasing the statutes and ordinances which were against us. If Christ was not in Psalm 1, then He could not be the King and Son of God in Psalm 2. And yet in Lee's exposition that is the exactly case.

In order to maintain coherence in his interpretive metric, Lee forced incoherence on scripture: sometimes it was vain human concepts, sometimes revelatory. So I say that Lee's metric itself was vain human concepts, peddled and sold to the simple and incautious.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

When the NT writer says all have sinned, they must IMMEDIATELY say "except Christ", which Paul to his credit does. Witness Lee, on the other hand, blithely dismisses "mankind" as failures, and moves on, looking for his subjective "Christ".

Romans 3.23 does not say "except Christ".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Romans 3.23 does not say "except Christ".

You're right. But the book of Romans does. And Paul would have put it in 3:23 if he knew what amateurs like Lee were going to do with scripture. "David was a sinner & God didn't delight in him; his writing is natural & fallen concepts." Um, there's this guy named Jesus. . .

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

You're right. But the book of Romans does. And Paul would have put it in 3:23 if he knew what amateurs like Lee were going to do with scripture. "David was a sinner & God didn't delight in him; his writing is natural & fallen concepts." Um, there's this guy named Jesus. . .

David was a type of Christ in some ways but in other ways he wasn't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

David was a type of Christ in some ways but in other ways he wasn't.

Duh!

Classic LC-speak ... telling us what we all know ... but in LC-land, everyone's "failures" are known ... and discussed ... except the MOTA.

NEWS FLASH: No one is a perfect type of Jesus Christ.

What I find truly amazing is that any fallen sinner (Jonah, David, Solomon, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, etc. and etc.) could actually teach us of God's Son, the holy Lamb of God.

"But we see Jesus" in all these poor types, shadows, and figures.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

David was a type of Christ in some ways but in other ways he wasn't.

Yes, and so was a porpoise skin. Similar in some ways but dissimilar in others. And Lee got to tell us whoch was which? Where did he get off?

If you look at the interpretive metric established by Peter on Pentecost, with Psalm 16&c, where did Lee get off? His hubris knew no bounds.

The King of Israel in Deuteronomy 17 is not a type of Christ? Think about it - John 1:49 calls Christ the King of Israel. Witness Lee finds Christ in the window of Noah's ark!!

Or, the tree growing by the streams of water, whose leaf never withers, bearing fruit in season. Why is the tree growing by the river of water in Revelation 22, whose leaf heals the nations, bearing fruit each month, a type of Christ, but the tree in Psalm 1:3 is vain?

Or the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 1:5? Not worth mentioning? But the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 22 is the church? Oh - I forgot - there is none righteous, right?

What is amazing is that Lee could stand in front of thousands of paying customers who've flown in from all over, and speak this tripe. And they all sat there, not one of them ever said, Um, maybe this is a type of Christ?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If you look at the interpretive metric established by Peter on Pentecost, with Psalm 16&c, where did Lee get off? His hubris knew no bounds.

I think the principle of first mention is relevant, especially when all other mentions line up.

The first gospel message that I remember is on the day of Pentecost. Peter is standing in front of the 11, with about 100-odd others. Thousands have gathered to see what is going on. They say the building has been shaking, loud noises, flames.

Peter tells them about David, who said that God would not let him see corruption. Peter says that David (being a sinner) did see corruption, but being a prophet and knowing God had promised a Seed, spoke of the coming Messiah.

So the oracle makes a pronouncement through a sinner. Got it?

So then, David says, "You rescued me because You delighted in me" and Witness Lee says, "No, God did not delight in David because he sinned" I ask, what kind of Gospel is that? Clearly God delighted in His Son, Jesus the Nazarene, and rescued Him from death. Peter announced "this Jesus" (Acts 2:22,32). What if I see this Jesus in Psalm 18, not just Psalm 16?

Why is it that Lee could speak something out of the line of reception in the NT (this pattern repeated over and over again, that the utterance was prophetic of Christ), and all these people would just sit there and none of them could ask, "Hey, what is this novelty you preach? How is the word of God fallen and natural just because a sinner put it out?" I mean, a lot of people sinned but they still spoke concerning the Messiah.

Yet all we hear from the LSM/lc apologist is that some things didn't pertain to Christ? How did Lee figure that one out? The silver sockets on the ark pertained to Christ, but the obedient servant - "I come to do Your will, O God" - is vain because we all know that nobody can do God's will? Um, there's this Guy named Jesus the Christ?

How could everybody not see this was nonsense? How snowed were we, really? Apparently a lot.

[aron]

We all know that Nee had a large library. I was told that he had 3,000 of the "best spiritual books" and the "classics", upon which he based his ministry.

My question is, How come there were 3,000 spiritual classics, independent of Mssrs Nee and Lee, in the 1,800 years after Christ (I skip the first century because the NT was being composed), and after Nee started to minister there were ZERO spiritual classics put out over the next 85 years???

Or did each "MOTA" write them sequentially? Did each "spiritual giant" write 30-odd books over a 20-year span, thus completing Nee's library? Only one writer per "age"?

Or did various people write books independently of each other, and some were composed at similar times, and they all made it into Nee's library? Why did this end in 1925, and suddenly nobody but one guy, one special chosen vessel for God's oracle, could put out spiritual books at any given time?

Doesn't anyone see this is patent nonsense? 3,000 spiritual classics from hundreds of different writers suddenly become "0" after Nee puts a pen to paper. The last 85 years, no spiritual classics came out. Just 300 or so by Nee and Lee.

Surely the age turned, when Nee began to minister. The Age of Nonsense began.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Yes, and so was a porpoise skin. Similar in some ways but dissimilar in others. And Lee got to tell us whoch was which? Where did he get off?

If you look at the interpretive metric established by Peter on Pentecost, with Psalm 16&c, where did Lee get off? His hubris knew no bounds.

The King of Israel in Deuteronomy 17 is not a type of Christ? Think about it - John 1:49 calls Christ the King of Israel. Witness Lee finds Christ in the window of Noah's ark!!

Or, the tree growing by the streams of water, whose leaf never withers, bearing fruit in season. Why is the tree growing by the river of water in Revelation 22, whose leaf heals the nations, bearing fruit each month, a type of Christ, but the tree in Psalm 1:3 is vain?

Or the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 1:5? Not worth mentioning? But the assembly of the righteous in Psalm 22 is the church? Oh - I forgot - there is none righteous, right?

What is amazing is that Lee could stand in front of thousands of paying customers who've flown in from all over, and speak this tripe. And they all sat there, not one of them ever said, Um, maybe this is a type of Christ?

What about the king in Deut 17 do you think is a type of Christ? Can you point to some specific verses.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Duh!

Classic LC-speak ... telling us what we all know ... but in LC-land, everyone's "failures" are known ... and discussed ... except the MOTA.

NEWS FLASH: No one is a perfect type of Jesus Christ.

What I find truly amazing is that any fallen sinner (Jonah, David, Solomon, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, etc. and etc.) could actually teach us of God's Son, the holy Lamb of God.

