NIGEL TOMES: LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the Jewish oral traditions add value on such passages. Plain literal interpretation of the bible is not always correct. This is why we have bible versions that are nonliteral and yet are more accurate in meaning than the literal ones.

Evangelical, let me remind you of the obvious -- none of the Bible's major teachings are based on historical language-specific idioms.

The recovery, however, is quite different. MOTA authoritative leadership and member submissions to that authority are based on spurious interpretations of the Noah story carefully crafted by Nee and Lee. Apostle Paul rightfully calls this a system of error, built upon the sleight of men using numerous winds of teachings.

There are far more Biblical warnings to ministers, elders, and shepherds than there are to the members regarding their obedience to church leaders. Witness Lee broke every single Biblical instruction concerning leadership, from the treatment of others, to the handling of money, to the treatment of the ministry of the word of God, to the management of his own family.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, let me remind you of the obvious -- none of the Bible's major teachings are based on historical language-specific idioms.

The recovery, however, is quite different. MOTA authoritative leadership and member submissions to that authority are based on spurious interpretations of the Noah story carefully crafted by Nee and Lee. Apostle Paul rightfully calls this a system of error, built upon the sleight of men using numerous winds of teachings.

There are far more Biblical warnings to ministers, elders, and shepherds than there are to the members regarding their obedience to church leaders. Witness Lee broke every single Biblical instruction concerning leadership, from the treatment of others, to the handling of money, to the treatment of the ministry of the word of God, to the management of his own family.

Nees view was based on the view of uncovering the nakedness of the parent.

I've just presented alternatives such as from Judaism that puts the blame on the son for something far worse than merely seeing daddy naked.

If you were smarter you would realize what Ive presented destroys Nees argument if its not about uncovering daddys sin but about preventing him from having an unwanted younger brother.

[Cal]

Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse?

I agree that the story is about familial dysfunction. Noah was wrong to get drunk and naked, his son was wrong to tell everybody about it and Noah was wrong to curse his son and even his grandson, who wasn't even involved.

IMO, the story is telling us what happens to relationships when we live according to the flesh.

On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed.

I don't think the story has anything to do with authority. Why even think to go there in the first place? Unless you have a predisposition toward extreme authority like... the Chinese do? Again, where is the biblical evidence that God stood behind Noah's curse?

It's amazing that people can create whole theologies based on analogies that the Bible does not even confirm. That's very dangerous exegesis if you ask me. And now here a bunch of people are arguing about this imagined and unconfirmed theology. Astounding when you think about it. Lives get affected by stuff like this.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse?

I agree that the story is about familial dysfunction. Noah was wrong to get drunk and naked, his son was wrong to tell everybody about it and Noah was wrong to curse his son and even his grandson, who wasn't even involved.

IMO, the story is telling us what happens to relationships when we live according to the flesh.

On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed.

I don't think the story has anything to do with authority. Why even think to go there in the first place? Unless you have a predisposition toward extreme authority like... the Chinese do? Again, where is the biblical evidence that God stood behind Noah's curse?

It's amazing that people can create whole theologies based on analogies that the Bible does not even confirm. That's very dangerous exegesis if you ask me. And now here a bunch of people are arguing about this imagined and unconfirmed theology. Astounding when you think about it. Lives get affected by stuff like this.

Since Brother Igzy is smarter he realizes that the best interpretation of the Noah story is to use the rest of Bible to interpret these verses.

[Drake]

Igzy) "On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed. "

Yes, I agree.

Igzy) "Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse? "

Probably the first biblical recorded instance of fulfillment of the curse on Canaan was Joshua 16:10 and 17:12-13.

I am still thinking about why Canaan was selected for a direct hit on the curse. History shows Ham's other sons and their descendents went on to found great empires Egypt and Babylon. Although it is thought provoking that when the descendents of Cush were taken captive they were exposed to a similar shame as Noah (Isaiah 20:4).

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "On a more basic level the story is showing, vividly, that the judgment of the flood did not solve man's basic sin problem. Man was just as fallen as before. Another solution was still needed. "

Yes, I agree.

