Do you think that highest truth of Witnesse Lee can satisfy your hunger?

[Truthseeker]

The main reason why people search for God and His way of life is hunger and thirst for the Lord Himself. Several believers and seekers in Roman Catholic and denominations may leave his or her own place because he or she feels unsatisfied by the teachings and the low level of divine revelation that is they still feel empty and their spiritual hunger and thrist still can't be fulfilled.

So, what's about all of your life in the local churches under the direction of Living Stream office? The highest truth according to Witness Lee(including the practicality of Church life)can feed your spiritual hunger and thrist, can't it? Let us debate on it!

[Evangelical]

What is the highest truth of Witness Lee?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The main reason why people search for God and His way of life is hunger and thirst for the Lord Himself. Several believers and seekers in Roman Catholic and denominations may leave his or her own place because he or she feels unsatisfied by the teachings and the low level of divine revelation that is they still feel empty and their spiritual hunger and thrist still can't be fulfilled.

So, what's about all of your life in the local churches under the direction of Living Stream office? The highest truth according to Witness Lee(including the practicality of Church life)can feed your spiritual hunger and thrist, can't it? Let us debate on it!

Ok. Good topic.

Define the highest truth acording to Witness Lee.

Drake

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

So, what's about all of your life in the local churches under the direction of Living Stream office? The highest truth according to Witness Lee(including the practicality of Church life)can feed your spiritual hunger and thrist, can't it? Let us debate on it!

No, "the highest truth according to Witness Lee" cannot feed my spiritual hunger and thirst.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok. Good topic.

Define the highest truth acording to Witness Lee.

Drake

Hey bro Drake, and Evangelical. It's always good to define our terms.

Can we we finger Lee's highest truth? I've got the video. Lee said, "No more high peaks without practice."

So Lee defined it for us himself. He called it "high peaks."

I guess what Truthseeker is asking us is : 'Can Lees' high peaks feed your spiritual hunger and thirst?'

Everyone has different tastes. I respect that. And at different times in our life we need different kinds of food. Paul called the Corinthians milk drinkers, as opposed to meat eaters.

So at different times in our life, Lee may feed our spiritual hunger. I know he once did mine. Back when I needed milk, so to speak.

But to answer brother Truthseeker : "No! Lee's high peaks does not feed my spiritual hunger and thirst."

Moreover, Lee was right, in speaking about teachings and practice ; to put it in theological terms, between orthodoxy and HIS heterodoxy. His practice did not live up to his and Nee's 'high peak' teachings. I saw his infractions with my own eyes.

So I think we could safely say that, he eventually admitted the truth about HIS teachings and practices. When he said no more high peaks without practice he directed it at everyone else, but not himself. Cuz if he had then he should have never taught he and Nee's high peaks in the first place.

To repeat. He said no more high peaks without practice. Then based upon his own hypocritical practices, he should have never taught "high peaks." No matter how high high peak teachings might be, how can hypocrisy spiritually feed us?

Joh_4:23-24 KJV : But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Maybe we shouldn't look to Lee to feed us, but to the Lord.

Truthseeker, if I'm way off base here, please let me know.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, "the highest truth according to Witness Lee" cannot feed my spiritual hunger and thirst.

Witness Lee and the Blendeds constantly seeded the LCM that their ministry had a "unique taste and flavor."

This also was used by LSM to justify their excommunication of Titus Chu and others.

With LSM, the truth of God's word is always secondary to their exclusive "taste, flavor, and spiritual feelings."

[Truthseeker]

In 1994, Lee talked about the consummation of the New Jerusalem which comes from the building of redeemed, sanctified and glorified saints in their tripartite being. And the Church life is the reality of this high peak or highest truth.
But now LSM is emphasizing on the New One Man.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

In 1994, Lee talked about the consummation of the New Jerusalem which comes from the building of redeemed, sanctified and glorified saints in their tripartite being. And the Church life is the reality of this high peak or highest truth.
But now LSM is emphasizing on the New One Man.

The Bible reveals the Church in different aspects. The Bride, the New Jerusalem, the one new man, the Body.

All represent some different asoect.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

In 1994, Lee talked about the consummation of the New Jerusalem which comes from the building of redeemed, sanctified and glorified saints in their tripartite being. And the Church life is the reality of this high peak or highest truth.
But now LSM is emphasizing on the New One Man.