"But we see Jesus" in all these poor types, shadows, and figures.

Then I dont see the problem with Lee saying David was natural or fallen. Aron seems to want David to be a perfect type of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then I dont see the problem with Lee saying David was natural or fallen. Aron seems to want David to be a perfect type of Christ.

No I'm not. Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing of Me", and no where does it state that this is limited to explicit citations. So open your eyes.

When the psalmist wrote, "Oh, how I love Your law", Lee would say, "Vain. No one can keep the law", and my reply is, "No one EXCEPT JESUS". I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Lee's RecV is an inedible half-baked potato. We should look elsewhere.

And, Peter made it clear that David was not a perfect type. David was a sinner, and he died, and his grave remains with us to this day. But that doesn't make Psalm 16 natural or fallen, does it?

Why did Lee brazenly overturn apostolic precedent, and 2,000 in an auditorium sat there passively? What did he do to these people?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then I dont see the problem with Lee saying David was natural or fallen. Aron seems to want David to be a perfect type of Christ.

Nonsense.

We know David is a type of Christ the King of Israel, though he was still a sinner.

Witness Lee, however, discredits the Word of God, insisting that much of David's writings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus merely fallen, human sentiments.

Meanwhile, Lee exalts his own teachings. Is he not also a fallen sinner, or have you canonized him without sin? Which of his writings have you also declared to be merely fallen, human sentiments?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Nonsense.

We know David is a type of Christ the King of Israel, though he was still a sinner.

Witness Lee, however, discredits the Word of God, insisting that much of David's writings are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thus merely fallen, human sentiments.

Meanwhile, Lee exalts his own teachings. Is he not also a fallen sinner, or have you canonized him without sin? Which of his writings have you also declared to be merely fallen, human sentiments?

Then you suppose that David was perfect in everything he said?

It is clear to me that a number of things David writes about the law or himself are contrary to new testament revelation of grace.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

No I'm not. Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing of Me", and no where does it state that this is limited to explicit citations. So open your eyes.

When the psalmist wrote, "Oh, how I love Your law", Lee would say, "Vain. No one can keep the law", and my reply is, "No one EXCEPT JESUS". I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Lee's RecV is an inedible half-baked potato. We should look elsewhere.

And, Peter made it clear that David was not a perfect type. David was a sinner, and he died, and his grave remains with us to this day. But that doesn't make Psalm 16 natural or fallen, does it?

Why did Lee brazenly overturn apostolic precedent, and 2,000 in an auditorium sat there passively? What did he do to these people?

No one can keep the law and this phrase is always understood to mean fallen mankind not Christ. Just Google the phrase and you will see how often it is used in the vernacular.

Loving the law..now dont say that too loudly in an evangelical church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

No I'm not. Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing of Me", and no where does it state that this is limited to explicit citations. So open your eyes.

When the psalmist wrote, "Oh, how I love Your law", Lee would say, "Vain. No one can keep the law", and my reply is, "No one EXCEPT JESUS". I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

Lee's RecV is an inedible half-baked potato. We should look elsewhere.

And, Peter made it clear that David was not a perfect type. David was a sinner, and he died, and his grave remains with us to this day. But that doesn't make Psalm 16 natural or fallen, does it?

Why did Lee brazenly overturn apostolic precedent, and 2,000 in an auditorium sat there passively? What did he do to these people?

No one can keep the law and this phrase is always understood to mean fallen mankind not Christ. Just Google the phrase and you will see how often it is used in the vernacular.

Loving the law..now dont say that too loudly in an evangelical church. Its contrary to the evangelical gospel of grace.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Loving the law..now dont say that too loudly in an evangelical church. Its contrary to the evangelical gospel of grace.

My local church is talking about the law right now and has been for some weeks.

In my experience, evangelical churches embrace loving the law.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

My local church is talking about the law right now and has been for some weeks.

In my experience, evangelical churches embrace loving the law.

We love the law but not to keep it for pleasing God. That was Davids natural concept. We can love the law as a type of Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

My local church is talking about the law right now and has been for some weeks.

In my experience, evangelical churches embrace loving the law.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We love the law but not to keep it for pleasing God. That was Davids natural concept. We can love the law as a type of Christ.

But the Bible is not about "we" but about Christ. The Bible is not about David but about Christ. Christ loved the law because it was a word from the Father's mouth. That's what He told Satan. "Mankind (especially including Jesus Christ [!!!]) does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Unless Jesus warned us away from the "natural" parts, then we should take HIS word over that of Witness Lee. Jesus said, "David was in spirit" writing about Him - unless He warned us off the "vain and fallen" parts we should be inclined to see this.

Suppose Jesus Christ took Witness Lee's line and said, "Nobody can keep the law." We'd all be cooked. No, He embraced the law. Now we the lawless ones can be saved by seeing Him. But if we don't see Him, how can we be saved, and hear His voice, how can we be saved? ~Romans 10:14

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No one can keep the law and this phrase is always understood to mean fallen mankind not Christ. Just Google the phrase and you will see how often it is used in the vernacular.

Loving the law..now dont say that too loudly in an evangelical church. Its contrary to the evangelical gospel of grace.

If I wanted mankind without Christ I'd stick to the London Times.

We don't love the law. Jesus Christ loved the law, because it was the Father's word. The Bible is not about you, or David, or Witness Lee. That would indeed be fallen natural concepts. If Witness Lee could see Christ in the porpoise skins over the tabernacle, why couldn't he see Christ in the faithful tree planted by streams of water, bearing its fruit in season? ~Psa 1:3

Who made Witness Lee god, anyway? You? Why didn't anyone ever point out his fallen human concepts? How come he got to pan everyone, including writers of scripture, yet somehow he never mis-aimed? You got bedazzled.

When I was still hanging around the LSM/lc, I'd occasionally bring up a verse that wasn't in Lee's "God's economy" line. They'd just get this blank expression, like the verse didn't even exist. Witness Lee didn't extol it as "Christ", so they just excised it out of their consciousness. I thought it was weird, even then.

[Evangelical]

The bible is about Christ and the church (Ephesians 5). The church is the people, the church is us.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible is about Christ and the church (Ephesians 5). The church is the people, the church is us.

And who is "us?"

Lee taught it only includes those who bought books from LSM.

Otherwise I might not be quarantined, and still be "us."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And who is "us?"

Lee taught it only includes those who bought books from LSM.

Otherwise I might not be quarantined, and still be "us."

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The bible is about Christ and the church (Ephesians 5). The church is the people, the church is us.

When Witness Lee died, we were told that one era of human history had ended, and another had begun. Ephesians 5 was not cited. In fact, no verses were cited. And nobody asked for any. Because, "It's the church". Leaders made pronouncement from the dias, and that was it. If verses were given, wonderful. If they were ignored, hey, what are you going to do? It's the church.

You see, "It's the church" replaced "Christ and the church", which had replaced Christ. Now "Christ" was whatever church leaders needed. If it was a porpoise skin or the silver sockets of the ark, so be it. And "Christ" was to "be one" with leadership. Even if leadership was wrong, it was right. Even if the Bible was suborned, "It's the church". Don't ask questions, because a question mark is in the shape of a serpent.

