Helping those still in the Recovery

ToGodAlone · 07-30-2011, 03:29 PM

I'm pretty sure all of us still have ties to the local churches in some way shape or form and still have contact with many current members. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways in which we can help those who are still in the local church. Be it actually leading them out of it or just showing them a different perspective than the one they've probably heard their whole lives, how can we our brothers and sisters in the local church?

awareness · 07-31-2011, 07:55 AM

The one brother I know that's in the recovery, that left it and then went back in, said he doesn't want to hear anything negative about Witness Lee even if it's true.

So how do you help someone like that? And what can you say to him to help him?

ZNPaaneah · 07-31-2011, 09:20 AM

When I fellowshipped with Catholics I didn't talk about the Pope. When I fellowship with Jews I focus on the OT, not the new. When I fellowship with unbelievers I may focus on history or Scientific observations. I think the principle is the same. We have a lot of positive things in common with everyone, including those that meet with the LRC. I don't think you are helping anyone by harping on WL. The exception of course is if they want to know. In our case it helps us to understand what was otherwise a puzzle we couldn't figure out. But until the Lord brings someone to the point where they want to understand WL then I think it is counterproductive to raise the issue. In the LRC they are taught that ex members are bitter and miserable and want to spread poison. You feed into that if you are the one pushing the negative agenda. On the other hand if your focus is on genuine fellowship eventually, in good time, the subject of why you left, or why you don't meet with the LRC or some contradiction they see in their own experience will come up.

awareness · 07-31-2011, 10:21 AM

Good points bro Z. I too try to stay away from hot button subjects.

But I'm out and this brother is in the recovery church of Witness Lee. So there's a very big elephant in the room when we converse. And you can only talk about the weather for so long. The obvious is bound to come up sooner or later.

They [Lee loyalites] can't help it. They've got to push their message. They're obligated to the Lord to do so.

This brother thinks I'll never be right again unless I come back to the local church ; that everyone needs to be in the local church to be right with God.

So the subject of the local church and Witness Lee is gonna come up. They/he will bring it up. They owe it to the Lord to speak that truth, for both the Lord and YOUR/MY salvation. They're infected with that meme to the bone.

So help them? They don't want to be helped. They want to help you.

How do you help people that believe they are a member of God's only move on the earth?

ZNPaaneah · 07-31-2011, 11:51 AM

I am very familiar with all that. There was a brother from the LRC that taught at the same school I did. He was not militant by any stretch, but no doubt everyone in the congregation knew that I was at his school, and they probably asked him "how I was doing" to get a confirmation on the inevitable decline. However, NYC publishes a list of valedictorians and it became obvious to me that everyone in that congregation learned of my kids success one way or another, even though I had left 10 years earlier.

Once again, I see no reason to talk WL unless they want to, instead I focus on my own recent experiences of the Lord and hope my personal experience exposes the lies they are taught.

awareness · 07-31-2011, 12:19 PM

So the best way to help them, you are more or less saying is, show them that we left and lightning didn't strike us dead? That the Lord is still good post local church?

ZNPaaneah · 07-31-2011, 01:55 PM

Sure. For one thing anyone in the LRC has been taught that if you leave the LRC you fall into a barren and cursed wasteland. But they don't have any evidence of this at all, no case stories, nothing. So as soon as they learn that you are an example of someone who left they will be very interested to see if they can see the evidence of God's blessing being removed from your life. Also, since you were in the LRC you have a lot to discuss that they cannot discuss with your average Christian. To me that is the way to open the door to fellowship, they want to hear your testimony and you speak their language.

OBW · 07-31-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So the best way to help them, you are more or less saying is, show them that we left and lightning didn't strike us dead? That the Lord is still good post local church?

That is one excellent way. We don't even need to contradict their common insistence on speaking of everything in religious, spiritual terms. Just don't do it. Talk about whatever, including your day at work. Notice how God is good to you. Good in ways that have nothing to do with "spiritual" things.

Be as positive about your spiritual condition as you actually are. Don't apologize for anything. If you say "Sunday" or "religion" in a positive way, don't flinch. If you went to a baseball game, mention it. Don't pull a "Peter" and start talking their lingo. If something they say bothers you, don't attack them, but don't necessarily let it go either. Ask what that means. I asked my sister who she was referring to when she said "the saints" one time. Made her align what she believed in word and what she acted upon in deed. Or at least consider the incongruity. Let their eyes open.

It is sort of like what Paul talked about in 1 Corinthians. The best we can do is plant a seed or throw some water on a seed already planted. If God is going to do anything with it, it is his job. But that means we can do a lot of seed planting and watering. We just can't force the growth.

ZNPaaneah · 07-31-2011, 02:30 PM

Also think about this, how many "ex" members did you know when you met with the LRC. If you knew one that was a backslider it confirmed what you were taught. But now if you meet one that is not a backslider you need to know 3 or 4 more to support what you are taught. So, it creates a positive feedback cycle where one positive testimony leads you to seek out 3 or 4 more. Also, until you find that 75-80% backslider ratio inwardly you will always be saying "that's not true" whenever you hear them teach about the horrors that await anyone that leaves the LRC.

ToGodAlone · 07-31-2011, 09:49 PM

Perhaps this question is in some ways irrelevant, but I feel that for the purposes of this discussion, it can affect one's approach to the subject. Are those in the local church actually Christians? It's a subjective question for many, and I'm sure a lot of you have strong opinions one way or another, but I was just wondering how you viewed it. I've read arguments from both sides and I think they have a good degree of validity of both ends.

zeek · 08-01-2011, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Are those in the local church actually Christians?

I suppose so. There's no way to know if anyone is actually a Christian definitely, not even ourselves.

awareness · 08-01-2011, 07:32 AM

It is commonly stated that Philip Lee wasn't regenerated. And his behavior displays that he wasn't.

But when the hidden history is revealed on Witness Lee one would have to even wonder if Witness Lee himself was regenerated.

Just because Witness Lee was learned in the Bible doesn't mean that he was regenerated. His behavior doesn't speak such..... Anyone that wants to work at it can expound the Bible....even atheists....but mostly con men of all sorts...

OBW · 08-01-2011, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

Perhaps this question is in some ways irrelevant, but I feel that for the purposes of this discussion, it can affect one's approach to the subject. Are those in the local church actually Christians? It's a subjective question for many, and I'm sure a lot of you have strong opinions one way or another, but I was just wondering how you viewed it. I've read arguments from both sides and I think they have a good degree of validity of both ends.

I would have to stand on the premise that virtually all LRC members are actually Christian. That "different Jesus" argument is based on a reference to a teaching in which the crucifixion and resurrection are not important. It is not about variations in how so many other things are understood. And I don't see any lack in the LRC's position on the crucifixion and resurrection. Or in their teaching on its importance to salvation.

zeek · 08-01-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

It is commonly stated that Philip Lee wasn't regenerated. And his behavior displays that he wasn't.

But when the hidden history is revealed on Witness Lee one would have to even wonder if Witness Lee himself was regenerated.

Just because Witness Lee was learned in the Bible doesn't mean that he was regenerated. His behavior doesn't speak such..... Anyone that wants to work at it can expound the Bible....even atheists....but mostly con men of all sorts...

Of course. I don't know if you're regenerate or not. I don't know if I am either. An evil demon may have deceived me into believing that I am.

Discussions about whether or not persons are regenerate or not are a waste of time. The Bible says that only God knows what is in the human heart. Jesus gave the parable of the wheat and the tares to illustrate that our condition one of ignorance in this matter until the "harvest" which stands for ultimate reality by my lights.

countmeworthy · 08-01-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When I fellowshipped with Catholics I didn't talk about the Pope. When I fellowship with Jews I focus on the OT, not the new. When I fellowship with unbelievers I may focus on history or Scientific observations. I think the principle is the same. We have a lot of positive things in common with everyone, including those that meet with the LRC. I don't think you are helping anyone by harping on WL. The exception of course is if they want to know. In our case it helps us to understand what was otherwise a puzzle we couldn't figure out. But until the Lord brings someone to the point where they want to understand WL then I think it is counterproductive to raise the issue. In the LRC they are taught that ex members are bitter and miserable and want to spread poison. You feed into that if you are the one pushing the negative agenda. On the other hand if your focus is on genuine fellowship eventually, in good time, the subject of why you left, or why you don't meet with the LRC or some contradiction they see in their own experience will come up.

Hi all,
It's been a long time since I've popped in to read or post here. Anyhow.... I found this thread, in particular very interesting and this response very true to my experience. My neighbors across the street and next door to me are Catholics. The neighbors across the street are more spiritual than the ones next door. It is so obvious one is seeking Christ and the other one just going through the Sunday motions.

My neighbor across the street had been studying 5 years to become a deacon in the RCC. Finally the day came a couple of months ago where he was ordained. He & his wife invited me and my next door neighbors to the ceremony where the archbishop and a slew of bishops and priests were going to ordain him and 15 other men as deacons.

So my next door neighbors & I drove together to the ceremony which was followed by a family luncheon. Wowsee, Wowsee !!! No sooner than we arrived to the 'church', I had to press in with all my might to Praise, Glorify, Worship & pray w/o ceasing pray. Had I not, I would have gone bonkers w/boredom. Then I would have whined, murmured and complained of the long & boring ceremony. Either that or I would have fallen asleep ! (Believe me next time I have trouble sleeping, I'm going to mass and a 'high' mass at that!!!)

Everyone around me felt the same way especially my next door neighbors. I chuckled when they vented on the drive to the luncheon.

So I opted to pray. I told the Holy Spirit to look at every person in attendance. I didn't know who was saved or who wasn't. One thing was for certain, everyone needed God's Hand to touch them, including me. So for 2 1/2 hours in between the singing & 'praying', I prayed for each person in that church building. I prayed for Jesus to bless us with His Presence. I prayed for His Glory to fill the room that everyone would feel His Touch.

Finally the long winded ceremony ended & off to the luncheon we went. There were about 50 people that were invited. Before we ordered, R stood up, thanking us all for going to the ceremony & coming to the luncheon. He proceeded to tell us that right before being ordained, all the deacons had to lay face down on the floor. Each one was to pray with their own words softly & privately. He told us all that as he began to pray he felt like a strong blow, like a wind hit his back. He was filled with immense peace and knew right away it was the Holy Spirit Who entered him. Those were his words.

How Awesome is our God isn't He ?! As we were all talking to one another, R's son who was sitting across from me commented on how his dad was the only one whose voice could be heard saying 'Amen' as he was being ordained. Now me and my next door neighbors sat way in the back of the 'church' during the ceremony and we heard R say "amen". I responded to his son that his dad had the Anointing of the Holy Spirit on him which is why we could hear him. His son said to me "EXACTLY !!" I simply smiled.

That was all we said about the Lord the entire time we were there. I suppose his son is saved by the way he responded to me. Point is, that is all we said about the Lord. I was not led to say anything more than that. Great food ! I had a fun time.

A few days ago, me & the neighbors were outside. My next door neighbor, as nice & funny as he is, is the 'Gladys Cravitz' of the neighborhood. He knows everything about everyone in the neighborhood and beyond. So I looked at "R" and told him to go into his prayer closet when he goes home & pray for "D". We all chuckled including "D".

When we went our separate ways, I told R the Lord was going to reward him for the good deed he had done for one of the neighbors. That got us talking & fellowshipping. He told me that not many of the deacons he knows follow God as they should. He then asked me with 'spiritual' curiousity & amazement where I learned all I was explaining to him. I simply answered "The Bible." He then told me had studied for 5 yrs to become a deacon and had never heard the scriptures I had shared with him. I told him where they were in the bible. He thanked me for sharing with him the scriptures & for the fellowship.

What you wrote ZNPaaneah, is what I experience. I have never said one word to my neighbors what I 'know' about the RCC. I have had Jewish acquaintances and when I speak to them about God, I speak highly of the God of their fathers, our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I always bless them.

I have a couple of LSM friends who are struggling with their 'local' church. But I can't say a word about their 'anointed' WL. They're as bad as Catholics who are bored silly with their religion but as soon as you mention a way out, they get their feathers all ruffled !

Great post ZNPaaneah ! Thanks for sharing your well thought out observations.

awareness · 08-01-2011, 09:06 PM

And thanks for your sharing as well CMW. So you're telling us that the Holy Spirit showed up at a boring dead Catholic ceremony. The Holy Spirit is indeed like the wind. Blowing where it will.

Methinks Jesus spoke of the Spirit being like the wind because no one owns the air. No one can claim, "I own the air."

countmeworthy · 08-02-2011, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And thanks for your sharing as well CMW. So you're telling us that the Holy Spirit showed up at a boring dead Catholic ceremony. The Holy Spirit is indeed like the wind. Blowing where it will.

Methinks Jesus spoke of the Spirit being like the wind because no one owns the air. No one can claim, "I own the air."

You are welcome Awareness. Oh yes...I'm sure I'm speaking to the choir when I share the next 2 experiences I had of the Holy Spirit being like the wind:

First. When I got saved in 1975, I worked at a Marine base, several brethren from the LC worked in the same department I worked in. They were never pushy but I was sure curious because they brought their bibles (KJ or NASB) to work and read them together or individually during breaks. [back then there were no RcVs, thank GOD!]

I inititiated the conversation about the bible. WOW ! What a novelty huh ?!

For about a week, they opened the scriptures to me. I was starving for Jesus but didn't know that is why I was so amazed with the Word of God. When they invited me to a 'love / gospel feast', I backed out. However, when I showed up for work, I apologized for not showing up.

It was there. Right there, I prayed with my brother in Christ to receive Jesus as my Lord. As I prayed with a pure heart from the depth of my being, there came in that 'Mighty Rush of Wind' into me. "WHOOSH!" Words can't explain how I felt Him come in but I felt that WHOOSH like my neighbor did and the Peace of God enveloped me right away.

A second time I felt this 'Whoosh' was at a church service here in town a few years ago. I happened to be sitting with some people who were from out of town and had come for the first time. They had never experienced a service like that one. I know I was saying something about the Lord to them & had their attention. Anyway, at some point, the pastor invited people to come up for prayer...maybe for a blessing...I can't remember exactly what.

Everyone around me, those in the isles in front of me, those on my isles and those behind me all went up. I chose not to go up. I simply continued praying in my seat. Suddenly that "might rush of Wind" hit me hard, He almost knocked me down had it not been for the back rest of my seat ! I looked all around me to see if there was anyone near me but everyone was up front waiting for their personal blessing. I just knew...don't know how...but I knew the Holy Spirit had Blown more of His Wind into me for whatever reasons.

This experience has only happened to me 3 times that I can recall. It is very powerful. So yes Awareness. The Holy Spirit is indeed like the wind. Blowing where it (He) will. Good point you made !

awareness · 08-02-2011, 09:20 AM

Great testimony. So you are revealing that the Holy Spirit moves outside the local churches of Witness Lee?

countmeworthy · 08-03-2011, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

So you are revealing that the Holy Spirit moves outside the local churches of Witness Lee?