Igzy) "Where is the evidence that God approved of or supported Noah's curse? "

Probably the first biblical recorded instance of fulfillment of the curse on Canaan was Joshua 16:10 and 17:12-13.

I am still thinking about why Canaan was selected for a direct hit on the curse. History shows Ham's other sons and their descendents went on to found great empires Egypt and Babylon. Although it is thought provoking that when the descendents of Cush were taken captive they were exposed to a similar shame as Noah (Isaiah 20:4).

Drake

Those verses give no evidence that God backed the curse.

I'm not saying the curse had no effect. Certainly it did. Words are powerful. Unfortunately especially negative ones.

But still the fact that Noah's curse had impact and effect is no evidence that God approved of or backed the curse. It may simply be a stark warning to watch what we say (Matt 12:36).

Imagine the effect Noah's curse had on his young grandson. Don't you think the boy loved and looked up to Noah? But Noah, in a fog of hangover and embarrassment (been there myself), said something he probably regretted the rest of his life (done that too). What do you think his grandson's self-esteem was like after that? What do you think the fruit of that was?

It may still be true that the interpretation that Noah was issuing some sort of righteous judgment is correct. But nothing of what we know about what Jesus taught supports this. Jesus never intimated that authority figures, because they are authority figures, get to curse people because they got embarrassed. And look at the fruit of Nee and Lee's take on this passage. It resulted in nothing but lording, bullying and people being taken advantage of (like the sisters Philip Lee molested who were swept under the rug.)

Sorry, I don't buy it. I think Nee's interpretation of this is completely missing what God intended to say.

[Cal]

Doesn't everyone see how Nee and Lee's deputy authority teaching puts people in an impossible position?

Even in this discussion some are tending to agree with Nee and Lee because they are afraid not to. Because they are afraid of disagreeing with the deputy authority.

Don't you see how this compromises people, and the truth? Don't you see how it hinders people from following their consciences and what they feel God is telling them to do?

It is a horrible and insidious teaching. Unfortunately, when you buy into it you cannot even give such an idea consideration, because the deputy authority has spoken, and you have no choice but to agree with him.

I believe in authority, but not that kind of authority. No way. That is the way of the blind leading the blind. God cannot work with that kind of teaching. God cannot correct a group that follows it. Their path is set by the deputy authority and they cannot waver from it. Even God cannot stop them.

Of course, those who believe it cannot begin to consider such an idea, because, well, you get the point....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Nees view was based on the view of uncovering the nakedness of the parent.

I've just presented alternatives such as from Judaism that puts the blame on the son for something far worse than merely seeing daddy naked.

If you were smarter you would realize what Ive presented destroys Nees argument if its not about uncovering daddys sin but about preventing him from having an unwanted younger brother.

If I was "smarter" then I would realize things from the Bible that the Bible can not even realize.

Right, Evenjelly?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If I was "smarter" then I would realize things from the Bible that the Bible can not even realize.

Right, Evenjelly?

I gave you an opportunity to be free from the interpretation about Noah and his sons that supports Nee's view about the authority and submission, by looking to how it is interpreted in Judaism.

Reading and interpreting the bible "as written" without understanding the context, history and meaning of the times is a shortcoming of Nee's interpretation style is it not? Yet you would prefer to stick to his similar style of interpretation it would seem.

Is it not possible that the verse which is said to be about "coverings and uncovering of daddy's nudity" not about that at all, but about a wayward son who wants to castrate his father?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I gave you an opportunity to be free from the interpretation about Noah and his sons that supports Nee's view about the authority and submission, by looking to how it is interpreted in Judaism.

Reading and interpreting the bible "as written" without understanding the context, history and meaning of the times is a shortcoming of Nee's interpretation style is it not? Yet you would prefer to stick to his similar style of interpretation it would seem.

Is it not possible that the verse which is said to be about "coverings and uncovering of daddy's nudity" not about that at all, but about a wayward son who wants to castrate his father?

I would characterize this interpretation as "myths and unending genealogies" which Paul cautioned us to avoid.