(So if the Maximum Brother, holding God's oracle, said that the tree planted by the streams of water, bearing fruit in season, whose leaf would never wither (Psa 1:3), was vanity, because "nobody can keep the law", we all sat there dumb in the King-dumb. Because God's oracle had spoken. Forget the Bible, Lee said - it's written by sinners. Funny how he never tried that argument with Isaiah or Jeremiah. Or did he?)

In this way, the LSM/lc leaders put the same death-vise on us that they tried to put on Martin Luther and John Wesley. Don't go against the church. "By so little you despise the sacrements, Mr. Wesley?", they asked, when he began to preach faith in Jesus Christ. But Luther and Wesley knew - our faith is not in the church.

And the solution is simple. Jesus told the disciples that he would build His church. Not Witness Lee's church, not your church or the RCC. It is His purview, not yours. Your purview as the Bride is to watch your husband, not to watch yourself. "I sit a queen" is too close to us. Too close! ~Rev 18:7. We have too many examples, to be fooled yet again.

No, the Bible is about Christ. If He builds His church, and he promised, then we rejoice. But it is His church. His Body. Not ours. It is all about Christ. If you leave Christ you leave safety.

Regarding the "us", only Christ can pray before the Father, and say "us", and the Father hears. Our prayer on earth has reality only as it matches that of the Great High Priest in heaven. He alone can say "us" and it stands. Your "us" or mine won't make it. Only Christ can pray there. That is the only "us" that matters - the one Jesus Christ speaks before the Father's throne. Your religious association is not the "us" that God seeks. Sorry. Be joined to Christ and live. It is His "us" that holds. Not yours.

The scene in the opening of John's 'Revelation' is too clear. Only Christ walks among the lampstands. Only Christ. And they are His lampstands. Not yours or mine. Hands off.

[least]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

The church is the body of Christ. His body is Him.

-
Regarding the "us", only Christ can pray before the Father, and say "us", and the Father hears. Our prayer on earth has reality only as it matches that of the Great High Priest in heaven. He alone can say "us" and it stands. Your "us" or mine won't make it. Only Christ can pray there. That is the only "us" that matters - the one Jesus Christ speaks before the Father's throne.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

Or maybe what you have been told about the church is wrong.

Remember the Lord's admonition to "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."

Recovery teachings are filled with leaven.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Or maybe what you have been told about the church is wrong.

Evangelical says scriptural narrative is all about Christ and the church; one could just as easily say add another party and say that the Bible is about Jesus, the church, and Satan/Mystery Babylon. After all, S/MB enters prominently in Genesis 3 and never quits the scene until Revelation 20! S/MB is creation that stops looking at her Creator, and begins to regard herself. (In the church, by contrast, the narrative is all about her Husband).

People who make the Church the linchpin of their teaching remind me nothing so much as this - MB saying, "I sit a queen and am no widow". All pretension and no reality. Jesus is the reality. Period.

No, it's about Jesus Christ. He's the one who loved and obeyed the Father's law, since he loved the Father and saw the Father always before him. He loved every word that proceeded out of the Father's mouth! Yes, even in the law. He was the tree planted by streams of water, whose leaf never withered, bearing much fruit in season. Whatever he did, he prospered. Our job is to see him, and not ourselves. "To me, to live is Christ".

To me, Psalm 1 is about Jesus Christ, not about the law, the vanity of the psalmist's mind, or Lee's "NT believer enjoying grace". We can avail ourselves of other Christian-oriented scholars. As an example, I've referenced Guy G. Stroumsa. If you want to see the Epistle to the Hebrews' use of psalms to show Christ made a little lower than the angels, then raised to glory and honour, Stroumsa has done useful work.

"I am determined to know nothing while I'm among you, save the crucified Jesus".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical says scriptural narrative is all about Christ and the church; one could just as easily say add another party and say that the Bible is about Jesus, the church, and Satan/Mystery Babylon. After all, S/MB enters prominently in Genesis 3 and never quits the scene until Revelation 20! S/MB is creation that stops looking at her Creator, and begins to regard herself. (In the church, by contrast, the narrative is all about her Husband).

People who make the Church the linchpin of their teaching remind me nothing so much as this - MB saying, "I sit a queen and am no widow". All pretension and no reality. Jesus is the reality. Period.

No, it's about Jesus Christ. He's the one who loved and obeyed the Father's law, since he loved the Father and saw the Father always before him. He loved every word that proceeded out of the Father's mouth! Yes, even in the law. He was the tree planted by streams of water, whose leaf never withered, bearing much fruit in season. Whatever he did, he prospered. Our job is to see him, and not ourselves. "To me, to live is Christ".

To me, Psalm 1 is about Jesus Christ, not about the law, the vanity of the psalmist's mind, or Lee's "NT believer enjoying grace". We can avail ourselves of other Christian-oriented scholars. As an example, I've referenced Guy G. Stroumsa. If you want to see the Epistle to the Hebrews' use of psalms to show Christ made a little lower than the angels, then raised to glory and honour, Stroumsa has done useful work.

"I am determined to know nothing while I'm among you, save the crucified Jesus".

The Bible is a love story between two parties - Christ and the church. It's about the husband and the wife, not just the husband.

It's not wrong to say the bible is about Christ. But it's not wrong to say the Bible is about us. And anyone is not wrong to say the bible is about Satan either. The Garden of Eden has 3 parties - God, man, Satan. The Bible is about all three. From Genesis to Revelation, all 3 are present. The bible teaches us about God, about ourselves, and about Satan.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible is a love story between two parties - Christ and the church. It's about the husband and the wife, not just the husband.

It's not wrong to say the bible is about Christ. But it's not wrong to say the Bible is about us. And anyone is not wrong to say the bible is about Satan either. The Garden of Eden has 3 parties - God, man, Satan. The Bible is about all three. From Genesis to Revelation, all 3 are present. The bible teaches us about God, about ourselves, and about Satan.

And we can't know very much about all three ... not with absolute certainty, or honest conscience. But I get your point Evan.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Us is believers. Aron is wrong that the bible is just about Christ. It is about us too. Even though Aron has many teachers, maybe none of them told him what the church is.

aron,

Exactly what does Boyarin say about Christ and the church?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Exactly what does Boyarin say about Christ and the church?

I assume you're aware Boyarin is a historian and not a theologian, and as such represents a sidebar to this thread, probably already overdone by me. Sorry.

Witness Lee and now Ron Kangas talk about the history of the church, saying how it became degraded. Boyarin shows how anti-jewish thought took hold early on, even in some whom Lee-ites cite as authorities in the "deification" idea, e.g., Irenaeus and Cyril. So your foundation may be shakier than you realise. I'll discuss this in my next post.

Paul asked Cephas, "Why force the gentiles to take Jewish customs" and my question is related-why force Jews to take gentile customs, in order to follow Christ? (Gal 2:14) Is this not also error? Isn't this showing degradation?

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

And we can't know very much about all three ... not with absolute certainty, or honest conscience. .