Silly man !

Curt2 · 08-06-2011, 10:25 PM

I just logged on today for the first time in a while and noticed this "new" thread. The title is "Helping those still in the Recovery" with the intent to help those still in the LC. Perhaps the title of the thread should be "Helping those still in the LC which is no longer the Recovery". And therein, I believe, lies the root of the problem.

In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose. At one time, this was the LC, which we referred to as the Recovery because we were part of a history of the Lord's recovery of the truths in the Word which were lost during the Dark Ages. Now the LC has gone the way of so many other movments and has become part of the the large group of generally lifeless organizations. The Lord has taken His Recovery and moved on. The question is "To where?" Until we can answer that question, we have nowhere to take those still in the LC. Is the group of believers you are now meeting with a part of the Lord's Recovery?

rayliotta · 08-06-2011, 11:22 PM

You mean the Apostle Paul believed in a subset of the church which is "God's Recovery"?

OBW · 08-07-2011, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curt

In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose.

Yes. This is true. And this is the church age. The age of Christians.

It is not the age of exclusivist sects. It is not the age of subsets of Christians who are "recovered" relative to others.

It is the age of the church and of Christians.

awareness · 08-07-2011, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curt

Is the group of believers you are now meeting with a part of the Lord's Recovery?

"The Lord's Recovery" was false imagery ... an illusion. The Lords' church was never lost. The gates of Hades never prevailed against it.

And of course, the Lord was never sick, and in need of recovery.

"The Lord's recovery" was part of the Lee family scam. The recovery, of Lee, was the advertisement on the front end of the scam, while the Lee kids, Philip and Timothy, worked the back end of the scam. And Witness Lee obviously allowed it and worked it.

zeek · 08-07-2011, 10:20 AM

Humanity needs to recover. God is doing fine.

awareness · 08-07-2011, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Humanity needs to recover. God is doing fine.

I don't know about that. The book of Revelation indicates that God is really pissed off at everybody but a select few. And Jesus in Revelation is no longer the forgive 490 times fellow, but coming down very angry....to kill kill kill fetuses, babies, women and men ... and to kill them in very bad and painful torturous ways.

So I don't know who needs recovery more....

Cal · 08-07-2011, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about that. The book of Revelation indicates that God is really pissed off at everybody but a select few. And Jesus in Revelation is no longer the forgive 490 times fellow, but coming down very angry....to kill kill kill fetuses, babies, women and men ... and to kill them in very bad and painful torturous ways.

So I don't know who needs recovery more....

Harold, you should join the Bertrand Russell/Mark Twain school of shallow bible reading.

awareness · 08-07-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, you should join the Bertrand Russell/Mark Twain school of shallow bible reading.

Now you see why I say the book of Revelation should have stayed out of the canon. It not only drives Christians crazy, with it's highfalutin prophesy, but caricatures both Jesus and God in an awful light. It very well may be a demon book.

OBW · 08-07-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Now you see why I say the book of Revelation should have stayed out of the canon. It not only drives Christians crazy, with it's highfalutin prophesy, but caricatures both Jesus and God in an awful light. It very well may be a demon book.

I would never go that far in assessing the merits of Revelation. But it is generally true that almost none of it has any real impact on current life. And since I believe that we are redeemed, sanctified, etc., first for the purpose of a return to our position as image-bearers in this world, and only incidentally for whatever the afterlife brings, then spending a lot of time considering Revelation has virtually no bearing on this life, therefore I assent to whatever will get the conversation moved on to something more meaningful in this life. It would seem that turning our focus to the life to come is to ignore the life we have here and miss the whole of the revelation of scripture to get lost in the book of Revelation.

And while this kind of "getting lost" is rather common among evangelicals/fundamentals, the LRC is among the most extreme. And this is our history, therefore it is understandable that we still tend to go there so easily. It is really quite funny that a group that despises "heaven" so much creates people so thoroughly stuck on an alternate version of it that they are almost useless to the current working of the Kingdom here in this day on the earth.

Cal · 08-07-2011, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Now you see why I say the book of Revelation should have stayed out of the canon. It not only drives Christians crazy, with it's highfalutin prophesy, but caricatures both Jesus and God in an awful light. It very well may be a demon book.

Since much of Revelation is taken from the old testament, particularly Ezekiel. I guess you are including that book as well in your crap list, among others.

I guess you should join the Thomas Jefferson school, too, who took scissors to his Bible to cut out everything he didn't like.

Shoot, Harold, why stop there? Why not cut out everything except. "God loves you" and "for freedom Christ has set you free?" That's the Bible you really want isn't it? Stop beating around the bush. Just admit it.

UntoHim · 08-07-2011, 07:54 PM

"demon book"? Now Harold, how is that kind of comment going to be "helping those still in the Recovery"? (on second thought, don't answer that…at least not on this thread)

Sorry Curt, your thoughtful post deserves a little better then we've done here so far. Like so many of the members here, I was in the LC for many years and I think I understand the thrust of your question here, and I don't think you deserve the mud pie that's been thrown about so far.

I'm going to re-post the last part of your post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curt

In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose. At one time, this was the LC, which we referred to as the Recovery because we were part of a history of the Lord's recovery of the truths in the Word which were lost during the Dark Ages. Now the LC has gone the way of so many other movements and has become part of the large group of generally lifeless organizations. The Lord has taken His Recovery and moved on. The question is "To where?" Until we can answer that question, we have nowhere to take those still in the LC. Is the group of believers you are now meeting with a part of the Lord's Recovery?

I actually agree with this: “The question is "To where?" Until we can answer that question, we have nowhere to take those still in the LC.” Now the real sticky part will come when some of us would point you to any number of fellowships which you would consider to be part of “Christianity” (maybe even poor, poor Christianity). What you probably don’t realize is that God has been doing a marvelous work among his people to “accomplish His purpose” for many years now, even centuries. I do agree with Mike that the “every age” we are in now is actually the Church age, and we have been in this age for about two thousand years now. The “people” that “God has” is actually just US – Christians. Unfortunately we are all he’s got. Recovery must come from all of God’s people - not just some “remnant”. Remnant is an Old Testament concept – it is not a concept taught by the Lord Jesus in the Gospels, nor by any of the scripture writing apostles. This is not to say that God has not arranged certain times of revival and refreshment among his people – this has been well documented throughout Church history. Maybe what the Lord did among Watchman Nee and others in Mainland China could be included in this?

So Curt, hang in there for a while. Let’s all discuss this, shall we?

rayliotta · 08-07-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

It is really quite funny that a group that despises "heaven" so much creates people so thoroughly stuck on an alternate version of it that they are almost useless to the current working of the Kingdom here in this day on the earth.

I think they think that by going out of their way to despise heaven so much, over and over again, they think they're "covered" when they set up their own version of it.

Cal · 08-08-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curt

In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose. At one time, this was the LC, which we referred to as the Recovery because we were part of a history of the Lord's recovery of the truths in the Word which were lost during the Dark Ages. Now the LC has gone the way of so many other movments and has become part of the the large group of generally lifeless organizations. The Lord has taken His Recovery and moved on. The question is "To where?" Until we can answer that question, we have nowhere to take those still in the LC. Is the group of believers you are now meeting with a part of the Lord's Recovery?

Actually, Curt this is mostly baloney. The whole idea of "in every 'age' God has a group of people (meaning a subset of the the church)" is bunk biblically.

"The Recovery" doesn't exist. At least not in the way you look at it. God just has his purpose, which is to spread his kingdom on earth, save people and build them up. This can happen anywhere. It is happening in the community church movement. It is happening in the house church movement in China. It is even happening in the emergent church movement. God is wherever genuine seekers are seeking him.

Looking for that "unique group" is never mandated in the Bible. God asks us to where we are serve him. He could lead us anywhere. Any group which considers itself "the Recovery" has the same fate in store as the LRC movement. Pride and degradation. Just like night follows day. It's those who don't think much of themselves who find him and whom he dwells with. He is far from the proud but near the humble. Stop chasing chimeras of the spiritual elite. God could lead you to build houses in Calcutta.

zeek · 08-08-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know about that. The book of Revelation indicates that God is really pissed off at everybody but a select few. And Jesus in Revelation is no longer the forgive 490 times fellow, but coming down very angry....to kill kill kill fetuses, babies, women and men ... and to kill them in very bad and painful torturous ways.

So I don't know who needs recovery more....

Yes the book of Revelation poses a problem. Perhaps Athanasius included it in his Biblical canon to scare people into the church. It can't be taken literally with any consistency. It's primarily a Manachean war of good versus evil with good winning in the end. The Jesus of Revelation is very different from what can be gleaned about the historic Jesus from the Gospels. And of course, Revelation raises the problem of evil. How can an all-benevolent God allow an innocent child to suffer? Regardless, the book of Revelation is always relevant in times of massive historic upheaval like the one we are living in.

Still, God is eternal, immortal, infinite and invulnerable. So it's hard to see why God would need to recover, except in the human imagination.

countmeworthy · 08-08-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curt

I just logged on today for the first time in a while and noticed this "new" thread. The title is "Helping those still in the Recovery" with the intent to help those still in the LC. Perhaps the title of the thread should be "Helping those still in the LC which is no longer the Recovery". And therein, I believe, lies the root of the problem.

In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose. At one time, this was the LC, which we referred to as the Recovery because we were part of a history of the Lord's recovery of the truths in the Word which were lost during the Dark Ages. Now the LC has gone the way of so many other movments and has become part of the the large group of generally lifeless organizations. The Lord has taken His Recovery and moved on. The question is "To where?" Until we can answer that question, we have nowhere to take those still in the LC.

My experience Curt (and Hi, btw), is we lead them back to Jesus, our Saviour. Simple as that.

I am learning the more I forge an intimate relationship with Jesus, the Presence of His Spirit envelops me. I follow Him wherever He goes and He follows me whereever I go. Now I understand what is means to Abide in Him and He Abides in you.

It's really all about HIM. He must become Precious to us for we are Precious to Him. I also do not make light of His Blood. He cleanses me daily, As I apply His Blood on my thoughts, asking Him to purify my desires, my heart, I feel secure IN Him. I can't put it into words except to say I know that I know His Blood, God's Angels, His Living Word places a hedge of protection around me so that no weapon formed against me will prosper as much as it might try.

I recall venturing out to meet Christians who had never heard of Lee. But immediatly it seemed, I was tested on my security because, I took my LC baggage w/me, not JESUS. I took what I knew of HIM. And That was a bad move !!!

His Spirit in Hebrews 9:14 enlightened me when I read how much more the Blood of Christ will purify our consciences from dead works so that we can serve & worship the living God.

I learned all we need is Jesus. The Words in our bibles must be alive to us for the dead letter kills but the SPIRIT of the Word of God is ALIVE in us. We can only share with others what we have experienced. If we don't know the power of Forgiveness, how can we tell others to forgive, if we have not forgiven ourselves and experienced it's power? How can we tell Jesus came to set the captives free, when we ourselves are still bound ?

I have learned to fix my eyes on Jesus. He is the Author and Perfector, Finisher of our Faith. I am learning not to get weary for we have a Great Cloud of Witnesses surrounding us, testifying to us the Life of Faith.

I am learning that as I become more intimate with Jesus, He Anoints me with Fresh Oil and brings people in my path, sometimes re-connecting me with old friends and blessing me with new ones. I am also discovering He is opening my spiritual eyes to understand the deeper things of God.

It's all about Jesus. When people in the recovery see the True & Living JESUS in us, when they experience the Presence of God in us, they'll come around slowly but surely. God know the sheep of His pasture.

I love Deuteronomy 11:18-22 and will close with these scriptures from the NLT:

Quote:

So commit yourselves wholeheartedly to these words of mine. Tie them to your hands and wear them on your forehead as reminders. 19 Teach them to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up. 20 Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates, 21 so that as long as the sky remains above the earth, you and your children may flourish in the land the Lord swore to give your ancestors.

22 “Be careful to obey all these commands I am giving you. Show love to the Lord your God by walking in His Ways and holding tightly to Him.

Cal · 08-08-2011, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes the book of Revelation poses a problem. Perhaps Athanasius included it in his Biblical canon to scare people into the church. It can't be taken literally with any consistency. It's primarily a Manachean war of good versus evil with good winning in the end. Jesus is very different from what can be gleaned about the historic Jesus from the Gospels. And of course, Revelation raises the problem of evil. How can an all-benevolent God allow an innocent child to suffer? Regardless, the book of Revelation is always relevant in times of massive historic upheaval like the one we are living in.

Still God is eternal, immortal, infinite and invulnerable. So it's hard to see why God would need to recover, except in the human imagination.

"Recovery" as used by the LRC is nothing more than a means to make themselves special. It's a way to modify God's purpose to make it seem like he has a preferred group of people through whom he is working. They take it a step farther in asserting that "God's recovery" "is one," which to them means everyone needs to join them in order to be in the "starting team."

This is all BS. God can work wherever he wants to, and does. He's not dependent on an organizational "move" that can be defined as this group or that.

God may lead you to help the Eskimos build igloos and bring Christ to them as part of the effort. If you are busy looking for his "elite team" you are going to miss that call. Drop the delusions of grandeur, and be led away to the lowly.

countmeworthy · 08-08-2011, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Now you see why I say the book of Revelation should have stayed out of the canon. It not only drives Christians crazy, with it's highfalutin prophesy, but caricatures both Jesus and God in an awful light. It very well may be a demon book.

Harold........
Don't make me hit you upside of your head !!

I for one absolutely LOVE the book of Revelation !!! I truly, truly love it. Why? Because I understand it!

Darkness always drives people crazy! They can't see their hand in front of their faces. Darkness makes people afraid. Talk to someone who has been in dark solitary confinenment. Scary. It makes people go crazy.

In a very quick summary, the gospels depict Jesus as the Lamb of God. Revelation depicts Jesus as the Lion from the Tribe of Judah. Most of Revelation is not written to the church. The church is mentioned in chapters 2 & 3 and then not again until halfway Chapter 19.

John describes the Worship he witnesses in heaven in chapter 4 & 5. The true believers are with Christ. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 coincides w/chapters 4 & 5.

Then he describes what he sees is happening on the earth from ch 6 to the first half of ch 19. Yeah...it's pretty ugly for sure. But sadder still is people who prefer for the rocks to fall on them than to admit Jesus is the Savior. They would rather side with a false messiah than the One TRUE Messiah.

Harold. God ROARS His Wrath on the wicked who are siding w/Satan. Yet there is a glimpse of HOPE during that time frame for those who repent. He even wipes away their tears.

We have all seen the countless annoying commercials to buy gold and silver right ? Yeah. Stock up on gold. A lot of good its' going to do people when there is no water and no food !