The highest truth would be found in Lee's life studies. Witness Lee said, "We should enter into all the truths of the Bible by means of the life-study messages." The bible is too complicated for normal folk like you and me, plus Witness Lee already perfectly packaged all the best truths for us. Witness Lee has recovered all these awesome little nuggets that no one else could see, or if someone else sees them, he saw them first, and in a better way (obviously). Divinely God breathed scripture - no, even better! (Amen, Amen)

Lee goes onto say, "The Bible is a special work of literature. Although it does not focus on any particular topic, it has a central theme that is comprehensive, encompassing many matters. Over the ages, the greatest difficulty for Bible readers has been the difficulty of seeing the Bible’s central light and the comprehensiveness of its light. Thus, their understanding of the Bible has been fragmented and peripheral. They may have understood a point here and a point there, but they have not been able to gain a complete understanding. If we want to have a complete understanding of the Bible, we must see that the Bible has only one center and that this center encompasses many matters; it is comprehensive.

Under this principle the life-studies have a center. They also contain explanations and definitions of various matters, so they are comprehensive as well. Therefore, when we study the life-studies, we are always able to obtain the life nourishment from them, and we are also able to gain some knowledge of the truth. However, because they are comprehensive and are not focused on one specific topic, it is difficult for people to see the center. This is why when we study the life-studies with people, we must point out the central theme and present the main points to them."

Chapter 1 Truth, Life, Church, and the Gospel

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The highest truth would be found in Lee's life studies. Witness Lee said, "We should enter into all the truths of the Bible by means of the life-study messages." The bible is too complicated for normal folk like you and me, plus Witness Lee already perfectly packaged all the best truths for us. Witness Lee has recovered all these awesome little nuggets that no one else could see, or if someone else sees them, he saw them first, and in a better way (obviously). Divinely God breathed scripture - no, even better! (Amen, Amen)

No leastofthese your fellowship is not the "up-to-date" word of the god-man minister of the age.

The Life-Studies are merely the "Interpreted" word of God, but the highest truth and the "high peak" truths must be found in the Crystalization Studies.

I know because I was corrected by those who "knew."

[leastofthese]

Oh goodness, how could I be so out of touch? Thanks Ohio.

What a joke.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The highest truth would be found in Lee's life studies.

My experience with the Life-Studies was that they were actually Death-Studies. Also, you can't trust a writers opinion of his own work. When an author reviews his or her own writings it's always over inflated and over blown.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The main reason why people search for God and His way of life is hunger and thirst for the Lord Himself. Several believers and seekers in Roman Catholic and denominations may leave his or her own place because he or she feels unsatisfied by the teachings and the low level of divine revelation that is they still feel empty and their spiritual hunger and thrist still can't be fulfilled.

Same can be said about the local churches. That it can leave someone unfulfilled. I've visited Catholic churches and I found it equally unfulfilling.
Result is to meet with an assembly where one can be filled spiritually.

[Evangelical]

The highest truth according to Witness Lee is being made God in life and nature corporately, i.e. the New Jerusalem.

If you stated that this cannot feed your hunger and thirst you have basically said that the New Jerusalem (or "Heaven" as Christianity likes to call it) cannot satisfy you. That makes me L. O. L. But I'm glad, because it means less competition in the race to the top.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The highest truth according to Witness Lee is being made God in life and nature corporately, i.e. the New Jerusalem.

If you stated that this cannot feed your hunger and thirst you have basically said that the New Jerusalem (or "Heaven" as Christianity likes to call it) cannot satisfy you. That makes me L. O. L. But I'm glad, because it means less competition in the race to the top.

So bro EvanG, please tell me how Lee twisted the book of Revelation to say the NJ was coming up from earth and not down from heaven?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

So bro EvanG, please tell me how Lee twisted the book of Revelation to say the NJ was coming up from earth and not down from heaven?

It comes down not up

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It comes down not up

Thanks, but I knew that. Then I don't understand : "being made God in life and nature corporately, i.e. the New Jerusalem."

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The highest truth according to Witness Lee is being made God in life and nature corporately, i.e. the New Jerusalem.