Honest conscience. . . interesting phrase. I don't know how honest my conscience is, before God. Probably not much.

But if we do see two aspects in scripture, one of Christ and the elect, the other of Satan and Mystery Babylon, my growing awareness (sorry for the pun) is that the Lee school strongly tends itself toward MB.

Lee said Psalms 1, 3-7 were inspired by Satan. No, he didn't use that name but he clearly implied it. Fallen man was penning scripture. Concepts, Lee called them.

But Jesus said that the HS would reveal Jesus to the believers - what if I'm reading Psalm 3, and come to the part where it says, "I laid me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me", and I hear Jesus saying, "I have the power to lay my life down, and to take it up again"?

What if I "see Jesus" typified in Psalm 3, surely as Lee "saw Christ" typified in the silver sockets of the ark? Granted, my view is arguably as idiosyncratic as any, but back to awareness' comment - what assurance do we have that Lee's categorisation of Psalm 3 as fallen human concept is not itself Mystery Babylon? Not only does Lee not see Christ but he forbids anyone else from entering. Woe to you, said Christ. Matt 23:13

Tis mystery indeed that people think that they're serving God as they kill others, if not physically at least spiritually.

[Drake]

aron>"I assume you're aware Boyarin is a historian and not a theologian, and as such represents a sidebar to this thread, probably already overdone by me. Sorry."

aron,

Not a sidebar. Your theology depends on Boyarin's historical views. That is clear from your posts.

More specifically, on my previous question.....

1. What did Boyarin says about Jesus' divinity?
2. What did he say about sin for both mankind and Jesus?
3. What did he say the church was?

Drake

[Drake]

aron>"The King of Israel in Deuteronomy 17 is not a type of Christ?"

No, here's why.

They sought after a governance like that of the Gentile nations.

Deuteronomy 17:14 "When you enter the land which Jehovah your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and you say, I will set a king over me like all the nations which surround me;"

I Samuel 8:5b "..... Appoint now for us a king to judge us like all the nations".

Their request for a king was their rejecting of God from being King over them.

I Samuel 8:7 "And Jehovah said to Samuel, Listen to the voice of the people according to all that they have said to you; for it is not you whom they have rejected, but they have rejected Me from being King over them.

This displeased God.

I Samuel 12:17b ".... and you will know and see that your wickedness which you have done in the sight of Jehovah by asking for a king for yourselves is great"

I Samuel 12:19 "Then all the people said to Samuel, Pray to Jehovah your God for your servants that we would not die, for we have added to all our sins the evil of asking for a king for ourselves."

The king that was raised up was Saul.

I Samuel 9:17 "And when Samuel saw Saul, Jehovah declared to him, Here is the man of whom I spoke to you. This man shall rule over my people."

Saul was not a type of Christ.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron>"I assume you're aware Boyarin is a historian and not a theologian, and as such represents a sidebar to this thread, probably already overdone by me. Sorry."

aron,

Not a sidebar. Your theology depends on Boyarin's historical views. That is clear from your posts.

More specifically, on my previous question.....

1. What did Boyarin says about Jesus' divinity?
2. What did he say about sin for both mankind and Jesus?
3. What did he say the church was?

Drake

Whaaaaa? What did you eat for lunch yesterday, a tuna sandwich? Please PM me six paragraphs from Witness Lee on the origin of anti-semitism in the first 4 centuries of the church, complete with at least 4 good references.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Saul was not a type of Christ.

Drake

Witness Lee wrote in the footnote that the king of Deuteronomy 17 was a type of the elders in the LSM/lc, "enjoying grace". So the elders in the LSM/lc are a type of Saul, chosen by people who want someone to rule over them, manipulate them and dominate them, and all this to God's displeasure? I suppose there's a strange kind of logic there, actually.

But I'm not sure how you'd define 'grace', in that case.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee wrote in the footnote that the king of Deuteronomy 17 was a type of the elders in the LSM/lc, "enjoying grace". So the elders in the LSM/lc are a type of Saul, chosen by people who want someone to rule over them, manipulate them and dominate them, and all this to God's displeasure? I suppose there's a strange kind of logic there, actually.

But I'm not sure how you'd define 'grace', in that case.

Brother Lee did not say the elders are a type of Saul. He also did not say the elders were to rule, manipulate, or dominate the members of the church.

Post the footnote to substantiate your claim. Let’s have a look.

The king in Deut 17 is not a type of Christ as you claim. Where did you get that from?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The king in Deut 17 is not a type of Christ as you claim. Where did you get that from?

Drake

Deuteronomy 17 talks of the king who loves the word, and who binds the word to his heart, and obeys it all the time. This is Jesus. In Psalm 1, the man who loves the word and obeys becomes the king of Psalm 2, who is per NT usage Jesus.

Lee taught that Psalm 1 showed vanity and Psalm 2 showed Jesus. No; Psalm 1 shows Jesus and Psalm 2 shows Jesus. Deuteronomy 17 is the "golden thread" that binds the two.

Pray tell, why did the compilers of scripture put Psalm 1 and 2 in that order? Randomly? Or because they were confused, like Lee said, and couldn't tell "life" from "law"? Or because God said, "Obey my word", and the king of Israel should do that? Which king, per NT usage, was Jesus?

All this, to me, is worth considering. When I say " 'x' is 'y' ", I mean, here is a hypothesis worth examining. People who don't get it are not dark and confused, but maybe rather they see something that I don't. But I'm not ashamed of what I see, either. "My sheep hear my voice"; if the Shepherd speaks, say, "Amen", whether or not that speaking is through "God's elect vessel for the present age", as some may think it may.

I am a person with an opinion. No more and no less. But so are the wanna-be satraps out there, who assume pride of place.

[aron]

https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/174187


Reading with an "I" to the heavens, by Angela Kim Harkins. She says that the psalms were a way to enter into transcendant experience, where the original poet put it down in words. The singers get to vicariously, "in spirit", experience what the poet/psalmist is writing.

In other words, our "performance" of the poem allows us vicariously to share the experience of the original writer.

We can thus hypothesize that Jesus saw himself as the true subjective "I" of the Psalms: "He (the Father) reached down from on high; He rescued me (the Christ) because He delighted in me" ~Psalm 18. Jesus saw himself as the fulfillment of such predictive/prophetic oracular utterance.

Paul affirmed this by saying, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, singing and Psalming with grace in your hearts to God." Paul saw Christ as the fulfillment of the divine text, and we could, by singing, become "no longer 'I' but Christ". Christ is the only "I" of the Psalms.

Paul also talked of being "filled in spirit" as one sang the Psalms. Again, this allows the participant to vicariously re-create Christ's experiences.

Of course this doesn't apply to the repentant sinner of Psalm 51, etc. But its application is still possibly much wider than Witness Lee realized, and taught. Often Lee would look at the Psalm (or Deuteronomy 17) and see either a psalmist "trying to be good", or "a NT believer enjoying grace", but actually the continual NT reception pattern is of Jesus Christ fulfilling typology. There was a world of shared understanding, of commonly-held meaning, that the NT speakers and writers assumed.