Here's what Ezekiel 7:19 says:

Quote:

They will throw their money in the streets,tossing it out like worthless trash.Their silver and gold won’t save themon that day of the Lord’s anger.It will neither satisfy nor feed them,for their greed can only trip them up.

Revelation 18:11-12

Quote:

The merchants of the world will weep and mourn for her, for there is no one left to buy their goods. 12 She bought great quantities of gold, silver, jewels, and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk, and scarlet cloth;

Come Lord Jesus.

countmeworthy · 08-08-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curt

In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose. At one time, this was the LC, which we referred to as the Recovery because we were part of a history of the Lord's recovery of the truths in the Word which were lost during the Dark Ages. Now the LC has gone the way of so many other movments and has become part of the the large group of generally lifeless organizations. The Lord has taken His Recovery and moved on.

Curt,
I did not address this part of your comments. But I agree w/Igzy who wrote:

Quote:

The whole idea of "in every 'age' God has a group of people (meaning a subset of the the church)" is bunk biblically. "The Recovery" doesn't exist.

And OBW who wrote:

Quote:

Yes. This is true. And this is the church age. The age of Christians.

The Lord has never 'recovered' anything at least in the way Lee taught it ! The dark ages were dark because people could not read and thus had to rely on the religious people to read the word to them which was merely the dead letter.

The LC under Lee became a movement. It was alive to many of us because Jesus was alive in us. That we were told the Lord was recovering His Truths was partly true and partly a lie. We were made to think The Lord was exclusively doing something never done before.

Yes.The Presence of God was with us. But He was not exclusively ONLY with us ! There were 'revivals' all over the country only we looked the other way. We rolled our eyes at Billy Graham's crusades because 'he didn't see -the church- as Lee saw it or as WE saw it.

Many people were being set free from demonic oppression or possession at church meetings but because they did not pray or pray like the LC prayed, or again, 'saw' the "Lord's Recovery", God's works of healings and deliverences were also snubbed at by Lee & we as blind sheep, then did the same. Instead of building them up in the Word of God and receiving what God was showing them, under Lee we dubbed them as Poor, Poor Christianity. We were looking to man just like the people in the Dark Ages were doing !

They unlike us, could not read and did not have bibles. We have bibles and can read yet still rely wayyy to much on men to teach us. That's not to say God does not raise "Moses' and Pauls" or "Esthers'" today. He does ! I have my spiritual mentors for sure !

As for dead churches, there have always been dead 'churches'. That's why the 'Charismatic' movement was birthed. They were suffocating in the dead denominations! But Lee's 'recovery' we were made to believe, was far better than the charismatics and that is why the LC became like Ephesis in Revelation 2 and Laodaocea, losing their First Love and becoming lax and luke warm holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power; as told in 2 Timothy 3:5.

Compare to what many of the LCs have gone through, we had it pretty good in San Diego Curt...and personally I do not credit Lee for the church 'life' we had there. WE, you, me, the saints were truly seeking the Lord in His Word pure & simple, long before the 'videos' of Lee teaching & long before the RcVs were published. We were blessed with Godly shepherds...not perfect but Godly nonetheless. We did our best to encourage one another in Spirit & in the Word. Though I appreciated some of the 'life study' messages, by & large, that was our downfall. We stopped reading the Word for ourselves. The life studies became our bibles. Long after I left, the footnotes of the RcV became the LC's bibles. "Lee's interpretation was the only correct interpretation." While some of it was correct, much of it was not or at the very least spoke in confusing tongues! Why, I recall being told he had read the Bible 50 times !! As if he was the only one !! And after that many times, he was still blind and deceived in many crucial areas!

Anyway....... the point is, Lee made up 'The Lord's Recovery' so that his flock would become sectarian and be set apart from other Christians. We are instructed to be set apart alright. Set Apart to CHRIST and HIM Alone.

When we are Spirit Filled, over flowing with His Word, our cup runneth over and splashes on saints and unbelievers. The saints are refreshed and the unbelievers get a Taste of the Goodness of the Lord ! They may even see a glimpse of His Power on us. The Power of the Word of God Living in us. It makes them hungry and thirsty for Jesus!

As for the 'recovered truths in every age', here is what the scriptures say:
1 Corinthians 2:10:

Quote:

It was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For His Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets.

Lee did not have exclusive rights to God's Word as we were made to believe !

Both Joel 2:28 and Acts 2:17 say virtually the same thing:

Quote:

It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

In Daniel 12:9 Gabriel the Archangel said:
“Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time. (Wow. Guess what ? We are there !! Jesus is beginning to unseal His Words..the scroll we read about in Revelation 6!)
A few verses before that, Gabriel had told Daniel in ch 12:2-4 that

Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace. Those who are wise will shine as bright as the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever. 4 But you, Daniel, keep this prophecy a secret; seal up the book until the time of the end, when many will rush here and there, and knowledge will increase.”

Imho, Lee tried to convince us God was recovering the 'truths' to him & to those who would follow him. Thank God, He preserved many of us for HIM & HIM alone after we left that religious bondage ! And we are a living testimony !

One more observation. I saw the movie 'Glory' for the first time a couple of weeks ago. It was made in the 90s I think. At the end of the movie, right before the final battle, the Black troops were gathered around a camp fire singing & humming prayers to God while clapping. Every now & then someone would stand up and the humming would continue at a much softer level as the person would share something. Everyone would then rejoice w/a Halleluia or "YES LORD!" as he finished. Then the singing/humming/clapping would continue.

I thought about our 'testimonies' or 'prophesies' whatever they are called now... and said... Wow LORD. Even our testimonies following a song or a message was not new !!!!

awareness · 08-08-2011, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

"demon book"? Now Harold, how is that kind of comment going to be "helping those still in the Recovery"? (on second thought, don't answer that…at least not on this thread)

I think a discussion of the book of Revelation is more than appropriate to "Helping those still in the Recovery."

The book of Revelation is much of the basis of "The Recovery."

So local churchers, as well as many Christians, should learn the history of the book of Revelation.

Up until the printing press the book of Revelation was in and out of the canon like a yoo-yoo. It's been disputed from early on. Many notables have placed the book in Antilegomena.

Yes, others have stuck up for it. But all the questions concerning the book would class it as a book that blind faith put into it, as the word God, should be more than questioned.

The concern about the book is that it would result in wild interpretations and abuse.

And that's exactly what has happen from the book. The book may or may not be a demon book, but the results from the book are demon results.

The book is fodder for people like Harold Camping, William Miller, and Witness Lee, to tangle Christians up in their ignorance, misuse, and abuse of innocent believers.

That's why the book should have never been put into the New Testament canon, and blind trust in it should be avoided.

zeek · 08-08-2011, 02:55 PM

I think Revelation qualifies for the canon on the strength it's many inspired images. For example, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." What would Christianity be without the promise of a new heaven and earth or the vision of the New Jerusalem? For all it's difficulties and the way it has been misappropriated, Revelation is none the less indispensible. The New Testament would be poorer without it.

awareness · 08-08-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I think Revelation qualifies for the canon on the strength it's many inspired images. For example, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." What would Christianity be without the promise of a new heaven and earth or the vision of the New Jerusalem? For all it's difficulties and the way it has been misappropriated, Revelation is none the less indispensible. The New Testament would be poorer without it.

But how serious should we take it? Should we take it as serious as Harold Camping, William Miller, and Witness Lee?

ZNPaaneah · 08-08-2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Actually, Curt this is mostly baloney. The whole idea of "in every 'age' God has a group of people (meaning a subset of the the church)" is bunk biblically.

"The Recovery" doesn't exist. At least not in the way you look at it. God just has his purpose, which is to spread his kingdom on earth, save people and build them up. This can happen anywhere. It is happening in the community church movement. It is happening in the house church movement in China. It is even happening in the emergent church movement. God is wherever genuine seekers are seeking him.

Looking for that "unique group" is never mandated in the Bible. God asks us to where we are serve him. He could lead us anywhere. Any group which considers itself "the Recovery" has the same fate in store as the LRC movement. Pride and degradation. Just like night follows day. It's those who don't think much of themselves who find him and whom he dwells with. He is far from the proud but near the humble. Stop chasing chimeras of the spiritual elite. God could lead you to build houses in Calcutta.

Yes, I agree with this. I would add that the very teaching of "the Recovery" promotes pride and stupidity. This theory encourages you to compare and contrast groups of Christians and instead of appreciating God's inheritance in all of his saints you promote envy for God's inheritance in a select few of his saints. How could you possibly promote the oneness of the Body with a teaching like that?

ZNPaaneah · 08-08-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Recovery" as used by the LRC is nothing more than a means to make themselves special. It's a way to modify God's purpose to make it seem like he has a preferred group of people through whom he is working. They take it a step farther in asserting that "God's recovery" "is one," which to them means everyone needs to join them in order to be in the "starting team."

This is all BS. God can work wherever he wants to, and does. He's not dependent on an organizational "move" that can be defined as this group or that.

God may lead you to help the Eskimos build igloos and bring Christ to them as part of the effort. If you are busy looking for his "elite team" you are going to miss that call. Drop the delusions of grandeur, and be led away to the lowly.

The "overcomers" come out of every group. The teaching of "the Recovery" is to create this "church of overcomers". Of course everyone wants to be Philadelphia, but that is a church of brotherly love, do you really think that a teaching of an elite group of Christians known as "the Recovery" would be equivalent to a church of brotherly love? The very teaching short circuits what they hope to be.

ZNPaaneah · 08-08-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

The concern about the book is that it would result in wild interpretations and abuse.

And that's exactly what has happen from the book. The book may or may not be a demon book, but the results from the book are demon results.

The book is fodder for people like Harold Camping, William Miller, and Witness Lee, to tangle Christians up in their ignorance, misuse, and abuse of innocent believers.

That's why the book should have never been put into the New Testament canon, and blind trust in it should be avoided.

Recently on the news it showed several tourists at some major waterfall, perhaps Niagra Falls, not sure, climbed over the railing and walked past the signs warning them of danger, etc. so they could stand in the water above the falls. They slipped, went over the edge and died. Should these areas of great scenic beauty be fenced off from everyone because of a few idiots?

We live in a dangerous world, that adds to the enjoyment of living and to the dignity of old age. I would hate to have a "safe" version of the Bible. I think people are far too coddled as it is (please note my formative years were in the LRC). I once watched a nature show about Canadian geese. They make their nests on top of a cliff overlooking a pond. The cliff is so steep the foxes can't get to the eggs. That's great until they hatch. Then how do these chicks that can't fly get to the pond? It turns out they jump off the cliff. Half don't survive the jump and the foxes are running around at the base of the cliff eating them all up. Those that do survive the jump still have to hop their way through the rocks and foxes to make it to the pond. It gave me a whole new appreciation of Canadian geese.

Harold Camping and all these others merely add to the glory of being a Christian. I'll take my Bible with the book of Revelation.

awareness · 08-08-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Harold Camping and all these others merely add to the glory of being a Christian. I'll take my Bible with the book of Revelation.

But bro Z please use caution. Don't fall for every Tom Dick and Harry that claim to have the book of Revelation figured out... Including Witness Lee....

UntoHim · 08-08-2011, 07:42 PM

Harold the book of Revelation has been a settled issue among Christians for centuries. Your opinion of what is written in it, or how others have interpreted it, are quite irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss Nee or Lee's interpretation then please find an appropriate thread and have at it.

In the meantime...

awareness · 08-08-2011, 08:07 PM

The local church experience has made plenty of brothers and sister bonkers crazy. Some have even ended up in mental institutions because of the local church.

These brothers and sister are an object lesson that has more a potential to help those in the local church than all the doctrinal debunking's combined.

And I would think that a forum that calls itself local church discussions would welcome even these crazy brothers and sisters ... they represent the consequences of the local church way more than us "more stable ones."

rayliotta · 08-09-2011, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Recovery" as used by the LRC is nothing more than a means to make themselves special. It's a way to modify God's purpose to make it seem like he has a preferred group of people through whom he is working. They take it a step farther in asserting that "God's recovery" "is one," which to them means everyone needs to join them in order to be in the "starting team."

That's a great analogy for it, thanks for that, Igzy.

The Recovery has the starting players, they're the ones passing the ball around and getting the job done, but hey, we're all wearing the same uniforms (and we'll all share in the same prize when we win!), and there's always a few exceptions from the bench that we can trot out here and there when need be!

(Ex: Ron Kangas says he believes Billy Graham is, or probably is, an overcomer; yet he also says that Billy Graham's work is useless before God because Graham "didn't build the church"!)

rayliotta · 08-09-2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

We live in a dangerous world, that adds to the enjoyment of living and to the dignity of old age. I would hate to have a "safe" version of the Bible. I think people are far too coddled as it is (please note my formative years were in the LRC). I once watched a nature show about Canadian geese. They make their nests on top of a cliff overlooking a pond. The cliff is so steep the foxes can't get to the eggs. That's great until they hatch. Then how do these chicks that can't fly get to the pond? It turns out they jump off the cliff. Half don't survive the jump and the foxes are running around at the base of the cliff eating them all up. Those that do survive the jump still have to hop their way through the rocks and foxes to make it to the pond. It gave me a whole new appreciation of Canadian geese.

Sorry, but too many in "the Recovery" just love to gobble up these kinds of examples. They're all too happy to be in the half (or less?) that "survived the jump". As for the others...well...such is life...what can you do?...

(But hey, this here homeboy's just jealous, yo, don't be list'nen ta me...)

OBW · 08-09-2011, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Recently on the news it showed several tourists at some major waterfall,

The hikers were in Yosemite. Most deaths there in many years. And the summer isn't over.

Not sure what the value of the story of the geese was. "Throw your children to the wolves and see who survives"? Just not seeing anything applicable in it.

As for Harold Camping, he just raises the question as to whether the whole dispensational/rapture teaching that so many of us grew up with is even a sound conclusion. While I am not prone to simply relying on the teachings of the "church fathers," I find it interesting that dispensational theology, and the "rapture" view of of the end times is a creation of less than 200 years. If this is so important, why was this not part of the history of Christianity? Seems that even the Corinthians were not concerned with what happened between death and resurrection, or at the end of the age, but only in the ultimate continuation in a new body.

Harold Camping does not add glory to the Christian faith. he makes a mockery of it. He pretends that he can read the mind of God. And rather than get the stoning that the OT would have required, he gets a following as committed as those who moved from the Bay Area to South America with Jim Jones. Even if the end will not be the same, Harold Camping is just a different version of so many false leaders. Like Lee. Deluded men trying to create a god in the image of their choice. And their gods do not come through. And I believe that, like some similar "prophets" before him, this is not the first time Camping has claimed a date and had to retrench and re-figure. And they still follow him. Just like they still follow Lee so many years after his death.

awareness · 08-09-2011, 05:50 AM

Ron Kangas is, and Witness Lee was, as delusional as Harold Camping.