If you stated that this cannot feed your hunger and thirst you have basically said that the New Jerusalem (or "Heaven" as Christianity likes to call it) cannot satisfy you. That makes me L. O. L. But I'm glad, because it means less competition in the race to the top.

Does this "highest truth" belong to Witness Lee?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Does this "highest truth" belong to Witness Lee?

Does it matter? It's not a doctrine developed in scripture.

Lee lived 92 yrs, and never was made God in life and nature. I would think the highest truth would be something real.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Does it matter? It's not a doctrine developed in scripture.

Lee lived 92 yrs, and never was made God in life and nature. I would think the highest truth would be something real.

Good point. The way WL behaved at the end towards Philip Lee and John Ingalls indicated that in life and nature he was more shaped by money and fame.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks, but I knew that. Then I don't understand : "being made God in life and nature corporately, i.e. the New Jerusalem."

The church comes down from heaven

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Does this "highest truth" belong to Witness Lee?

Its the highest part of the bible...the end. Cant get any higher.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The church comes down from heaven

That doesn't match Rev. 21. So that means Lee put the Bible on a torture rack, to make it say what he wanted it to say. And you bought it hook line and sinker.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

That doesn't match Rev. 21. So that means Lee put the Bible on a torture rack, to make it say what he wanted it to say. And you bought it hook line and sinker.

Revelation 21 is very clear that the church comes down:

verse 9:

“Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.

It is indisputable that this bride, the wife of the Lamb coming down is the Church.

I got all the bible commentaries in front of me who do you want?

Matthew Henry

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/21-1.htm

This new Jerusalem is the church of God in its new and perfect state, the church triumphant.

Or maybe a bit of Meyer's NT Commentary

ἡτοιμασμέν-g0- ην-g0-. “Prepared[4262] as a bride adorned for her husband.” Here already (cf. Revelation 21:9) the idea, according to which the new Jerusalem is regarded as the dwelling-place (cf. Revelation 21:3) of the Lamb’s bride, i.e., of the Church of glorified believers,[4263] passes over to that according to which the new Jerusalem itself—together with those dwelling therein—is regarded as the bride.

People who say the New Jerusalem is not the church have no concept of the idea of Jerusalem in either the Old or the New testament, no concept of the idea of the church, and have no idea of God's will. They should be ashamed to call themselves Christians.

[awareness]

Interpretation and more interpretation and interpolations. But the pure word says :

Rev 21:16* And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.*
Rev 21:17* And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.*
Rev 21:18* And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.*
Rev 21:19* And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;*
Rev 21:20* The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.*
Rev 21:21* And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.*

In other words, what you call Lee's highest truth is bunkum.

[Drake]

-1

Awareness》 ". But the pure word says :"

When people use this phrase in an argument it is often followed by either an explicit or implicit interpretation of their own.

In fact, it misses the point that the Bible is for teaching, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interpretation and more interpretation and interpolations. But the pure word says :Rev 21:16* And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal...

You sound like a Pentecostal blinded by all the glitter and gold of the New Jerusalem.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You sound like a Pentecostal blinded by all the glitter and gold of the New Jerusalem.

Awareness makes a good point, Evangelical. The verses that Awareness gave do match the adornments of a bride that the new Jerusalem in Rev 21:2 is likened to. Those verses describing the new city obviously gives the physical characteristics of a place rather that of a people making the argument that the bride is a city rather than a people more plausible.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

People who say the New Jerusalem is not the church have no concept of the idea of Jerusalem in either the Old or the New testament, no concept of the idea of the church, and have no idea of God's will. They should be ashamed to call themselves Christians.

Evangelical, the Lord has promised that we would not be put to shame for believing on His name. What about christians new to faith in Christ Jesus? What about those new to Gods word? You want christians to be shamed? That is what happened to me in my locality. The saints I loved attempted to put me to shame by withdrawing love, fellowship, relationships.

I am starting to think that rejection is a form of demonic attack. My shunning has left me with sorrow, anger, bitterness....deep regret at having allowed myself and my children to be deceived. I go before the Lord continually seeking His healing and taking His blood over the true condition of my heart towards those in the LC. I rely on Him to not let this hurt become a root of bitterness.

Who but Satan would wish this kind of damage be inflicted on an indivdual? Don't you know why this practice of shunning believers has to be kept hidden by the LC? It is because most Holy Spirit indwelt christians would not participate in such a practice.