So books like Harkins' help me to see the assumed meaning on the ground when Jesus spoke, and taught, and when Paul and others echoed Jesus' speaking and teaching with their epistles.

Christ is the "I" of scripture. Not the prophet, and not the "NT believer enjoying grace." No, "It is no longer 'I' who live but Christ" Amen, Paul. Preach it.

[aron]

In leaving the LSM behind, one must let go of one thought-world and create another. I find scholarly books to be helpful in opening the thought-world which forms the backdrop of the NT.

The book cited in post #103 by Harkins actually isn't about the Psalms but rather the Qumran Hodayot, or "Thanksgiving Prayers". But it's an examination of a Second Temple-era text, that sheds light on NT-era thought and practice, and through which the surrounding field of assumed knowledge in the NT gets opened to consideration. Paul wrote of using "spiritual songs" in addition to the Psalms; again these non-canonical texts are not doctrinal per se but exemplify the Jews' song-writing in the Herodian period, with earlier [OT] themes embellished by new inspirations.

(Many scholars, for example, see strong similarities between John the Baptist and the Qumran texts.)

Another example is Gert Steyn's "Psalm and Hebrews: Studies in Reception" (2010). One can get this for free from most any public library, through interlibrary loan. There is a whole world of meaning, waiting to be found.

http://www.jhsonline.org/reviews/rev.../review771.htm

Originally Posted by J.C.Calaway

Finally, most of the essays dealt with a recurrent question for scholars of both testaments, but especially New Testament scholars: the relationship between the New Testament and Israel's scriptures. Many of the essays dealt explicitly or implicitly with issues of continuity and discontinuity between testaments, using the Psalms in Hebrews to illustrate this broader issue. While some saw alignment, others saw divergence. Others delineated how, as Frevel argues, Hebrews updated the Psalms to new circumstances. It is here that the volume finds its strongest contribution.

Lastly, what of Paul's remark that women will be saved by child-bearing? Is it related to Jesus' remark that infants' Angel's are always beholding the face of the Father in heaven? There is a host of contemporary non-canonical literature (e.g., 1Enoch) suggesting thematic associations. And there are intelligent and careful scholars who're thinking of such things, looking at potential meanings. We'd be wise to avail ourselves of such resources.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

So why did Watchman Nee read 3,000 christian classics and we are not supposed to? Why did Nee get a pass to study, and then when he put pen to paper, suddenly all Christian scholarship was rendered null and void? Why could Nee do it in 1923 but Joe Christian can't do it in 2017?

This gets close to my argument - why were 3,000 Christian classics produced between the first and 20th centuries, and then once Watchman Nee began to write, none? Henceforth, we were told that only classics came out by one single author? It makes no sense to me that for 19 centuries disparate sources would not only exist but be a strength, and constitute our "goodly heritage", and then at one single point in time, when one writer put pen to paper suddenly nobody else had any light any more?

I'm sure an apologist for the LSM will come along at some point and tell me that I am confused. Well, they're right. All those myriads of Christian classics were produced, and suddenly the age turned and only one pen left on earth with light for humankind. What an amazing story; an incredible turn of events, i.e. non-credible. . . biased, blatantly self-serving and clearly contradictory.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee taught that Psalm 1 showed vanity and Psalm 2 showed Jesus. No; Psalm 1 shows Jesus and Psalm 2 shows Jesus. Deuteronomy 17 is the "golden thread" that binds the two..

Deuteronomy 17 shows the King as a man who loves God's statutes; Psalms 1 and 2 show us the man who loves God's statutes as King, even King of kings. The King over all the nations, and over all the rulers of the earth. Every knee must bow, and every tongue confess Jesus as Lord.

Once one sees it, one is hard-pressed not to; in fact one wonders why the "seer of the age" did not. Well, it's no matter, what matters is to press on. There is much more Christ in front of us, waiting to be found. "Seek and ye shall find", is the adage, and never more true than now.

One stronghold of LSM is, "There is nothing out there for you. Don't bother." In this way, the natural seeking inclination gets repressed; it needs to be re-woken, brought back to life.

By the obedience of the one, we who were disobedient and condemned were made right, and brought into obedience. "In him."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Once one sees it, one is hard-pressed not to; in fact one wonders why the "seer of the age" did not. Well, it's no matter, what matters is to press on. There is much more Christ in front of us, waiting to be found. "Seek and ye shall find", is the adage, and never more true than now.

Recently I study the book of Job. Not something I regularly do. In fact, when I was in the LC, I was specifically told just to read the first and last chapters, since the rest was a "waste of time."

But Christ is there, He can definitely be found. This book has provided spiritual encouragement for all God's people, post Patriarchs, both Israel and the church. Job shows us that God uses suffering to perfect us. Thoughts taken from Job are sprinkled throughout the Bible. Did not even Jesus learn obedience thru His sufferings? (Hb 5.8)

God, in His infinite counsel, wanted faithful men to experience some of the inner feelings of His Son, long before He came to this earth. In the depth of his sufferings, Job cried out for a God who appeared to abandon him. King David also cried, "my God, my God, why ..." On the cross, the Savior even repeated this.

Job tasted the suffering of loosing all. Not just family, home, wealth and health, but his own dignity, honor, reputation, status. The depth of these latter sufferings weighed far more heavily on this righteous man than the former. This informs us of the Son. Jesus' suffering passion of scourging and the cross was eclipsed by His own loss of glory (Phil 2), enduring mocking worse than a common criminal, unjustly accused, betrayed by friends, debased with every slur known to man and demon, yet He despised the shame, obeyed God, and in the end was honored by God, more than before.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Job shows us that God uses suffering to perfect us. Thoughts taken from Job are sprinkled throughout the Bible. Did not even Jesus learn obedience thru His sufferings? (Hb 5.8)

One of the things that I see in the "grace on steroids" post-Protestant world, just go to the meeting under the right minister and "absorb more God" view, is that we forget that we are sinners. Yes we are redeemed, yes forgiven, yes even born again, "called to be saints" (1 Cor 1:2); with all the "transformed and glorified" stuff to follow.

But on this side of the Bema, we should not presumptuously elevate ourselves. We should take the least place and let the Father and/or the Lord of the Feast call us up, in due time. AND NOT BEFORE The danger of presuming a place for ourselves before then, is we lose the ability to listen. We only hear the voices in our head, telling us how great we are. How much light we have, while all else are in darkness.

In the gospels, all the disciples wanted to be first, to be greatest. (or most of them; enough so that it became a repeated issue). We do not have full assurance that some of this didn't play out in more subtle ways in the Acts and epistles. See, e.g., Acts 6:1-7.

The "perfecting through righteous suffering" motif was clearly in the OT, and Jesus then personified it in full. Now we the sinners get the benefit of his suffering, on our behalf.