Cal · 08-09-2011, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

That's a great analogy for it, thanks for that, Igzy.

The Recovery has the starting players, they're the ones passing the ball around and getting the job done, but hey, we're all wearing the same uniforms (and we'll all share in the same prize when we win!), and there's always a few exceptions from the bench that we can trot out here and there when need be!

(Ex: Ron Kangas says he believes Billy Graham is, or probably is, an overcomer; yet he also says that Billy Graham's work is useless before God because Graham "didn't build the church"!)

Kangas is talking nonsense. Billy Graham has contributed to the building of the church much more than most have.

The problem is the LRC has a narrow and slanted view of what building the church means. They define it so that everyone who isn't doing what they are doing isn't building the church. Nonsense. They Bible never defines it their way.

In the first place, the Bible never tells us to build the church, it says the Lord will do that. It tells us the build up "each other." Billy Graham has done plenty of that.

I've said it before. The way to get clear on the LRC is to simply read your Bible.

zeek · 08-09-2011, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

But how serious should we take it? Should we take it as serious as Harold Camping, William Miller, and Witness Lee?

I can't answer that for anybody but myself. It was posited historically as part of the canon. There's nothing we can do about that. It's a fact. It's a powerful book. It has informed the character of Christianity. Another fact. In broad strokes it describes the eschatological hope of the Christian faith. Problems arise when one attempts to interpret the principle players literally and to take political or military action on the basis. That's insane. We would all be better off if we admitted that we don't know all the answers.

awareness · 08-09-2011, 08:13 AM

When you put crazy into the book of Revelation more crazy comes out the other end. It's a crazy amplifier. Like the local church.....
.

zeek · 08-09-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

When you put crazy into the book of Revelation more crazy comes out the other end. It's a crazy amplifier. Like the local church.....

Right. But crazy will find the crazy it seeks somewhere regardless don't you think? Hinduism would seem to be the most wide open religion there is. Yet now there are Hindu fundamentalists that are as militant as any out there. In 1992 they demolished a mosque they believed to be the birthpalce of Rama and set off a riot that cost thousands of lives. The Book of Revelation was nowhere in sight.

awareness · 08-09-2011, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. But crazy will find the crazy it seeks somewhere regardless don't you think? Hinduism would seem to be the most wide open religion there is. Yet now there are Hindu fundamentalists that are as militant as any out there. In 1992 they demolished a mosque they believed to be the birthpalce of Rama and set off a riot that cost thousands of lives. The Book of Revelation was nowhere in sight.

The dominate lowest common denominator in all religions is, the human condition.... It is the most persistent.

I guess all religions have aspects that make people crazy ... some more, some less. The local church is on the more side ... and so is the book of Revelation...

UntoHim · 08-09-2011, 09:51 AM

And Jesus Christ was the only one to address the human condition, and this is what the Gospel is all about. The Gospel is also for crazy people, even if they remain crazy after being saved. Now speaking of Revelation, there we see the ultimate judgment of the human condition. It is God's merciful warning to the whole human race. This is why it is so important that God's Word gets spread to the whole earth.

Now guys, let's get this thread stirred back to the topic of "Helping those still in the Recovery". Please.

awareness · 08-09-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And Jesus Christ was the only one to address the human condition, and this is what the Gospel is all about. The Gospel is also for crazy people, even if they remain crazy after being saved. Now speaking of Revelation, there we see the ultimate judgment of the human condition. It is God's merciful warning to the whole human race. This is why it is so important that God's Word gets spread to the whole earth.

Now guys, let's get this thread stirred back to the topic of "Helping those still in the Recovery". Please.

Imagine how shocked I was around 13 yrs old when my mother told me that her and other Southern Baptists from her church were going to visit Baptists in the insane asylum. I thought : what, Christianity and the Southern Baptist Church can't hold off insanity?

And regards helping those in the local church, maybe we should take up a collection and buy them all Prozac & Zoloft.....

zeek · 08-09-2011, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

And Jesus Christ was the only one to address the human condition, and this is what the Gospel is all about. The Gospel is also for crazy people, even if they remain crazy after being saved. Now speaking of Revelation, there we see the ultimate judgment of the human condition. It is God's merciful warning to the whole human race. This is why it is so important that God's Word gets spread to the whole earth.

Now guys, let's get this thread stirred back to the topic of "Helping those still in the Recovery". Please.

How do we help them without insulting them by implying that we they need help? They probably think we need help, unless they think we are beyond helping. The best way to help them may be to accept them as they are without trying to help them. But, they are unlikely to reciprocate the acceptance. So maybe the best course of action is to avoid them.

OBW · 08-09-2011, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

How do we help them without insulting them by implying that we they need help? They probably think we need help, unless they think we are beyond helping. The best way to help them may be to accept them as they are without trying to help them. But, they are unlikely to reciprocate the acceptance. So maybe the best course of action is to avoid them.

Put the truth in front of them. Not meaning to just say that something other than what they believe is right and they are wrong. Walk through it. Show what is right. Let them consider it in relationship to what they have learned in the LRC. Surely their first reaction will be rejection without consideration. But if they are coming here to defend their position, they have to at least read what we write to combat it. And the others who just come to find out what it is all about will get something put in their minds that might take root.

Consider this work the same as what Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians. Plant truth. Water truth. Let it grow. The word does not return void.

And when the participation is just knee-jerk reactions, it will become evident. So that should help us to take some time to be sure that we are not just throwing knee-jerk comments from the "ex" side of the discussion. Don't disagree just because it came form Nee or Lee or the BBs/LSM. Disagree with what it disagreeable. Agree with what it agreeable. Give reasons that have basis that is more than opinion.

Given some of the discussion in other threads, it is clear that this is not easy.

zeek · 08-09-2011, 12:37 PM

That seems reasonable enough; but, were you in the local church? I was, and I don't think that would have helped me. It would have caused me more "cognitive dissonance" to use Harold’s expression. I had to find my own way out. The only thing I can think of is to be friendly and genuine with them. Don't talk about religion. Let them know you wish them the best of everything. I would have accepted that from anybody while I was in the church and still today.

Trying to "help" local churchers strikes me as missionary zeal. Been there, done that. I did a lot of gospel preaching back in the day. I stood on many a street corner preaching the gospel to people. I was rejected by many and brought some to the Lord. The Lord knows. I'm not that interested in doing that any more. But I'll meet anybody half way.

OBW · 08-09-2011, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

That seems reasonable enough; but, were you in the local church? I was, and I don't think that would have helped me. It would have caused me more "cognitive dissonance" to use Harold’s expression. I had to find my own way out. The only thing I can think of is to be friendly and genuine with them. Don't talk about religion. Let them know you wish them the best of everything. I would have accepted that from anybody while I was in the church and still today.

Trying to "help" local churchers strikes me as missionary zeal. Been there, done that. I did a lot of gospel preaching back in the day. I stood on many a street corner preaching the gospel to people. I was rejected by many and brought some to the Lord. The Lord knows. I'm not that interested in doing that any more. But I'll meet anybody half way.

You are correct that it will cause cognitive dissonance. I would hope that enough cognitive dissonance would force the mind to deal with the conflict.

But if not, then maybe it is arguable that we are not really trying to start anyone on the journey of deliverance, but helping those who have seen a faint light in the distance and are interested in discovering what it is. In other words, those who are willing to be open to legitimately consider differing opinions, positions, points of view, etc., even under the presumption that they will prove their current thinking correct, are open to take action against the cognitive dissonance that does not constitute merely turning up some other noise so they don't hear it. Anytime you listen to someone propose a new way to understand something you go through this process. You may not be as "married" to your current position as someone in the LRC, but the process is the same. You have to allow yourself to think about the possibility that you've been wrong.

ZNPaaneah · 08-09-2011, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Sorry, but too many in "the Recovery" just love to gobble up these kinds of examples. They're all too happy to be in the half (or less?) that "survived the jump". As for the others...well...such is life...what can you do?...

(But hey, this here homeboy's just jealous, yo, don't be list'nen ta me...)

That would be a great Tshirt "I survived the Jump" with a picture of a Canadian Goose. Maybe Ex Lcers would like one.

ZNPaaneah · 08-09-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The hikers were in Yosemite. Most deaths there in many years. And the summer isn't over.

Not sure what the value of the story of the geese was. "Throw your children to the wolves and see who survives"? Just not seeing anything applicable in it.

The point is we have already survived. Sometimes we are too easy to forget out own history. I teach HS, our 14 year olds last year were 4 years old on 9/11, to them it is ancient history. Imagine surviving the holocaust. It is experiences like that from which a nation of Israel is born. My father was on Pearl harbor when it was bombed and spent the day rowing dead sailors from a nearby warship to the morgue. History is full of events like this, especially the last 100 years. And it looks like we are in for another big storm. So what is the point of protecting people from every danger when our civilization is formed from the survivors of these major events? If you do that you leave them unprepared for the challenges they have to face in their lifetime. David said "I have killed a Lion and I have killed a bear". Apparently one of the best examples of a father in the OT didn't think he needed to "protect" David from Lions and Bears, rather he trained him how to kill them and protect the sheep.

rayliotta · 08-09-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

That would be a great Tshirt "I survived the Jump" with a picture of a Canadian Goose. Maybe Ex Lcers would like one.

You mean those that did survive the jump...

OBW · 08-09-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The point is we have already survived. Sometimes we are too easy to forget out own history. I teach HS, our 14 year olds last year were 4 years old on 9/11, to them it is ancient history. Imagine surviving the holocaust. It is experiences like that from which a nation of Israel is born. My father was on Pearl harbor when it was bombed and spent the day rowing dead sailors from a nearby warship to the morgue. History is full of events like this, especially the last 100 years. And it looks like we are in for another big storm. So what is the point of protecting people from every danger when our civilization is formed from the survivors of these major events? If you do that you leave them unprepared for the challenges they have to face in their lifetime. David said "I have killed a Lion and I have killed a bear". Apparently one of the best examples of a father in the OT didn't think he needed to "protect" David from Lions and Bears, rather he trained him how to kill them and protect the sheep.

I'd start by questioning the claim that David was trained by his dad to kill lions and bears. I don't recall such a record. But I do recall that David testified of power from God given to him to do what no mere man would have been able to do.

The problem with comparing the geese or the survivors of 9/11 to surviving the exit from the LRC is that there is no actual cliff, no hijacked planes, or terrorist activities. You just leave. Any actual damage has nothing to do with leaving. The change is not inherently dangerous with only a few surviving the process. The problem is that there are too many people determined to see to it that you never try. That you are too afraid to even try. Because if you really try, you can make it. They are busy telling us/them that it is a deep and treacherous river to be crossed when it is a stagnant, 6-inch deep creek.

I am not saying anything about the people who actually were (and continue to be) affected by 9/11, serious abuse in a home, or other such things. I'm talking about any alleged damage form leaving the LRC. The comparison doesn't work. If you are in the LRC, the damage is already done. Leaving is a step toward healing.

I don't belittle the length of time and significant effort it can take to get the LRC and its ways/teachings out of your system so that you can freely fellowship with non-LRC Christians. I know that LRC people often talk about their fellowship with other Christians. But even though they may not disdain that fellowship, there is something in the way it is often talked about that sounds like they are providing "free meals" to the "homeless" or proving that they can go into a bar without taking a drink but instead "spreading Christ" to them all. As if no one but them has any Christ (whatever that means).

Yes. That kind of mentality would be hard to get to walk across that 6-inch creek. But they can do it. There is no cliff. There are no hijackers. Just a mental block against the possibility.

ZNPaaneah · 08-10-2011, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayliotta

You mean those that did survive the jump...

Sure, kind of as a testimony to those who have been told how God's curse comes upon any that leave the fold.

Cal · 08-10-2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem with comparing the geese or the survivors of 9/11 to surviving the exit from the LRC is that there is no actual cliff, no hijacked planes, or terrorist activities. You just leave. Any actual damage has nothing to do with leaving.

Ummm, I'd have to call exception to this.

Assuming one who upon leaving the LRC still has lingering fears of being judged by God for leaving (Satan is quite adept at pushing those buttons) and if one values his spiritual life and future more than his physical ones (and Christians are supposed to, right?) then leaving the LRC can seem in its own way scarier than hitching a ride with terrorists in order to get out of Afghanistan.

Fear is the issue, not real danger. As long as someone thinks there is something to fear there is going to be hesitation, second thoughts, cognitive dissonance and trauma. Take away the fear, and what's left of the LRC legacy to worry about?

I've been doing a lot of thinking about fear lately (it's something I must deal with on my job) and I've realized that fear must be taken on as a bully must be taken on. You can't go around it, under it or over it. You can't negotiate with it or appease it. You can only take on its own terms, go straight through it and leave your shoe prints on its face.

Take away fear, and the LRC has no power. But you can't just wish fear away. You have to stare it down. Fear is a bully and the weapon of bullies. When confronted it will run, but you must confront it directly. You must take it on its own terms and beat it anyway. Whistling through the graveyard, as some here do, isn't enough. You must call fear's bluff, and keep doing so until it doesn't even bluff anymore.

ZNPaaneah · 08-10-2011, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I'd start by questioning the claim that David was trained by his dad to kill lions and bears. I don't recall such a record. But I do recall that David testified of power from God given to him to do what no mere man would have been able to do.

Sure, that would be a good question.

1Samuel 16:1 And Jehovah said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? fill thy horn with oil, and go: I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons.

This verse seems to be an appropriate place to start. We learn several things from this verse:

1. God, Samuel and Jesse are all on a first name basis. Samuel does not live in Bethlehem and we have no reason to think he knows who “Jesse” is out of a country of millions of men than the fact that Jesse must be a pillar in the nation of Israel. Since this is God’s speaking to Samuel in an answer to his prayer it seems all the more to boost the credibility of Jesse as a pillar.
2. The way it was worded “I’ll provide a king from among his sons” suggests training. This would be similar to saying that “I have provided the man you need from among some professors students”. To my limited knowledge Israel did not have established schools at this point in their history, so most men were trained by their fathers, hence the question from Saul “whose son is this?” to his Captain of the Army Abner, and Abner’s response “As thy soul liveth I cannot tell”.

Please note that when Saul asks Abner this question in Chapter 17 he must know who David’s biologic father is since he hired David from Jesse in Chapter 16 and sent payment to Jesse. So when Saul asks David in chapter 17 “Whose son art thou” it is very reasonable to assume he is asking David who trained him to be a warrior. David’s response was “I am the son of thy servant Jesse”. (this reminds me of Joe Montana. Once everyone realized he was very good, which really didn’t take place until after he had won a superbowl, they then noticed how well trained he was. So they asked “who trained him”. He said it wasn’t the Notre Dame coach, it wasn’t his high school coach, it was his father. Which surprised a lot of people since his father was an insurance saiesman).

