Apostles

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There are "wolves". Clearly, the goal of the wolf is to devour the sheep. So among the false prophets and false apostles evidence that the person is "devouring" the sheep as in Daystar, or the PL travesty, etc would be evidence of the person being a wolf. Based on this I would say that there is evidence that WL was a wolf.

Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.

The problem with Lee was that he was held up as more than merely a Bible expositor. He was, variously, a "seer" or "oracle", conveying the depths of God's heart, and God's plan, to we dull and sightless ones. He was God's "deputy authority", able to raise up and depose various underlings, ("elders and co-workers") who in turn were to shepherd the flock. He was the "apostle of the age", able to guide the whole body of Christ on the earth through organizing various "moves of the Lord". And so forth.

So if we try him and find him false (Daystar, Philip Lee), then yes, he is a wolf. A wolf is a sheep who oversteps his allotted portion and begins to bite and devour the other sheep (I think of verse 6 of Jude, with angels who didn't stay in their allotted place but overstepped their position). Better to be a bible expositor who in hindsight is arguably a prophet, oracle, or apostle, than a supposedly super apostle who was in fact just a second-rate bible expositor.

On a related note (sheep, wolves, etc) it struck me today that sheep pens, though somewhat confining, and probably boring (lacking lush green grass and smoothly flowing rivers and mountain vistas and such), are at least safe. If Jesus leads you out of the sheep fold, and brings you to green pastures and beside still waters, fine. You feast and remain safe. But the wolf will also try to lure you out. He will get you to leave the fold, and then he will devour you.

In the 1970s there was quite a bit of "non-traditional" christianity going on, and suddenly it dawned on the flock that some of these leaders, who offered "different" and "fresh" teachings, were actually wolves. I am thinking of ones like Jim Jones, and David Moses Berg. Jim Jones had been a Methodist pastor. Berg was I think from the Christian and Misssionary Alliance. They stressed "ignored Bible truths" to their audience, and led their flocks outside the sheep pen, and then they devoured them.

With Philip Lee and Daystar, I am beginning to suspect that Lee was really a wolf.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

Lee was a second- or third-rate Bible expositor, when compared to Origen and Erasmus. But he was certainly a better Bible expositor than I, and many pastors and reverends out there tending to the flock.

Despite the language issues, and more correctly, the difficulty in understanding him through his accent at times, he was a fairly charismatic speaker. He had a learned manner with respect to so much of the Bible. But even without Daystar and his sons, the way he took and manhandled scripture does not allow me to treat him as so great a Bible expositor relative to the average small-church pastor. And maybe even a bunch of us, including you.

My problem with giving him any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.

I suspect that the average small-congregation pastor at least relies on many sources including sound commentaries and other writings. While Lee obviously did not make everything up, what he did get from others did not often retain its original integrity.

But then the very fact of the Daystar and Philip Lee fiascoes (not to mention those going back to Taipei) suggests that his skills at Bible exposition should be deemed irrelevant and he be cast aside as a wolf. As someone trying to feed his belly at the expense of the flock. So even if a whole lot of what he said was true, and even some of it profound, he loses credibility and should not even be consulted.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

My problem with giving [Lee] any significant marks in Bible exposition is that it would seem that he went at it with a goal to get a result, therefore (in hindsight) almost everything he said needed more than casual checking. His methods of Bible exposition seem too much like setting up experiments to prove or disprove something, then setting out to find only positive results, even by reinterpreting negative results.

To some extent we all do this; we find some verses which support our current fancy, and wave them in the air to show our theory/practice/obsession/interpretation is "biblical". All other biblical references which don't support our theory are, of course, ignored.

To get back to the subject of "apostles"... I was looking at what Paul considered as "marks of the apostles", in 2 Corinthians 12:12

NIV: "I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles."

I don't think Paul is being sarcastic here, even though he has just finished mentioning the 'super-apostles'...

Now, the LSM interpretation is that since there were apostles delineated in Ephesians 4:11 (and elsewhere) and it doesn't say that they were to be phased out, then the office of apostle must continue after Paul, John, Peter et al. There should be apostles (somewhere) today. Logical.

Then, when you ask them about the marks of a true apostle, about signs and wonders and miracles, they say, "Well, that was just for the first century. The age of miracles is over." Also logical.

So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.

And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is simple. If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

I'm with you on this one, Harold. 2 Cor 12:12.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm with you on this one, Harold. 2 Cor 12:12.

Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?

Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?

Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?

That's when he was Clark Kent. He said he was all things to all people....

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Did Apostle Paul lose his powers in II Tim 4.20b?

Perhaps Paul was affected by Kryptonite in the end?

Signs and wonders were to attest to apostleship, not to fix up whomever happened to be sick. Even Superman didn't save everyone.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

If someone claims to be an apostle take them to a cemetery and tell them to raise the dead. If they can't do it, don't believe another word they say.

And if the supposed apostle is deceased, bring a cadaver and lay it on his/her grave, and see if it comes back to life. I am thinking of the case of Elisha's tomb in 2 Kings 13:20,21.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

And if the supposed apostle is deceased, bring a cadaver and lay it on his/her grave, and see if it comes back to life. I am thinking of the case of Elisha's tomb in 2 Kings 13:20,21.

I wonder if it would work on Witness Lees' grave??? So we can finally be completely done with his claim to apostlehood.

Someone take their dead cat or dog to his grave, just to put it to rest once and for all, or vindicate Lee's claim as the one and only apostle on this earth in this age. Depending, of course, if the cat or dog comes to life, or remains dead.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Got it? It's quite simple, really.

It seems to me that only Paul emphasized his Apostleship. I don't remember any of the others calling themselves like "Peter an Apostle." I believe the reason for this was the ongoing efforts of the Jews to discredit him. Still Paul never said he was the MOTA, or The Apostle. This tremendous leap of credential facilitated much corruption in the Recovery.

I remember hearing for years how the Recovery was built upon a "man for every age." This distorted view of church history has damaged all those who received it. Paul said "all are yours." He also said that those who are "of men" are fleshly. It just amazes me that we studied those verses so many time, and never made the "connection."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember hearing for years how the Recovery was built upon a "man for every age." .... It just amazes me that we studied those verses so many time, and never made the "connection."

I hope that I am clear that I am not presenting some alternative "truth" to the LSM/BBs, but rather attempting to show how our thinking can impinge upon our ability to make connections in the written word. We ignore what is convenient, and trumpet the rest.

I am glad for all the points of view out there. I hold up what is interesting and useful to me, but (hopefully) realize that my points are not necessarily more valid than others'.

"In the counsel of many is safety"... from Solomon the wise.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

So one age, "The age of the apostles" is not over, because the Bible doesn't indicate that it was supposed to terminate.

And another age, "The age of miracles, signs and wonders" is over, because the Bible doesn't say that it was supposed to continue.

Got it? It's quite simple, really.