My point is this: we can get deluded by focusing on our "enjoyment" in grace, not his righteous suffering. The Bema has not yet arrived. We would be wise to humble ourselves, and learn from others. There are a lot of Christians out there who can teach us a lot. Witness Lee could have taught us a lot as well, but he presumed to teach everything, and thus (imho) is only to be rejected. The "eat the chicken but toss the feathers" idea is no good if you choke to death on the feathers. If WL had allowed his testimony and teaching to be "salted" by other believers like TAS and other gifted servants, he had much to recommend.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One of the things that I see in the "grace on steroids" post-Protestant world . . . My point is this: we can get deluded by focusing on our "enjoyment" in grace, not his righteous suffering.

There are a lot of Christians out there who can teach us a lot. Witness Lee could have taught us a lot as well, but he presumed to teach everything, and thus (imho) is only to be rejected. The "eat the chicken but toss the feathers" idea is no good if you choke to death on the feathers. If WL had allowed his testimony and teaching to be "salted" by other believers like TAS and other gifted servants, he had much to recommend.

The "grace on steroids" can really be seen in the prosperity gospel, where it does much damage. How many lose their faith due to perceived shortage of grace? How many are exalted by perceived excesses in grace?

We are commanded to stand with our brothers and sisters, but Lee taught that blessings only come standing with his ministry. Like Job's friends, Lee judged all others for some perceived sin of his own making.

Indeed Christians out there can teach us a lot. For example, the evangelical world is now split 50-50 by Tongue-speaking. It is the great Christian Chasm today. But both sides can learn much from the other.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Once one sees it, one is hard-pressed not to; in fact one wonders why the "seer of the age" did not.

I think seeing Christ everywhere in all the Bible -- and everywhere else, btw -- is a matter of putting on the new man. Then you see that Christ is all and in all. Maybe Lee took his new man off, like glasses, and therefore couldn't see Christ in all the Psalms.

On the other hand, I'm sure there are human elements in Psalms. But the new man will see Christ there too ... cuz the new man sees Christ is all and in all.

Maybe bro Drake, our resident Lee devotee, can clear up for us why bro Lee didn't fully wear his new man -- or so it appears, anyway.

Heck if I know what was wrong with Lee. It's too much to sort out. I just couldn't allow him to lord over me. Then it didn't matter what he thought about Psalms ... or anything else. I don't read Lee. I got rid of all his books.

[OBW]

I have not been a follower of this thread, but started reading through it today. The quote, below, from one of the earliest posts, concerns an area of concern to me as I have been reading in the Bible in recent years. I did not attribute it as it is not peculiar to the one making the post, but a common position that permeates the study of theology.

As a rule, the Lord and the Apostles did take common words, mostly Greek ones, and attach special meanings to them that carried spiritual connotations. For example the Greek word "pneuma" which to the Greeks meant (Kittel abridged p. 876) "wind or breath" and by extension "life or even soul." To the Biblical Authors, however, pneuma took on a whole new semantic. We could discuss dozens of other Greek words, like ekklesia or charis, in a similar construct. Thus the translator must decide . . .

As I have studied other words, such as those used for life, I note that the Greek word zoe has been given some pretty hefty religion-specific meaning that it did not otherwise carry. And Lee took it one step further by declaring it to simply mean "God's life."

But there is no evidence that the word is not intended to be understood exactly as any Greek (or someone understanding Greek) would understand it. In its purest form, it means something like "the fullness of life." Like what a Bud commercial would call "gusto." I have to admit that if we are looking for the fullness of life, then it is best realized through a life lived in Christ. But that does not alter the meaning of zoe.

My problem with the presumption of special religious overtones or alternate meanings is that it is a way that those with a desire to get certain things out of the Bible succeed. If you can assert an alternate meaning of a word, then you can alter what you get out of the Bible. In my recent readings, I am realizing that I am not a very good Calvinist. I believe fully in security of salvation. But to get to certain points on the (6 petals?) of the TULIP, I have to already accept the full Calvinist dogma as true to manage to dismiss those pesky verses that unravel certain parts — like the so-called double predestination.

I do not want to get in a discussion of Calvinism, but rather state that in each of the cases mentioned, there is a reading that is fully consistent with the rest of the scripture and with our understanding of who God is without inserting a special definition that is not otherwise obviously called-for. In other words, if the plain reading doesn't get you there, don't presume that layering on a novel meaning not explicitly stated within the scripture gets you anything.

Now I do not suggest that new, added definitions should simply be rejected. But I would suspect that most of any such re-defining would turn out to be simply finding an existing meaning other than the primary. But if we start with the idea that the scripture is to all of mankind and not just the theologians, then having it written in a kind of "code" (or private lexicon) where words no longer mean what the average reader would understand seems to go against this.

Of course, maybe this is the reason that some have recently suggested that having the printed Bible in everyone's hands is the reason that there are thousands of doctrinal differences, ranging from minor to very serious (even heresy to some). If you leave it to the theologians, at least they will mostly remain together even as they spend lengthy times hashing out meanings on things (even beyond lifetimes). Even the RCC, after centuries, has come around to some of Martin Luther's thinking. Not excusing other RCC errors, but noting that over time serious theologians (as opposed to those of the armchair variety — like me) do listen to each other and often something comes from it. Does it result in unity? Not really. That is still because of Christ (as has been spoken of so clearly in another thread) and not because of doctrinal unity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

As I have studied other words, such as those used for life, I note that the Greek word zoe has been given some pretty hefty religion-specific meaning that it did not otherwise carry. And Lee took it one step further by declaring it to simply mean "God's life."

But there is no evidence that the word is not intended to be understood exactly as any Greek (or someone understanding Greek) would understand it. In its purest form, it means something like "the fullness of life." Like what a Bud commercial would call "gusto." I have to admit that if we are looking for the fullness of life, then it is best realized through a life lived in Christ. But that does not alter the meaning of zoe.

Dr. Philip Comfort, noted Greek scholar, would disagree with you, at least on your first point.

Firstly, PC taught that "zoe" to the Greeks meant "life in action," without divine connotation, of course, much like you describe it. Zoo and Zoology come to mind.

Yet, in the New Testament, the word "zoe" takes on new life, so to speak, and as such it must be defined by its usage by the writers of the Bible, and not by secular Greek writers.

[aron]

Different words have different meanings to different groups of people, even contemporaries who have much in common. For example, the word "fellowship" is different in LSM-affiliated local churches, than from others: it Carrie's little of the sense of mutuality, discourse and reciprocity found elsewhere.

Likewise, a Jew from the diaspora, Saul of Tarsus, would likely have had a vocabulary different from both the Galileans and the Jerusalem cohort. Yet they all believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. ( even the concept of "resurrection" wasn't evenly held, as Paul's letters show).

This thread was started to challenge the notion that LSM does, or should, hold a monopoly on contemporary Christian discourse. One of the LSM-fueled mantras is that there is nothing "out there" of value; rather, that multiple voices will bring confusion and discord.

I recently read a review by NT Wright of Daniel Boyarin's book on the apostle Paul. Clearly Wright disagreed with most if not all of Boyarin's conclusions. Yet he respected Boyarin's work as valuable, as a needed part of the discourse, if only to help us understand our thinking. This, to me, approaches the core of Jesus' world - it is only as we approach and even embrace the "other" as best we can, that we truly become ourselves. Those who shut themselves off in narrowness of self lose the path, the golden thread.