1 Samuel 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And 1 Samuel 16:4 And Samuel did that which Jehovah spake, and came to Beth-lehem. And the elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, Comest thou peaceably?
I think these verses make it very clear that going to Bethlehem to anoint David as King was a very scary thing to a lot of people, even Samuel. I say this because it provides some context for the dinner. Imagine in this very tense environment that Jesse is told that he specifically is to come to the dinner and bring his sons. If you believe, as I do, that Jesse was a spiritual pillar (based on verse 1 and also prophecies in Isaiah) then I have to believe he was every bit as aware of the situation as the elders of Bethlehem or as Samuel was. What you are witnessing in this chapter is a high stakes poker game played out by Eli. He is aware, as everyone obviously is, that Samuel has stripped Saul. Now Samuel has come and wants to see his sons. I think every reasonable reader would have to agree for the most part on that.

1 Samuel16:6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely Jehovah`s anointed is before him.

According to the record Eli makes seven of his sons pass before Samuel and to Samuel’s impression to each one he feels “surely God’s anointed is before me”. People have made a big deal over God rejecting them, but how come no one makes a big deal about Eli having 7 sons that all are so remarkable that Samuel, a genuine man of God, would feel that each one was surely God’s anointed? To me that is a fantastic testimony to the work that Eli has done as a father. I can not find another example in the Bible like it. There are sons who were faithful to their father to not drink, or buy houses, or buy vineyards, but it never says that these sons each appeared like God’s anointed.

16:11 And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he is keeping the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he come hither.

Like a true poker player Jesse has kept an ace in the hole. I think now he knows what is up. The idea that all seven sons had to pass before the examining eye of Samuel and that he needs to see the youngest before they start I think has caused Samuel to reveal his hand. I know that this has been interpreted to mean that David was treated poorly by his father, I think that is a poor interpretation that is not supported based on later verses. Instead I think that David’s father was well aware that David was a very talented son. I think he was aware, as the leaders in Saul’s court, that David was a very gifted musician. I think he was aware that David had killed the lion and bear he tells Saul about in chapter 17. I think any father would be extremely insulted to hear the kind of teachings that are made about Eli. Verse 1 suggests that David was a product of Eli, not an aberration.

1 Samuel 16:12 And he sent, and brought him in.

A very interesting verse. In this feast environment Jesse can not go out to the sheep to fetch David himself, so he sends for him, but he clearly gave instructions to let him know when they got back so he could go out to David, talk to him, clue him into the situation and then bring him in. To me Jesse is a brilliant father, and part of his genius is his ability to stay in the background, yet provide the wise counsel. I have always viewed this story in relation to the story of Joseph and the jealousy that was aroused in his brothers. I think Jesse has done a great job to nip that in the bud. How could any of the sons complain, they all had a chance to be chosen and at a time when Samuel didn’t even know that David existed.

Jesse’s behavior to this point is precisely what we mean when we say some father is grooming his son for some position.

Later in this chapter we learn that David is very talented musician.

1Samuel 16:18 Then answered one of the young men, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Beth-lehemite, that is skilful in playing, and a mighty man of valor, and a man of war, and prudent in speech, and a comely person; and Jehovah is with him.

Now did David become skillful in playing without training? If you agree that he was trained to play an instrument the way everyone else is, then why would you think that he wasn’t trained to be “a mighty man of valor, and a man of war”. I think the lesson here is that when you train up a son you should teach them to play an instrument, you should teach them how to fight (karate, football, etc) and you should teach them to be prudent in speech. Once again, when asked whose son he was he said “I am the son of Jesse”. I think the meaning is clear, my father Jesse trained me (just like Joe Montana said his father trained him).

17:12 Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Beth-lehem-judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man was an old man in the days of Saul, stricken [in years] among men.
More
17:13 And the three eldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle: and the names of his three sons that went to the battle were Eliab the first-born, and next unto him Abinadab, and the third Shammah.
17:14 And David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul.
17:15 Now David went to and fro from Saul to feed his father`s sheep at Beth-lehem.

Now these verses to me, reveal how brilliant Jesse was. You have to understand the situation. David is playing an instrument for Saul and then returning to help his father feed his sheep. So David is fully aware of the battle, but he is not able to go. We know from later that David is desperate to join the battle, and to fight Goliath, but he is obligated to do his other jobs and is not permitted. This goes on for 40 days (v. 16). What do you think the talk was about every night over dinner? This is where you need someone as old and wise as Jesse to let David see, killing Goliath is not the hard part, the hard part is defeating the army once you have killed Goliath. I believe that during these 40 days Eli gave David this plan as he was able to receive it. I came to this conclusion after reading the following the verse: 1 Samuel 17:33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him; for thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.

I had read that the reason for the crew cut is so that in a battle your opponent cannot grab your hair. Goliath was a man of war, therefore it stands to reason he also had cut his hair short. So, if his hair is short, how could David hold his head? If he cannot hold his hair the only reasonable answer that I can come up with is he held the head by the throat. The problem with this is, if I had just knocked out Goliath with a stone and ran up and grabbed his sword and cut off his head to kill him, would I have been careful to cut the neck at the base so that I could then hold the neck? To me you had to have planned this, and I don’t believe a young boy would have, but I can believe old man Jesse would have. You take this “ruddy young youth” who is described as “comely” and in one fell swoop you cover him with blood and you put a decapitated head in his hand and he is a monster. The philistines see this, they flee, Israel wins a big battle, and Saul and Abner are wondering “who trained this kid?”

Of course the other alternative is that when you see a major league pitcher win a game and signal to the heavens, thanking God, that this man never trained to be a pitcher, instead one day God miraculously made him one.

OBW · 08-10-2011, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sure, that would be a good question.

1Samuel 16:1 And Jehovah said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel? fill thy horn with oil, and go: I will send thee to Jesse the Beth-lehemite; for I have provided me a king among his sons.

This verse seems to be an appropriate place to start. We learn several things from this verse:

1. God, Samuel and Jesse are all on a first name basis. . . .

Don't want to quote it all. But I read it all.

None of it evidenced that Jesse was the source of David's training in any way. It might be a reasonable assumption. But it is not a fact. Nothing upon which you can hang a teaching.

The Bible almost always mentions the name of the father of everyone of count. Most to all of the prophets. Everything had a genealogy. So having a name mentioned does not constitute special place in God's knowledge. It could be true. But just having the name in scripture does not establish it.

The whole thing is a plausible explanation of what happened. But there is nothing that makes it so. No fact to hang a teaching on. It could be used for some kind of self-help training. But that isn't really proper use of the Word.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 04:45 AM

Leave it to OBW to define what "proper use of the word is.

Which of course begs the question, upon what verses are you hanging your hat on about what is and is not proper use of the word?

zeek · 08-11-2011, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You are correct that it will cause cognitive dissonance. I would hope that enough cognitive dissonance would force the mind to deal with the conflict.

But if not, then maybe it is arguable that we are not really trying to start anyone on the journey of deliverance, but helping those who have seen a faint light in the distance and are interested in discovering what it is. In other words, those who are willing to be open to legitimately consider differing opinions, positions, points of view, etc., even under the presumption that they will prove their current thinking correct, are open to take action against the cognitive dissonance that does not constitute merely turning up some other noise so they don't hear it. Anytime you listen to someone propose a new way to understand something you go through this process. You may not be as "married" to your current position as someone in the LRC, but the process is the same. You have to allow yourself to think about the possibility that you've been wrong.

I'm open to trying on new ways of understanding things but the local churchers are sanctioned against doing so by their leadership when it is anything that comes from outside "the ministry" so it's an uphill battle for them. Feel free to give it a go, I won't stop you.

awareness · 08-11-2011, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Leave it to OBW to define what "proper use of the word is.

Which of course begs the question, upon what verses are you hanging your hat on about what is and is not proper use of the word?

Maybe, just maybe, our dear brother Mike has a special omniscience that others don't have. Did you ever think of that?

OBW · 08-11-2011, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Leave it to OBW to define what "proper use of the word is.

Which of course begs the question, upon what verses are you hanging your hat on about what is and is not proper use of the word?

Talk about a strawman argument. You did not respond to what I said. Only made something out of one phrase that was not what was meant. And you know it.

Do you assert that taking scripture and reading into it something that is not there is a proper use of the Word?

Well, I guess you actually do. You think that reading between the lines to make something important out of how Jesse taught David all this stuff when there is not one verse you can find that says it is true demonstrates it.

So I guess that there is a valid question on the table as to whether that it a proper use of the Word. I would suggest that it is not. Just like Pharisees searching the scriptures to put more burdens on the people by finding more and more rules. Or completely missing the evidence of God come in the flesh.

In any case, you are the one who has said that something is so. But you have failed to provide anything that reasonably makes it so. I guess that means that a strawman must be brought to bear since it would seem that you are incapable or reconsidering your random eisegesis. Oops. That would be an ad hominem. However, I am not using it to demean your position, or your person. I am hoping that you will stand to defend your person and in the process realize that your position has not been defended. That would be much better than running to hide behind a strawman argument.

TLFisher · 08-11-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Fear is the issue, not real danger.

Yes. What is being feared is my question. I assert we as Christians are not fearing God as we ought. Instead we are fearing man and within our Christian fellowships, there is the fear of being rejected and shunned. Instead we should be those willing to accept dishonor from man while looking toward God.

Cal · 08-11-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes. What is being feared is my question. I assert we as Christians are not fearing God as we ought. Instead we are fearing man and within our Christian fellowships, there is the fear of being rejected and shunned. Instead we should be those willing to accept dishonor from man while looking toward God.

Also what is being feared are unbiblical, unsupportable doctrines and teachings of men, such as the "Recovery" is the unique move of God, Lee was the minister of the age, leaving the "Recovery" will result in spiritual death, not meeting on the "local ground" is divisive, and so forth. All these beliefs are designed to control members.

These beliefs produce deep-seeded fears which though irrational are nonetheless quite powerful and controlling. I contend that you cannot run from these fears. You must face them down. You must put them to the test and show them to be unfounded.

The Bible says fear God, but that's more referring to awe and respect, not being scared. God has not given us a spirit of fear. He doesn't deal in the area of vague fear and unease. He is positive and precise. He convicts, but doesn't condemn. Jesus was always saying, "Fear not." Only bullies deal in fear and vague threats.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe, just maybe, our dear brother Mike has a special omniscience that others don't have. Did you ever think of that?

Yes I did think of that, which is why I was laughing.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Talk about a strawman argument. You did not respond to what I said. Only made something out of one phrase that was not what was meant. And you know it.

Do you assert that taking scripture and reading into it something that is not there is a proper use of the Word?

Well, I guess you actually do. You think that reading between the lines to make something important out of how Jesse taught David all this stuff when there is not one verse you can find that says it is true demonstrates it.

So I guess that there is a valid question on the table as to whether that it a proper use of the Word. I would suggest that it is not. Just like Pharisees searching the scriptures to put more burdens on the people by finding more and more rules. Or completely missing the evidence of God come in the flesh.

In any case, you are the one who has said that something is so. But you have failed to provide anything that reasonably makes it so. I guess that means that a strawman must be brought to bear since it would seem that you are incapable or reconsidering your random eisegesis. Oops. That would be an ad hominem. However, I am not using it to demean your position, or your person. I am hoping that you will stand to defend your person and in the process realize that your position has not been defended. That would be much better than running to hide behind a strawman argument.

Wow. I got to work this morning early enough to check this forum and post a short response to OBW’s response to a post I made last night. This is now less than 24 hours after the initial post and it seems to me this paragraph is rather extreme. I will say right now that I do not have the liberty to be on full time or to check these forums more than once or twice a day at most. So unless you can show enough patience to allow a more detailed response I don’t think this forum is for me.

But lets address this point “you are the one who has said something is so”.

These are the things I have said are so in my post:
1. God, Samuel and Jesse are all on a first name basis. Based on chapter 16:1
2. Please note that when Saul asks Abner this question in Chapter 17 he must know who David’s biologic father is since he hired David from Jesse in Chapter 16 and sent payment to Jesse.
3. 1 Samuel 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And 1 Samuel 16:4 And Samuel did that which Jehovah spake, and came to Beth-lehem. And the elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, Comest thou peaceably? I think these verses make it very clear that going to Bethlehem to anoint David as King was a very scary thing to a lot of people, even Samuel.
4. 1 Samuel16:6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely Jehovah`s anointed is before him. According to the record Eli makes seven of his sons pass before Samuel and to Samuel’s impression to each one he feels “surely God’s anointed is before me”.
5. 1 Samuel 16:12 And he sent, and brought him in. A very interesting verse. In this feast environment Jesse can not go out to the sheep to fetch David himself, so he sends for him, but he clearly gave instructions to let him know when they got back so he could go out to David, talk to him, clue him into the situation and then bring him in.

I said many other things qualifying the comments with “It is reasonable”, “I think”, “This to me”, “now these verses to me reveal”, etc.

Does anyone really have an issue with these 5 points? Did I misrepresent what the Bible was saying? In point 2 you could argue that Saul had dementia and did not recognize the boy he had hired in the previous chapter to play music for him, but is there any scriptural basis to support that? In point 5 you could argue that “bringing him in” does not include “clueing him in” to the situation. But if you read the context of what I wrote it is very clear that the basis for me to say this is a reasonable assumption, not that I am stating that this is so. In the end I agree that there are other alternate theories on this story including the idea you put forth that David was not trained at all, rather it was divine intervention (which is how I understood your post). So the very point that I freely admit this is merely my conclusion, and that there are other theories, proves that I am not telling others how to read the Bible.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry

Yes. What is being feared is my question. I assert we as Christians are not fearing God as we ought. Instead we are fearing man and within our Christian fellowships, there is the fear of being rejected and shunned. Instead we should be those willing to accept dishonor from man while looking toward God.

Yep, fear God, what can man do to me. Amen.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't want to quote it all. But I read it all.

None of it evidenced that Jesse was the source of David's training in any way. It might be a reasonable assumption. But it is not a fact. Nothing upon which you can hang a teaching.

The Bible almost always mentions the name of the father of everyone of count. Most to all of the prophets. Everything had a genealogy. So having a name mentioned does not constitute special place in God's knowledge. It could be true. But just having the name in scripture does not establish it.

The whole thing is a plausible explanation of what happened. But there is nothing that makes it so. No fact to hang a teaching on. It could be used for some kind of self-help training. But that isn't really proper use of the Word.

Well I wanted to address this point. In Chapter 17, in a conversation with his Commander of the Armed forces, Abner, Saul asks "whose son is this" and Abner responds "I cannot tell". Later Saul asks David directly "whose son are you". This is not the typical listing of a genealogy as done by historians. Now you could interpret this various ways, but the context is quite overwhelming and cannot be ignored.

1. Saul and Abner have sat for 40 days under the threats of the Philistines, terrified of Goliath, no solution, and yet they are the ones responsible for raising an army that can defend Israel from its enemies. I think any reasonable person would agree that this has probably been their focus and primary concern for at least the last 40 days.

2. A little kid that no one could expect to win just defeated this giant Goliath and led the army to a big victory over the Philistines.

With that as the context Saul says something to the effect of "where did this kid come from?" I think that is quite similar to others wondering "where Joe Montana came from" which today we clearly understand as where did he learn to play like that. Is it stated clearly? I think that David said clearly that he learned what he learned from his father when he said he is the son of Jesse.

Of course, you could interpret it other ways. But I find that it doesn't make sense that Saul wants to know who David's father is when he knows who David's father is. The bible puts chapter 16 and 17 together. How do you read these two chapters and think that Saul doesn't know who David's father is? How could Abner reply "of a truth, as thy soul liveth, I cannot tell"? All you have to do is ask someone in your camp who hired David, they could tell you. So to me, that interpretation is very strange, it makes Saul appear as though he has alzheimers. But if you understand it to mean "where did you learn that" then it makes sense.

Now the NT tells us that "these things were done for our admonition". Clearly there are stories in the OT that were given for us to learn from. So if someone wants to learn how to raise a son who should we look at? Is there anyone you would suggest as a better example and a more detailed example of raising a son?

Second major point, did David go into the battle with the plan of cutting off Goliath's head and using it as a shield or was that just a spur of the moment thing? From my limited experience, if Goliath had long hair it could have been spur of the moment, but if he had short hair like a man of war, then I think it was planned.

Now I can believe that David had both the attitude and the skill with a sling to go up against Goliath. What I cannot believe is that he also had the cunning to be thinking how to leverage slaying Goliath into a route of the army. That to me smacks of good coaching.

OBW · 08-11-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow. I got to work this morning early enough to check this forum and post a short response to OBW’s response to a post I made last night. This is now less than 24 hours after the initial post and it seems to me this paragraph is rather extreme. I will say right now that I do not have the liberty to be on full time or to check these forums more than once or twice a day at most. So unless you can show enough patience to allow a more detailed response I don’t think this forum is for me.

But lets address this point “you are the one who has said something is so”.

These are the things I have said are so in my post:
1. God, Samuel and Jesse are all on a first name basis. Based on chapter 16:1
2. Please note that when Saul asks Abner this question in Chapter 17 he must know who David’s biologic father is since he hired David from Jesse in Chapter 16 and sent payment to Jesse.
3. 1 Samuel 16:2 And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And 1 Samuel 16:4 And Samuel did that which Jehovah spake, and came to Beth-lehem. And the elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, Comest thou peaceably? I think these verses make it very clear that going to Bethlehem to anoint David as King was a very scary thing to a lot of people, even Samuel.
4. 1 Samuel16:6 And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab, and said, Surely Jehovah`s anointed is before him. According to the record Eli makes seven of his sons pass before Samuel and to Samuel’s impression to each one he feels “surely God’s anointed is before me”.
5. 1 Samuel 16:12 And he sent, and brought him in. A very interesting verse. In this feast environment Jesse can not go out to the sheep to fetch David himself, so he sends for him, but he clearly gave instructions to let him know when they got back so he could go out to David, talk to him, clue him into the situation and then bring him in.

I said many other things qualifying the comments with “It is reasonable”, “I think”, “This to me”, “now these verses to me reveal”, etc.

Does anyone really have an issue with these 5 points? Did I misrepresent what the Bible was saying? In point 2 you could argue that Saul had dementia and did not recognize the boy he had hired in the previous chapter to play music for him, but is there any scriptural basis to support that? In point 5 you could argue that “bringing him in” does not include “clueing him in” to the situation. But if you read the context of what I wrote it is very clear that the basis for me to say this is a reasonable assumption, not that I am stating that this is so. In the end I agree that there are other alternate theories on this story including the idea you put forth that David was not trained at all, rather it was divine intervention (which is how I understood your post). So the very point that I freely admit this is merely my conclusion, and that there are other theories, proves that I am not telling others how to read the Bible.

This whole thing started when you said that Jesse taught David how to kill bears and lions. I simply stated that I could not recall anywhere that this was either stated or implied. And you returned with a 1,881 word response that mentions your 5 points -- not baD points, but noT responsive to my comment -- but does not establish what I can see as a basis to assert that Jesse taught David how to kill bears and lions. (And all this with the only clear word in the bible on the subject being that David considered that God gave him the courage and strength to do what he should have rightly run away from.)

But for now I will back down a little and let you consider whether to respond. I will accept that you did not intend to shift the topic of conversation. But rather than act surprised, consider what it looks like. You can post a 3-page Word document to make what I saw as an unsubstantiated point, then point in a different direction when I question whether my statement was really addressed. 5 interesting points, maybe even good ones (forf something else), but not responsive to my comments. Isn't it easier to say that there is no evidence that Jesse taught David how to kill the bear and the lion but you think it is probably true?

OBW · 08-11-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well I wanted to address this point. In Chapter 17, in a conversation with his Commander of the Armed forces, Abner, Saul asks "whose son is this" and Abner responds "I cannot tell". Later Saul asks David directly "whose son are you". This is not the typical listing of a genealogy as done by historians. Now you could interpret this various ways, but the context is quite overwhelming and cannot be ignored.

1. Saul and Abner have sat for 40 days under the threats of the Philistines, terrified of Goliath, no solution, and yet they are the ones responsible for raising an army that can defend Israel from its enemies. I think any reasonable person would agree that this has probably been their focus and primary concern for at least the last 40 days.

2. A little kid that no one could expect to win just defeated this giant Goliath and led the army to a big victory over the Philistines.

With that as the context Saul says something to the effect of "where did this kid come from?" I think that is quite similar to others wondering "where Joe Montana came from" which today we clearly understand as where did he learn to play like that. Is it stated clearly? I think that David said clearly that he learned what he learned from his father when he said he is the son of Jesse.

Of course, you could interpret it other ways. But I find that it doesn't make sense that Saul wants to know who David's father is when he knows who David's father is. The bible puts chapter 16 and 17 together. How do you read these two chapters and think that Saul doesn't know who David's father is? How could Abner reply "of a truth, as thy soul liveth, I cannot tell"? All you have to do is ask someone in your camp who hired David, they could tell you. So to me, that interpretation is very strange, it makes Saul appear as though he has alzheimers. But if you understand it to mean "where did you learn that" then it makes sense.

Now the NT tells us that "these things were done for our admonition". Clearly there are stories in the OT that were given for us to learn from. So if someone wants to learn how to raise a son who should we look at? Is there anyone you would suggest as a better example and a more detailed example of raising a son?

Second major point, did David go into the battle with the plan of cutting off Goliath's head and using it as a shield or was that just a spur of the moment thing? From my limited experience, if Goliath had long hair it could have been spur of the moment, but if he had short hair like a man of war, then I think it was planned.

Now I can believe that David had both the attitude and the skill with a sling to go up against Goliath. What I cannot believe is that he also had the cunning to be thinking how to leverage slaying Goliath into a route of the army. That to me smacks of good coaching.

All conjecture. He could learn from his older brothers. he also could have realized that God had already given him super-human strength and wisdom on two previous occasions and expected that the same would happen with Goliath.

I am not dissing Jesse. I'm saying that whatever it was that allowed David to go up against the bear, the lion, and Goliath was not attributed by scripture in any way to Jesse, but to God. Teaching anything else is based upon conjecture and assumption. It would not be a sound teaching from the Bible.

And you keep throwing out more assumptions and conjecture to support a non-position. As I said before, just say you want to believe it anyway. I'll leave you alone. But if you want to keep defending it as simply true, then you need to figure how it is that it is simply true and present that. Not this other stuff.

awareness · 08-11-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Teaching anything else is based upon conjecture and assumption. It would not be a sound teaching from the Bible.

I was wrong. It's ZNP the has special omniscience that others don't have...

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

This whole thing started when you said that Jesse taught David how to kill bears and lions. I simply stated that I could not recall anywhere that this was either stated or implied. And you returned with a 1,881 word response that mentions your 5 points -- not baD points, but noT responsive to my comment -- but does not establish what I can see as a basis to assert that Jesse taught David how to kill bears and lions. (And all this with the only clear word in the bible on the subject being that David considered that God gave him the courage and strength to do what he should have rightly run away from.)

What I said was

“Apparently one of the best examples of a father in the OT didn't think he needed to "protect" David from Lions and Bears, rather he trained him how to kill them and protect the sheep.”

And then later you said “In any case, you are the one who has said that something is so.”

I went through my post and identified 5 things that I said was so. You now respond that you weren’t referring to that post you were referring to this comment that “apparently” is equivalent to saying something is so? The basic premise of that statement is so obvious as to be beyond anyone why you would even make an issue over it, Jesse is David’s father, Jesse assigned David to keep the sheep, keeping sheep means protecting them, and apparently that includes protecting them from bears and lions. Your response that “maybe he learned that from his brothers” is as idiotic as it gets. Maybe he did. So what? You are clearly looking to pick fights over trivial comments and then you misrepresent what people say and do this in a self serving way.

OBW: But for now I will back down a little and let you consider whether to respond.

That is your apology for your insults because it took me about 10 hours to respond to your post? Why don’t you read your own posts and apologize for your own actions?

I will accept that you did not intend to shift the topic of conversation.

Is this a joke? You pick a fight over some inconsequential statement, I respond, and then you accuse me some hidden agenda to shift the topic of conversation. This is self serving.

But rather than act surprised, consider what it looks like. You can post a 3-page Word document to make what I saw as an unsubstantiated point, then point in a different direction when I question whether my statement was really addressed.

What was your question? Did Jesse teach his son how to tend sheep? Who are you to complain about long posts. You are the most long winded person on this forum bar none.

5 interesting points, maybe even good ones (forf something else), but not responsive to my comments. Isn't it easier to say that there is no evidence that Jesse taught David how to kill the bear and the lion but you think it is probably true?

No, I think the very idea that Jesse was a shepherd and taught his sons how to shepherd sheep goes without any need of defense. If that was truly your question I feel it is absurd.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not dissing Jesse. I'm saying that whatever it was that allowed David to go up against the bear, the lion, and Goliath was not attributed by scripture in any way to Jesse, but to God. Teaching anything else is based upon conjecture and assumption. It would not be a sound teaching from the Bible.

You certainly aren't honoring Jesse, and the Bible commands us to honor our father and mother that it may be well with us and that we may live long.

Your teaching is superstitious and prohibits us from learning from this story. Sound Biblical teaching says that these stories were given for our admonition and instruction.

What admonition and instruction do you take from this? How could you take the lessons from this story and apply them in your life?

You continue to use the words "conjecture" and "assumption" yet you do not dispute the 5 points I made.

You accused me of not responding to your question yet you have never responded to a single question I have raised. Is it reasonable to understand that Saul really was asking who David's biological father was since he already knew who it was? Was it reasonable for Abner to say he had no way to know who David's father was when 3 of his brothers were in the Army and when people in Saul's camp knew who he was?

Ohio · 08-11-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Does anyone really have an issue with these 5 points? Did I misrepresent what the Bible was saying?

Brother ZNP, I for one surely appreciated your insights into this fascinating story about David. I believe your perceptions just went right over the head of some readers, myself included on certain points. I have always felt this is the way to read the scriptures, not simply as remote historical events, but almost reliving the events with ourselves as eye-witnesses.

ZNPaaneah · 08-11-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother ZNP, I for one surely appreciated your insights into this fascinating story about David. I believe your perceptions just went right over the head of some readers, myself included on certain points. I have always felt this is the way to read the scriptures, not simply as remote historical events, but almost reliving the events with ourselves as eye-witnesses.

Wow, good to see you posting, last I heard you were thinking of dropping out?

Ohio · 08-11-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow, good to see you posting, last I heard you were thinking of dropping out?

Watching what was happening to you, I couldn't be silent.

ZNPaaneah · 08-12-2011, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

All conjecture. He could learn from his older brothers. he also could have realized that God had already given him super-human strength and wisdom on two previous occasions and expected that the same would happen with Goliath.

There is no conjecture to say that David's victory was a result of training. David refused Saul's armor saying "he hadn't proved them". That means he wouldn't go into battle without first training for battle. Surely that principle applies to the lion and the bear.

To say that killing a lion or bear was a result of "super human strength" is superstition at its worst. There is nothing super human about killing a lion or bear and if that was the extent of David's claim to fame no one would have remembered him this long.

Saying that he might have learned this from his brothers is pure conjecture as there is no other evidence for this other than the fact that he had brothers.

However, it was Jesse that sent David to Israel's camp when he fought Goliath, that is fact.

Also, David was with Jesse for these 40 days that Goliath was threatening Israel, that also is fact.

Also, Jesse had 8 sons, only 3 were with the Army, and yet he sent David, his youngest, that also is a fact.

Also, David had been anointed by Samuel to be king over Israel and Jesse was present when this took place. This gives David the right to claim it is his responsibility to take on Goliath. This is a fact.

Also, all three of David's brothers knew he would jump at the chance to kill Goliath. That is fact. To think that David's brothers knew him better than his father Jesse is to me highly insulting. So I see two options, dishonor Jesse and say that he sent David to the Army oblivious to the fact that David would challenge Goliath, or else take the reasonable consideration that Jesse knew David as well as the three brothers at the Army.

This thread was discussing how the book of Revelation was "dangerous" to unstable Christians. My initial reference was to Jesse not trying to protect David from dangers but rather prepare him to meet them. If Jesse is aware that he is sending David to battle Goliath and spends 40 days with David prior to sending him, it is very likely, based on all the preceding evidence, that he first prepared David to meet this challenge.

Your accusation that I hijacked this thread and changed the topic is really quite ugly, this story and the example of Jesse is an excellent example of my argument.

Ohio · 08-12-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, it was Jesse that sent David to Israel's camp when he fought Goliath, that is fact.

Fascinating implications here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your accusation that I hijacked this thread and changed the topic is really quite ugly, this story and the example of Jesse is an excellent example of my argument.

Maybe this did not need to be said. I do agree, however, that Mike often exhibits little tolerance for others' points of view. In this regard, I have come to espouse Phil 4.5 as a standard principle for forum posting: forbearance is one of the strongest indicators of the presence of the Lord, and without the stamp of His approval, what value does any post really have?

ZNPaaneah · 08-12-2011, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Maybe this did not need to be said. I do agree, however, that Mike often exhibits little tolerance for others' points of view. In this regard, I have come to espouse Phil 4.5 as a standard principle for forum posting: forbearance is one of the strongest indicators of the presence of the Lord, and without the stamp of His approval, what value does any post really have?

Thanks for saying this. I actually edited out some of the stronger comments, effectively toning this down. Afterwards I often wonder if I have too much forbearance, but you have assured me that I didn't go overboard.