Having one voice define one meaning for the Christian collective is doomed to failure. I cannot overstress that Watchman Nee's perceived strength was his ability to allow multiple voices to simultaneously compete within his consciousness. Only then could an approximation of objective truth begin to emerge.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I recently read a review by NT Wright of Daniel Boyarin's book on the apostle Paul. Clearly Wright disagreed with most if not all of Boyarin's conclusions. Yet he respected Boyarin's work as valuable, as a needed part of the discourse, if only to help us understand our thinking.

First Paragraph of review excerpted below:

a review article of Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity.
(Originally published in Reviews in Religion and Theology 1995/3 (August), 15–23. Reproduced by permission of the author)
by N. T. Wright -- Lichfield Cathedral, England

This is an incredible book. I can’t believe the range, the skill, the chutzpah of it. I can’t believe the learning, the easy grasp of complex ideas, the integration of exegesis and politics, of culture and philosophy. I can’t believe the daring, the readiness to go out on a limb and then make it work. Unfortunately, I can’t quite believe the thesis itself, either; but we shall come to that presently. Sometimes, when I read a book in the field of Pauline studies, I think ‘I wish I had written that.’ Sometimes I think ‘If I had had the time and the energy, I could have written that.’ But with this book I can only stand back and admire. There is no way that I could have written this book. I salute an astonishing achievement. Everything that I say from here on should have that as an implied running head above it.

And then Wright goes on to critique the book.

The difference between this and LSM's "Affirmation and Critique" is that Wright actually learns from his experience with Boyarin. He allows Boyarin to critique Christianity as he knows it, and has received it. Wright is willing to be challenged. He doesn't just use Boyarin as a prop - the figurative "other" - for his own tightly-held dogmas. He's willing to discuss, to consider, to learn, to probe, to inquire. Where did Witness Lee evince any of that over the 40 years we knew him (1965-95)? At the end he made a statement about "receiving others", and being wrong, but it was too little, too late, and the Good Ship Ministry sailed on, with captive assemblies in tow.

The way out of the trap is twofold: first, acknowledge that "the ministry" isn't the end-all and be-all, i.e. "God's present speaking"; and second, that there are contemporary voices out there, even ones that we don't agree with (much), whom we'd do well to listen to. We need the critique of "others" like Boyarin as much as we need self-affirming voices from among our flock.

An addendum on the second point: the books that speak to me don't have to be universally approved. Hopefully some of them will be more widely applicable - I think of the "Reception of Psalms in Hebrews" work that I've cited. Or my posted list of Second Temple-era & DSS scholars that are fairly widely-read today. Each one of us has our own unique voice, and unique meanings. Each one has their "library of Christian classics". But if we realize the Lordship of Jesus Christ we should at least try to listen to those outside our comfort zone. At least make some effort.

I keep coming back to the mantra: "Seek and ye shall find". It's true. Also, "Consider others wiser/better/nobler than oneself". It's the only way to learn, to grow, to experience real transformation. The experience, post-LC, of having my conceptual sand-castles dissolve has been one of the highlights of my life. To be free from someone else's dogma. Praise the Lord.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

The difference between this and LSM's "Affirmation and Critique" is that Wright actually learns from his experience with Boyarin. He allows Boyarin to critique Christianity as he knows it, and has received it. Wright is willing to be challenged. He doesn't just use Boyarin as a prop - the figurative "other" - for his own tightly-held dogmas. He's willing to discuss, to consider, to learn, to probe, to inquire. Where did Witness Lee evince any of that over the 40 years we knew him (1965-95)? At the end he made a statement about "receiving others", and being wrong, but it was too little, too late, and the Good Ship Ministry sailed on, with captive assemblies in tow.

I have mentioned before about receiving the ministry of Philip Comfort as a young Christian in the LC in Columbus. Phil was known as a "pure wordist" because he did not parrot the Life-Studies. Sure he referenced other writers, including Lee, in his studies, but his message was only from the scripture. His real passion was the Gospel of John, and after he departed, one of his first books was I Am the Way: A Spiritual Journey Through the Gospel of John. Phil longed to read the original Gospel of John autograph in Greek, and his other writings nearly accomplished that.

After his book came out, perhaps his first, LSM's A&C reviewed it. Of course they knew Brother Comfort from his tenure in several LC's during the 70's. A&C basically dismissed the entire book with comments like "others have seen this before." Deceptive code words implying that Comfort stole his work from Lee. Totally dishonest review. After that I canceled my subscription.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have mentioned before about receiving the ministry of Philip Comfort as a young Christian in the LC in Columbus....

After his book came out, perhaps his first, LSM's A&C reviewed it. Of course they knew Brother Comfort from his tenure in several LC's during the 70's. A&C basically dismissed the entire book with comments like "others have seen this before."

Yes, it's a thinly disguised put-down. What A&C affirms, they already know, anyway, because they already know everything worth knowing. What they can't affirm is of course wrong because whatever differs has to be wrong by definition.

Where's the mutuality? What would happen if LSM allowed their publications to receive the same treatment, or critique, as to every other publication?* Or, what if LSM-affiliated local churches could draw from other contemporary sources, and make their own syncretistic picture, just as Watchman Nee did from his? What if local church members treated WN and WL merely as two exegetical sources among many, to be drawn from at will, modified and rejected as need be?

Rather, it's as if the age changed when Watchman Nee began to minister: instead of disparate sources flowing into a collective testimony of truth for all the thirsty ones, there was now only one source for unfolding revelation. God's revelation was no longer found in the variegated footsteps of the flock but in the One Trumpet of one minister. Then, when Witness Lee passed, the age changed again - there was supposedly no more unfolding revelation to be had anywhere.

But if one looks, there are revelations of Christ. They're waving, shouting, "Hey! Hey! Look! Here!" It's really amazing what happens, when one begins to seek after Christ in his word. The Spirit activates. The Shepherd speaks. The sheep begin to hear his voice.

Originally Posted by Paul in Galatians 1 and 2

Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead--

to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not rush to consult with flesh and blood,

I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I spoke privately to those recognized as leaders, for fear that I was running or had already run in vain.

I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

We just have to be willing to look, to listen, to let go of what we think we know. The Spirit calls. "Don't be hardened; drop your concepts" - by contrast, the LSM output is arguably little but hardened concepts.

*"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" &c

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Where's the mutuality? What would happen if LSM allowed their publications to receive the same treatment, or critique, as to every other publication?* Or, what if LSM-affiliated local churches could draw from other contemporary sources, and make their own syncretistic picture, just as Watchman Nee did from his? What if local church members treated WN and WL merely as two exegetical sources among many, to be drawn from at will, modified and rejected as need be?

*"Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" &c

I wonder how many authors and publishers out there who refuse to even read and critique Lee's books, knowing their litigious ways? What is being said by word of mouth? How many of the "lurkers" here are scholars, pastors, or ministers? They now know the inner dynamics at LSM. Their concerns now go way past the aberrant teachings of "modalism."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

...what if LSM-affiliated local churches could draw from other contemporary sources, and make their own syncretistic picture, just as Watchman Nee did from his?