ToGodAlone · 08-12-2011, 08:52 PM

I really don't mean to be rude, but can we get this thread back on topic? I have nothing against discussions and whatnot, but I think it's getting a little too far on a tangent.

Please don't hurt me.

(Just kidding, you guys are nice)

ZNPaaneah · 08-13-2011, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I really don't mean to be rude, but can we get this thread back on topic? I have nothing against discussions and whatnot, but I think it's getting a little too far on a tangent.

Please don't hurt me.

(Just kidding, you guys are nice)

Well, if you read this forum I think you can come to the conclusion that the sins of the LRC are no worse than the sins of Joseph's brothers. So if you consult with that story you can learn from Joseph how he reconciled his family, which he did.

The principle here is that the Bible is full of stories for our admonition and edification, which is the point that I have been making.

On the other hand OBW is a strong believer that there are fundamental flaws in the LRC teaching and that these need to be reexamined. Part of this stems from the sloppy Bible study skills in the LRC based on their extreme use of Allegorizing. So he also has been demonstrating this principle in challenging what he saw as a off hand, careless remark about Jesse.

Both of us are clearly believers that the LRC stifles free and open fellowship, so we have been demonstrating what that might look like.

So if you can read between the lines you can see that we have been on topic, not merely in words but in deed.

Ohio · 08-13-2011, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So if you can read between the lines you can see that we have been on topic, not merely in words but in deed.

Classic!

ToGodAlone when you watch conflicts between former members on this forum, you can also learn some of the same dynamics which your girlfriend and her family faces.

ToGodAlone · 08-13-2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well, if you read this forum I think you can come to the conclusion that the sins of the LRC are no worse than the sins of Joseph's brothers...

Alas I must admit than I have misread your posts in my haste. Forgive me, and carry on brothers.

awareness · 08-13-2011, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

I really don't mean to be rude, but can we get this thread back on topic? I have nothing against discussions and whatnot, but I think it's getting a little too far on a tangent.

Everyone has got to fight to be free. There is no greater freedom than being under God.

Those that choose to be under something else, or someone else, will experience an inner drawing to be under God deep in their being.

God has a gravitational pull. He's drawing all men unto Himself.

So the best help we can give those still in the local church is, to leave them in the gravitational pull of God. They will one day get free of intermediaries & substitutes to being only under God.

OBW · 08-14-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

On the other hand OBW is a strong believer that there are fundamental flaws in the LRC teaching and that these need to be reexamined. Part of this stems from the sloppy Bible study skills in the LRC based on their extreme use of Allegorizing. So he also has been demonstrating this principle in challenging what he saw as a off hand, careless remark about Jesse.

Both of us are clearly believers that the LRC stifles free and open fellowship, so we have been demonstrating what that might look like.

This is probably a fairly good assessment. One of the things that is missing all over Christianity is the ability to discuss things openly. There is a clear attempt to begin to ignore differences which makes most of Christianity more "one" than the LRC so often is with any others.

But when it comes to discussions about the differences with the goal to Paul's admonition in 1 Cor that there should be differences so that the truth can come out, none of us, or them, are that good at it.

I note Ohio has accused me of being intolerant of other's views. I can admit that I have a lack of tolerance, but it is not for other's views, but for the unwillingness to even reconsider them even if you ultimately conclude that you are not going to change your mind. I comment on the simple "state it as if true" about Nicolaitans = clergy/laity and rather than have a conversation about the robust possibilities on the subject, I get push back with a central theme that indirectly leaves it as simply clergy/laity.

And this thing about Jesse. Over the years, I have heard sermons that suggest based on some of David's failures that often tend to flow from upbringing that Jesse was not such a good father. I can take note of them, but cannot assert that they are true. I've heard sermons that suggest that the reason David was sent to the Israelite encampment as they faced-off with the Philistines and Goliath was that Jesse considered that sending the youngest was less of a loss to the workings of the family farm. Again, sounds plausible, but not stated to be so in any recording.

So then comes your comment about Jesse training David. It is probably so. But it is not stated. In fact, every one of the points you make surrounding the premise are no more substantial than the ones I mentioned before. It might suggest a possibility, but it does not make anything a fact.

You can teach about how fathers should train their children. And suggest that Jesse did it for David — and look at what he turned into. But the record does not make any such reference. So any direct insistence is from silence. That is my point. It has always been my point.

And it is a little odd to me that Igzy publishes Nigel's epistle on alegorizing, which specifically mentions the parable of the Good Samaritan and all the nonsense that Lee made out of it, yet we can come to this section of OT record and conclude that Jesse did so much when there is no such record.

Teach good fathering. Suggest Jesse was probably a good example (without any actual recording). But don't say that the Bible says it's so.

That is my objection.

Now I admit that I might have been hasty to respond to your comment on the "proper use" of the Word of God. (And for that I apologize.) But despite the little jabs from some about it, I stand by my original statement. It is one thing to openly suggest that there is something hiding behind the scripture that we can learn from. But to insist when there is nothing more than the suggestion is to head toward something similar to Lee's over-alergorization. Read something into scripture that is not there and then turn it around and teach it as gospel.

Such as Babylon = fallen Christianity. Did anyone ever consider that one of those guys who went back to build the temple, or the walls of Jerusalem (Nehemiah, maybe?) he went with the blessing of the Persian king and was charged to return to his duties after so many years. How could such a person be used by God if they were under agreement to return to "fallen Christianity"?

Ohio · 08-14-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I note Ohio has accused me of being intolerant of other's views. I can admit that I have a lack of tolerance, but it is not for other's views, but for the unwillingness to even reconsider them even if you ultimately conclude that you are not going to change your mind. I comment on the simple "state it as if true" about Nicolaitans = clergy/laity and rather than have a conversation about the robust possibilities on the subject, I get push back with a central theme that indirectly leaves it as simply clergy/laity.

I see things a little differently, but do feel free to start a thread (or add to an old one) to discuss these points.

Or would you just like me to point out when you are being intolerant?

ZNPaaneah · 08-14-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

So then comes your comment about Jesse training David. It is probably so. But it is not stated. In fact, every one of the points you make surrounding the premise are no more substantial than the ones I mentioned before. It might suggest a possibility, but it does not make anything a fact.

You can teach about how fathers should train their children. And suggest that Jesse did it for David — and look at what he turned into. But the record does not make any such reference. So any direct insistence is from silence. That is my point. It has always been my point.

I understand your point and feel it is a valid position.

However, I also feel that it is a perfectly acceptable position to put two and two together. My position is that when David refused to use Saul's armor because he had not proved it, that is a clear statement that David had trained, and would not go into battle with armor that he had not trained with. Also, I feel that Saul and Abner's keen interest on "whose son is this youth" had nothing to do with his biologic father but rather who trained him. I think that David fully understood this question and his answer was that he was the son of Jesse (i.e. the product of Jesse). Reading that question to be similar to any other genealogical question does not make any sense (and you have not dealt with this dilemma) since Saul and Abner were fully aware of who David's biologic father was. Why is this question so compelling that with Goliaths head still in his hands they need to know unless they are asking him who trained him? Also, when you take on this reading it seems to make a very nice fit with 1Sam 16:1 And the LORD said to Samuel, How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? fill your horn with oil, and go, I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite: for I have provided me a king among his sons. with 17:58 And Saul said to him, Whose son are you, you young man? And David answered, I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite. These two chapters begin with Samuel being sent to Jesse to look at his sons, and it ends with David telling King Saul and Abner, while holding Goliath's head in his hand, that "I am the son of Jesse".

Also, once you accept that Jesse and Samuel and God all being on a first name basis is significant, then the charge from God for "fathers to teach their sons" is to me significant. God had great respect for this with Abraham, and he commanded this, and he commanded that we honor the teaching of our father and mother. If a man shirked this command would God really respect him as much as God clearly respected Jesse?

As to the theory that David's own failures being a blemish on Jesse that is why I quoted the commandment on Honoring your father in full: Honor your father and mother that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth. I find it very strange that with the very detailed record of David and Jesse and his brothers, and his kingship, and his inauguration, etc. that there is no mention anywhere of his mother. He was the youngest of 8 sons, and Jesse was very old, so I feel it is quite likely that his mother is dead. This is not stated, but I find it very odd that she is not mentioned anywhere. Once becoming king wouldn't he have brought her to Jerusalem? Wouldn't she be mentioned at his inauguration? Wouldn't he have mourned for her when she died and buried her? So Jesse may have helped David to be successful, but without his mother's help he is surely deficient in his upbringing. That is how I understand the command to honor your father and mother, you need both. So as much as I respect Jesse, I also understand that he is not complete.

Also, the book of 1Samuel presents several big characters. Clearly Eli's biggest failure was as a father, likewise this book mentions that Samuel was a failure as a father. Doesn't it stand to reason then that this book should at least present one positive example of a father? And if so, who could it be other than Jesse?

manna-man · 08-14-2011, 11:24 AM

One thing is certain,

It was God that accomplished His will according to His plan. Man if obedient is blessed enough to be part of it. God gets all the glory for it is Him that is the one who knows the desired result of it all.

Apart from Him we can do nothing.

Peace,

Don Jr.

ZNPaaneah · 08-14-2011, 11:30 AM

If His will was to get a man after His own heart, then David was a success. If his will was that Fathers would teach their sons then surely Eli and Samuel cannot be considered a success, but perhaps God got his will with Jesse?
.

OBW · 08-14-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I find it very strange that with the very detailed record of David and Jesse and his brothers, and his kingship, and his inauguration, etc. that there is no mention anywhere of his mother. He was the youngest of 8 sons, and Jesse was very old, so I feel it is quite likely that his mother is dead. This is not stated, but I find it very odd that she is not mentioned anywhere. Once becoming king wouldn't he have brought her to Jerusalem? Wouldn't she be mentioned at his inauguration? Wouldn't he have mourned for her when she died and buried her?

You are probably right. But we don't have a basis to assert that it is true.

My journey of discovery in the scripture is revealing that the more we try to make things out of scripture that are not there, the more distracted we become from what is actually there. It is not like those are bad things. Just not the main things.

For me, the recent debates surrounding heaven stirred up by Camping's "prophecies" and hell stirred up by Rob Bell's Love Wins are lessons. I think Camping is a nut case. And I think Bell has pushed the envelope beyond just "asking questions." But among the older ones I meet somewhat regularly with, they are more caught up with thoughts like Randy Alcorn's book, Heaven. I really cringe at those because they take all these types, pictures, imagery, etc., in Revelation and create so much stuff that they pine after like a disease.

And they miss what it is about our life today on this planet among the people we are around, both Christian and non-Christian. They are not focused on the here-and-now aspects of living. The very thing that Jesus taught the most clearly about.

And so trying to make something out of a lack of mention of David's mother, or of what Jesse did (that did not get recorded) is to miss that David gave all of the credit for the killing of the bear, the lion, and Goliath to God. He did not mention his excellent training by older bothers or father. The deliverer of the sheep, and of the Israelites was God. God used David, but the deliverance came from God. And God used a boy who was willing to put his life in the hands of his God and do as he was directed.

ZNPaaneah · 08-14-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

You are probably right. But we don't have a basis to assert that it is true.

My journey of discovery in the scripture is revealing that the more we try to make things out of scripture that are not there, the more distracted we become from what is actually there. It is not like those are bad things. Just not the main things.

For me, the recent debates surrounding heaven stirred up by Camping's "prophecies" and hell stirred up by Rob Bell's Love Wins are lessons. I think Camping is a nut case. And I think Bell has pushed the envelope beyond just "asking questions." But among the older ones I meet somewhat regularly with, they are more caught up with thoughts like Randy Alcorn's book, Heaven. I really cringe at those because they take all these types, pictures, imagery, etc., in Revelation and create so much stuff that they pine after like a disease.

And they miss what it is about our life today on this planet among the people we are around, both Christian and non-Christian. They are not focused on the here-and-now aspects of living. The very thing that Jesus taught the most clearly about.

And so trying to make something out of a lack of mention of David's mother, or of what Jesse did (that did not get recorded) is to miss that David gave all of the credit for the killing of the bear, the lion, and Goliath to God. He did not mention his excellent training by older bothers or father. The deliverer of the sheep, and of the Israelites was God. God used David, but the deliverance came from God. And God used a boy who was willing to put his life in the hands of his God and do as he was directed.

Well, let me respond to the parts in red:

If by "it" when you say we don't have the right (I prefer the word basis) to assert that "it" is true. you mean that David's mother is dead, I would agree. The lack of mention of her only gives a reasonable basis to suggest she is dead, not assert it.

As far as your friends who are not focused on the here and now aspects of living, what can be more here and now than trying to learn how to be a father and looking to the OT for positive role models and trying to learn from them.

When you say that David did not mention his excellent training I disagree. I think his refusal to use Saul's armor is a direct reference to his excellent training. I find it amazing he could stand up to the king at such a young age and find the only basis is that he has certain key principles ingrained into him, like "before you go to battle you must prove your armor/weapons". To me there is no inference or reading between the lines here, he is saying that he has trained with the sling and he is ready to fight Goliath with the sling and that he has not trained with armor or a sword. You can argue that the method of training is not presented, but the fact that David has been thoroughly prepared to take on Goliath is, I believe, well stated by David in this one instance.

I also disagree with the statement that David did not mention the excellent training by his father. I believe that is what Saul and Abner were asking him and it was the meaning of his answer "I am the son of Jesse". I also believe that this is what God meant when he told Samuel that "He had provided Himself a king from among Jesse's sons".

Now if you don't understand these verses to mean that, I can understand. But you still haven't responded to the issues your understanding creates.

1. Why does Saul ask who David's father is when he hired David from his father in the previous chapter? Does Saul have alzheimers?
2. Why does Abner say he has no way to know who David's father is when three of his brothers are in the army, when they had just sat and talked with him prior to his fighting Goliath, and when he must have been aware that this is the same kid who plays music for Saul (ask the chief of staff or someone if you don't know)?
3. Why at this moment of the battle is this such an important question to both Saul and Abner? Saul and Abner are not historians, someone else can do that research. Saul and Abner are in charge of the army, they are in charge of fighting wars and of training men to fight. My understanding of the question is reasonable, your explanation is mind boggling.
4. Why does David respond the way he did? If the question conveyed merely a genealogical meaning why wouldn't David have acted surprised (surely you already know who my father is?)?
5. Why is this question and the answer "I am the son of Jesse" the conclusion to this chapter? If the story is truly what you have interpreted it to be why isn't the conclusion that "David, the youth, comes back in victory, holding the head of Goliath, and gives thanks to God".

I am not the one making things up. You have a story, and you merely ignore the verses that don't agree with your version. I think this is now the third or fourth time I have asked you to respond to these questions and you haven't. Why is it that the story you tell completely ignores Jesse altogether, when in fact, when you read the two chapters it begins with Jesse the father and ends with Jesse the father.