"In many counselors is safety, and success", said Proverbs. Watchman Nee drew on this motif heavily, and his use of multiple sources was celebrated by Lee and other followers. Yet somehow with Nee, this adage was fulfilled and completed, and a new age had dawned? Somehow, after Nee, many counselors would only bring in confusion?

Does this make any sense? It makes no sense to me.

And there are many counselors out there; they're there. God promised something; don't you think the means to obey His commands are not present among us? There are indeed many good counselors. But if we think none exist, we'll never look. Lee and LSM got us to stop seeking. No; the command is to seek. It's a command, and a promise. We just need faith. Faith and effort.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

"In many counselors is safety, and success", said Proverbs. Watchman Nee drew on this motif heavily, and his use of multiple sources was celebrated by Lee and other followers. Yet somehow with Nee, this adage was fulfilled and completed, and a new age had dawned? Somehow, after Nee, many counselors would only bring in confusion?

Does this make any sense? It makes no sense to me.

And there are many counselors out there; they're there. God promised something; don't you think the means to obey His commands are not present among us? There are indeed many good counselors. But if we think none exist, we'll never look. Lee and LSM got us to stop seeking. No; the command is to seek. It's a command, and a promise. We just need faith. Faith and effort.

Great points.

Didn't Rehoboam, son of Solomon, cast off all the wise counsel of Israel for the cheap nods of his sycophants?

Didn't division, conflicts, and chaos result?

History always repeats for those who refuse to learn from it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by bearbear

Once you're forced to stay in a bubble, it's hard to realize you are getting shafted when there are way better options outside your myopic world...

The same happened to me when I lived in the LC bubble. I thought we were the cream of the crop among all Christians growing up. The only comparison I had were the televangelists I saw on TV which validated my narrow LC Christian worldview. It wasn't until I started reading authors outside of WNee/WLee and meeting other Christians that this bubble popped and I realized these guys had something that was way better.

I'd been deceived all along into thinking that Witness Lee was the MOTA and every other Christian had shallow and superficial relationships with Jesus. It was quite a startling realization to know that it was the other way around. I was the one with the superficial relationship, and a whole bunch of other Christians who were living by faith and practicing God's word and not just parroting it were the ones with the real relationship.

Luke 11:28
But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

James 1:22
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.

The LSM makes a false choice to it's followers: it's either us or Jimmy Swaggert. So the LC member stops looking, even refuses to look or hear if God tries to talk to them from "Christianity". It's a false dichotomy. There are Christian voices out there. People who are involved in real, dynamic, give-and-take transformational learning. The voyage isn't over yet.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

On another thread, I challenged another person to find one minister that Witness Lee acknowledged between the years 1945 - 1995. That's 50 years. As far as I know, there were none.

The poster challenged me to come up with someone that Witness Lee should have listened to. I gave some names, and my reasons:

1. They spoke Greek and Hebrew, and could access the text themselves, without Vincent or Vine or Wuest to coach them. Not a minor thing, to actually be able to read the text yourself.

2. They also learned from one another, and none of them presumed to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth. Lee with his various scandals easily showed fruit (to me) that he was not the end-all and be-all he claimed, and was thus a charlatan presiding over naifs and dupes.

Now, are there any ministers out there between the years 1965 and 2015 worth listening to... or is the LSM the only source of truth and light? I'd like to open the floor..

One of my referenced scholars was Daniel Boyarin, and this was challenged because he's not Christian. But I responded that he's influenced the contemporary discussion.

Like the poster Ohio, I got interested in church history, to better understand how we got here. Some time ago, I was reading about the Chalcedon Rift (4th Ecumenical Council, 451 AD), six centuries before the Great Schism, and came to the conclusion that the church had lost its way (they were arguing over the meaning of the word we'd translate ‘nature’, as pertaining to Christ). Then I was considering the loss of the Jewish heritage and its effect on thinking in the Christian church, and came across Boyarin’s “Border Lines”. It was an astonishing work.

More recently I’ve been reading two books by Oskar Skarsaune, a Norwegian Christian scholar. One's called “In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity” and the other is an edited book called “Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries”. Here's a quote from the preface to the second work, which shows Boyarin's impact on contemporary discourse of the origins of Christianity.

(also note how Skarsaune speaks to point #2 in my original post, about not being dogmatic in one's assertions, and being willing to learn from others' views).

Originally Posted by Skarsaune

In the early stages of this work, our common perception was that we were concerned with a category of people who by their very existence somehow refused to take in in the reality of what was happening around them – the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity. Then, in 1999, Daniel Boyarin published his intriguing book Dying for God: Martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism, in which he challenged the paradigm of the parting ways in a groundbreaking manner.

In 2003 a new book appeared; challenging the traditional paradigm already in its title: The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Eary Middle Ages (ed. A.H. Becker and A.Y. Reed), a conference volume based on a joint Princeton-Oxford conference in 2002. These were not the only publications to signal a shift in scholarly attention… prior to any of these, Simon Claude Mimouni had published his magnificent survey Le Judeo-Christianisme ancient: essays historiques (1998). One could add several more titles to these, including Boyarin’s own follow-up of his pioneering work mentioned above: Border Lines: the Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (2004).

With regard to the present volume, the process behind which has been quite independent of any of the above projects, this has meant that while we were at work, a paradigm shift was going on around us. From the marginal position described by Visotzky, Jewish believers in Jesus and Gentile Christian Judaizers moved to the very center of scholarly interest. The present volume, however, is not meant to be a programmatic programmatic statement of scholarly debate about old and new paradigms. There is hardly any one position in regard to this question among the contributor of this volume. What unites us is a common conviction that the phenomenon of Jewish believers in Jesus has its own significance in the history of Christianity, and also for the history of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity.

Neither authors nor editors think of this volume as a definitive history of Jewish believers in Jesus during the early centuries (first to fifth centuries C.E.). Nor have the editors made any attempt at unifying and streamlining the points of view expressed in the different contributions. We have regarded it an advantage that the book contains more than one opinion on some of the problems treated. There is, at present, no established scholarly consensus on the different themes treated in this volume. This goes for the many large as well as many of the smaller questions. In this way it’s hoped that this volume, rather than summing up current scholarship, may in some measure contribute to it. A continuation of this history through the centuries until our own time is at an early stage of planning. This is a report on plans, not a binding promise.

My point is this: if you want to see the face of Christ, read the works of those who can help you see. Even those who don't agree with you, and with whom you don't fully agree. I completely disagree with much of Boyarin, starting from but not limited to his refusal to accept Jesus' resurrection from the dead. But he thinks differently from me, and forces me to think differently in response. As a result, I feel that my opinions are more grounded, not less grounded. Again I say this is what Watchman Nee did - he availed himself of disparate sources. Nee didn't have to agree with everything he read, but he was willing to use different materials to help him see Christ.

Contrast this to the "sickbed theology" of LSM, which says, if anyone reads from other sources, they might get 'poisoned' spiritually, or 'confused'... what an admission of weakness!