More
17:45 Then said David to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied.
17:46 This day will the LORD deliver you into my hand; and I will smite you, and take your head from you; and I will give the carcasses of the host of the Philistines this day to the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
17:47 And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saves not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.

Now without a doubt this is a spiritual battle that involves faith on David's part. No doubt God was involved in delivering him. But let me ask you a question, where did David get this faith? Abraham was the father of faith, yet to receive the blessing it wasn't just faith, it was also being a father and knowing how to raise your children so that Abraham's faith would be passed onto the next generation (Gen 18:19)

OBW · 08-15-2011, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If by "it" when you say we don't have the right (I prefer the word basis) to assert that "it" is true.

I would agree. "Basis" is the word I used.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

When you say that David did not mention his excellent training I disagree. I think his refusal to use Saul's armor is a direct reference to his excellent training.

A direct reference would require a direct reference. There is only an inference presumed. In a story that is evidence of supernatural intervention "I find it amazing" that the whole thing is being attributed as if stated to something natural that is, well, not stated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

To me there is no inference or reading between the lines here, he is saying that he has trained with the sling and he is ready to fight Goliath with the sling and that he has not trained with armor or a sword.

But only if he says it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You can argue that the method of training is not presented, but the fact that David has been thoroughly prepared to take on Goliath is, I believe, well stated by David in this one instance.

Actually, I believe that the nearest thing to preparation that he mentions is the assurance that God is with him. Everything else is conjecture and presumption. And if is it conjecture and presumption that you want, since he is the youngest of 8 (9?) but only 3 are here at the battle, that might indicate that he is far from prepared in terms of his worldly training or ability. David may not be near reaching full height, therefore possibly not have ever had any armor with which to train, if he had ever had any training. And in that day and age, warriors didn't just forgo their armor because of their training. Even Goliath with his impressive features was clad in armor. Refusing armor is even more indication to me that David was not approaching this in a manner consistent with any likely or possible training.

The trained army went up to battle with their own armor and training but cowered. A young boy went up with only the wisdom and strength God provided and won the battle. There is the story. It refuses to give any credit to man. Including the father of the victor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I also disagree with the statement that David did not mention the excellent training by his father. I believe that is what Saul and Abner were asking him and it was the meaning of his answer "I am the son of Jesse". I also believe that this is what God meant when he told Samuel that "He had provided Himself a king from among Jesse's sons".

So Jesse taught almost 10 sons and one stood out. If there was a reference made to Jesse's teaching anything, I might be persuaded. But at this point, I cannot find reason to make such a statement.

Since there is a genealogy, and there are the tribes, and the clans, while Jesse may not have been the leader of an entire tribe, he was of some status as being only two generations (I believe) removed from Boaz, a man of significance in Bethlehem. And identifying himself as a son of Jesse is a form of identification. I believe that you put too much emphasis on it. In our culture, we only mention our father if it is of great significance. Like if you were Chelsea Clinton. But in that day, your existence linked back to your father. Sort of like being, in Norse terms, an Anderson (son of Ander) or a Jesseson (son of Jesse). It was your heritage, even if of no particular significance. But Saul and Abner probably knew of Boaz, and his son, Obed, and grandson, Jesse. That does not infer training to the youngest son at this stage of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. Why does Saul ask who David's father is when he hired David from his father in the previous chapter? Does Saul have alzheimers?

Evidence that they did not know David. Just another kid in the help staff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. Why at this moment of the battle is this such an important question to both Saul and Abner?

To know where to send the flowers for the funeral.

I tire of this. As I mentioned before, there are many things that we can attribute to the bible for purposes of teaching good morals, parenting, etc. But not all of it is something that is stated as such. And there are many things that the Bible actually says about these topics. But while we might infer something of David's training and upbringing from these stories, they read more like Sunday sermons that you leave from and wonder how the preacher got that out of the passages provided. And you wonder if they are turning from allowing the scripture to speak to us from the words it has and instead creating do-goodisms out of what they read into it.

Those sermons are not bad. Or evil. But they are not sound or certain. They lack the authority of the Word of God. Instead, they seem to provide good moral ways to live that could arise from any source and then borrow passages of scripture to allow them to be taught in a Christian context. And I am one of the first to state that truth is truth no matter where you find it. But you don't make it more true by suggesting that something with no evidence is the basis upon which it is true. For me, trying to force plausible inferences into facts causes me to question the validity of what you are trying to teach. If it is true, it is true. If it needs a fabricated set of facts to tie it to a fictional version of an OT story, then I begin to wonder whether the entire premise is flawed. If it needs that much propping up, then I have to scrutinize the underlying principle even harder.

Let the scripture say what it says. Don't make it say something it does not. I do not mean that there are no metaphors or types. But in this case, we are not talking about metaphors and types. We are talking about making definitive teaching based upon a declaration that something not on the record is there. Why is there a need to make what is not provable so? Is the teaching that you would make from it damaged by the lack of evidence? If so, then you must rethink your teaching, not fabricate evidence.

07-30-2011, 03:29 PM	#1
ToGodAlone Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 95	Helping those still in the Recovery I'm pretty sure all of us still have ties to the local churches in some way shape or form and still have contact with many current members. The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways in which we can help those who are still in the local church. Be it actually leading them out of it or just showing them a different perspective than the one they've probably heard their whole lives, how can we our brothers and sisters in the local church?

07-31-2011, 07:55 AM	#2
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery The one brother I know that's in the recovery, that left it and then went back in, said he doesn't want to hear anything negative about Witness Lee even if it's true. So how do you help someone like that? And what can you say to him to help him? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

07-31-2011, 09:20 AM	#3
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery When I fellowshipped with Catholics I didn't talk about the Pope. When I fellowship with Jews I focus on the OT, not the new. When I fellowship with unbelievers I may focus on history or Scientific observations. I think the principle is the same. We have a lot of positive things in common with everyone, including those that meet with the LRC. I don't think you are helping anyone by harping on WL. The exception of course is if they want to know. In our case it helps us to understand what was otherwise a puzzle we couldn't figure out. But until the Lord brings someone to the point where they want to understand WL then I think it is counterproductive to raise the issue. In the LRC they are taught that ex members are bitter and miserable and want to spread poison. You feed into that if you are the one pushing the negative agenda. On the other hand if your focus is on genuine fellowship eventually, in good time, the subject of why you left, or why you don't meet with the LRC or some contradiction they see in their own experience will come up.

07-31-2011, 10:21 AM	#4
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Good points bro Z. I too try to stay away from hot button subjects. But I'm out and this brother is in the recovery church of Witness Lee. So there's a very big elephant in the room when we converse. And you can only talk about the weather for so long. The obvious is bound to come up sooner or later. They [Lee loyalites] can't help it. They've got to push their message. They're obligated to the Lord to do so. This brother thinks I'll never be right again unless I come back to the local church ; that everyone needs to be in the local church to be right with God. So the subject of the local church and Witness Lee is gonna come up. They/he will bring it up. They owe it to the Lord to speak that truth, for both the Lord and YOUR/MY salvation. They're infected with that meme to the bone. So help them? They don't want to be helped. They want to help you. How do you help people that believe they are a member of God's only move on the earth? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

07-31-2011, 11:51 AM	#5
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery I am very familiar with all that. There was a brother from the LRC that taught at the same school I did. He was not militant by any stretch, but no doubt everyone in the congregation knew that I was at his school, and they probably asked him "how I was doing" to get a confirmation on the inevitable decline. However, NYC publishes a list of valedictorians and it became obvious to me that everyone in that congregation learned of my kids success one way or another, even though I had left 10 years earlier. Once again, I see no reason to talk WL unless they want to, instead I focus on my own recent experiences of the Lord and hope my personal experience exposes the lies they are taught.

07-31-2011, 12:19 PM	#6
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery So the best way to help them, you are more or less saying is, show them that we left and lightning didn't strike us dead? That the Lord is still good post local church? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

07-31-2011, 01:55 PM	#7
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Sure. For one thing anyone in the LRC has been taught that if you leave the LRC you fall into a barren and cursed wasteland. But they don't have any evidence of this at all, no case stories, nothing. So as soon as they learn that you are an example of someone who left they will be very interested to see if they can see the evidence of God's blessing being removed from your life. Also, since you were in the LRC you have a lot to discuss that they cannot discuss with your average Christian. To me that is the way to open the door to fellowship, they want to hear your testimony and you speak their language.

07-31-2011, 02:30 PM	#9
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Also think about this, how many "ex" members did you know when you met with the LRC. If you knew one that was a backslider it confirmed what you were taught. But now if you meet one that is not a backslider you need to know 3 or 4 more to support what you are taught. So, it creates a positive feedback cycle where one positive testimony leads you to seek out 3 or 4 more. Also, until you find that 75-80% backslider ratio inwardly you will always be saying "that's not true" whenever you hear them teach about the horrors that await anyone that leaves the LRC.

07-31-2011, 09:49 PM	#10
ToGodAlone Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 95	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Perhaps this question is in some ways irrelevant, but I feel that for the purposes of this discussion, it can affect one's approach to the subject. Are those in the local church actually Christians? It's a subjective question for many, and I'm sure a lot of you have strong opinions one way or another, but I was just wondering how you viewed it. I've read arguments from both sides and I think they have a good degree of validity of both ends.

08-01-2011, 07:32 AM	#12
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery It is commonly stated that Philip Lee wasn't regenerated. And his behavior displays that he wasn't. But when the hidden history is revealed on Witness Lee one would have to even wonder if Witness Lee himself was regenerated. Just because Witness Lee was learned in the Bible doesn't mean that he was regenerated. His behavior doesn't speak such..... Anyone that wants to work at it can expound the Bible....even atheists....but mostly con men of all sorts... __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

08-01-2011, 09:06 PM	#16
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery And thanks for your sharing as well CMW. So you're telling us that the Holy Spirit showed up at a boring dead Catholic ceremony. The Holy Spirit is indeed like the wind. Blowing where it will. Methinks Jesus spoke of the Spirit being like the wind because no one owns the air. No one can claim, "I own the air." __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

08-02-2011, 09:20 AM	#18
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Great testimony. So you are revealing that the Holy Spirit moves outside the local churches of Witness Lee? __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

08-06-2011, 10:25 PM	#20
Curt2 Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery I just logged on today for the first time in a while and noticed this "new" thread. The title is "Helping those still in the Recovery" with the intent to help those still in the LC. Perhaps the title of the thread should be "Helping those still in the LC which is no longer the Recovery". And therein, I believe, lies the root of the problem. In every age, God has had a people with whom He has worked to accomplish His purpose. At one time, this was the LC, which we referred to as the Recovery because we were part of a history of the Lord's recovery of the truths in the Word which were lost during the Dark Ages. Now the LC has gone the way of so many other movments and has become part of the the large group of generally lifeless organizations. The Lord has taken His Recovery and moved on. The question is "To where?" Until we can answer that question, we have nowhere to take those still in the LC. Is the group of believers you are now meeting with a part of the Lord's Recovery?

08-06-2011, 11:22 PM	#21
rayliotta Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 600	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery You mean the Apostle Paul believed in a subset of the church which is "God's Recovery"?

08-07-2011, 10:20 AM	#24
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,223	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Humanity needs to recover. God is doing fine.

08-08-2011, 02:55 PM	#39
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,223	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery I think Revelation qualifies for the canon on the strength it's many inspired images. For example, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." What would Christianity be without the promise of a new heaven and earth or the vision of the New Jerusalem? For all it's difficulties and the way it has been misappropriated, Revelation is none the less indispensible. The New Testament would be poorer without it.

08-08-2011, 07:42 PM	#45
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Harold the book of Revelation has been a settled issue among Christians for centuries. Your opinion of what is written in it, or how others have interpreted it, are quite irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss Nee or Lee's interpretation then please find an appropriate thread and have at it. In the meantime... __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

08-08-2011, 08:07 PM	#46
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery The local church experience has made plenty of brothers and sister bonkers crazy. Some have even ended up in mental institutions because of the local church. These brothers and sister are an object lesson that has more a potential to help those in the local church than all the doctrinal debunking's combined. And I would think that a forum that calls itself local church discussions would welcome even these crazy brothers and sisters ... they represent the consequences of the local church way more than us "more stable ones." __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

08-09-2011, 05:50 AM	#50
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery Ron Kangas is, and Witness Lee was, as delusional as Harold Camping. __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

08-09-2011, 08:13 AM	#53
awareness Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 8,064	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery When you put crazy into the book of Revelation more crazy comes out the other end. It's a crazy amplifier. Like the local church..... . __________________ Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise.

08-09-2011, 09:51 AM	#56
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,793	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery And Jesus Christ was the only one to address the human condition, and this is what the Gospel is all about. The Gospel is also for crazy people, even if they remain crazy after being saved. Now speaking of Revelation, there we see the ultimate judgment of the human condition. It is God's merciful warning to the whole human race. This is why it is so important that God's Word gets spread to the whole earth. Now guys, let's get this thread stirred back to the topic of "Helping those still in the Recovery". Please. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

08-09-2011, 12:37 PM	#60
zeek Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Florida Posts: 4,223	Re: Helping those still in the Recovery That seems reasonable enough; but, were you in the local church? I was, and I don't think that would have helped me. It would have caused me more "cognitive dissonance" to use Harold’s expression. I had to find my own way out. The only thing I can think of is to be friendly and genuine with them. Don't talk about religion. Let them know you wish them the best of everything. I would have accepted that from anybody while I was in the church and still today. Trying to "help" local churchers strikes me as missionary zeal. Been there, done that. I did a lot of gospel preaching back in the day. I stood on many a street corner preaching the gospel to people. I was rejected by many and brought some to the Lord. The Lord knows. I'm not that interested in doing that any more. But I'll meet anybody half way.

08-11-2011, 04:45 AM	#70
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Who trained David? Leave it to OBW to define what "proper use of the word is. Which of course begs the question, upon what verses are you hanging your hat on about what is and is not proper use of the word?

08-12-2011, 08:52 PM	#91
ToGodAlone Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 95	Re: Conjecture or facts? I really don't mean to be rude, but can we get this thread back on topic? I have nothing against discussions and whatnot, but I think it's getting a little too far on a tangent. Please don't hurt me. (Just kidding, you guys are nice)

08-14-2011, 11:24 AM	#99
manna-man Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fort Lauderdale Florida Posts: 405	Re: Conjecture or facts? One thing is certain, It was God that accomplished His will according to His plan. Man if obedient is blessed enough to be part of it. God gets all the glory for it is Him that is the one who knows the desired result of it all. Apart from Him we can do nothing. Peace, Don Jr.

08-14-2011, 11:30 AM	#100
ZNPaaneah Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 7,105	Re: Conjecture or facts? If His will was to get a man after His own heart, then David was a success. If his will was that Fathers would teach their sons then surely Eli and Samuel cannot be considered a success, but perhaps God got his will with Jesse? . __________________ They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God