Do not be so eager to shame fellow believers, it only leads to great damage....we should be more careful with the members of Christ!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evangelical, the Lord has promised that we would not be put to shame for believing on His name. What about christians new to faith in Christ Jesus? What about those new to Gods word? You want christians to be shamed? That is what happened to me in my locality. The saints I loved attempted to put me to shame by withdrawing love, fellowship, relationships.

I am starting to think that rejection is a form of demonic attack. My shunning has left me with sorrow, anger, bitterness....deep regret at having allowed myself and my children to be deceived. I go before the Lord continually seeking His healing and taking His blood over the true condition of my heart towards those in the LC. I rely on Him to not let this hurt become a root of bitterness.

Who but Satan would wish this kind of damage be inflicted on an indivdual? Don't you know why this practice of shunning believers has to be kept hidden by the LC? It is because most Holy Spirit indwelt christians would not participate in such a practice.

Do not be so eager to shame fellow believers, it only leads to great damage....we should be more careful with the members of Christ!

ByHisMercy, thanks for bringing this to the forefront.

The Bible has very limited application of so-called shunning, e.g. incest in I Cor 5 and heretical teachers in Titus 3.10.

On the contrary, the Bible commands us to love our neighbors, love our enemies, love even those who disagree with us. Shunning the brothers should be the extremely rare exception, but instead it is all too common in legalistic, exclusive settings like at LSM. I have witnessed beloved brothers being shunned, not for any sin or wrongdoing, but because they merely loved the ministry at LSM, and were not adequately zealous and sufficiently absolute for Witness Lee. This is the ugly side of LSM's history they like to keep hidden, even from their own brothers and sisters.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by awareness

Interpretation and more interpretation and interpolations. But the pure word says :

Rev 21:16* And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.*
Rev 21:17* And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.*
Rev 21:18* And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass.*
Rev 21:19* And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;*
Rev 21:20* The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst.*
Rev 21:21* And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass.*

In other words, what you call Lee's highest truth is bunkum.

Hi Harold,
Once, many years ago, a sister in Christ, one who shepherded me though high school, came with me to a Lee conference and afterwards, she wanted to know if I thought the New Jerusalem was an actual city or not. At the time, I didn't understand she was trying to share with me the difference between Gods word on the matter and what could be a wrong interpretation of it. This sister is the tiniest woman you ever saw....who has spent her life in Iran sharing the gospel of Christ with those she can, in coordination with Jesus, who opens doors of hearts....

We were taught in the LC that the New Jerusalem was composed of the saints themselves. I would love it if we could discuss this in greater detail...I would love to hear more from you brothers on this...

Please remember, I really don't have any christain fellowship currently. Only one sister in Christ who married my brother...and she is far away....I am church visiting...looking for a church, but have not found the place yet...
Thanks, saints!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

ByHisMercy, thanks for bringing this to the forefront.

The Bible has very limited application of so-called shunning, e.g. incest in I Cor 5 and heretical teachers in Titus 3.10.

On the contrary, the Bible commands us to love our neighbors, love our enemies, love even those who disagree with us. Shunning the brothers should be the extremely rare exception, but instead it is all too common in legalistic, exclusive settings like at LSM. I have witnessed beloved brothers being shunned, not for any sin or wrongdoing, but because they merely loved the ministry at LSM, and were not adequately zealous and sufficiently absolute for Witness Lee. This is the ugly side of LSM's history they like to keep hidden, even from their own brothers and sisters.

Hi Ohio,
I know that if I had seen the truth about the loyalty to the highest name....in the LC, this one is Witness Lee, not our Savior Jesus....if I had seen this from the beginning, I would not have joined this ministry!

There is the danger of leaving our first love, Jesus Himself....destruction lies in its' wake...the Lord really prepared me to see this danger...over a many years aquaintance with one friend who was raised in the SDA church. Leavng the pure word of God is to leave the narrow path, and to hold one man(or woman!) and his ministry so high....look where it has taken the LC...I am very thankful for His mercy to me...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

Awareness》 ". But the pure word says :"

When people use this phrase in an argument it is often followed by either an explicit or implicit interpretation of their own.

In fact, it misses the point that the Bible is for teaching, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

Drake

Right bro Drake. But is it also for fanciful imaginings?

It's not that I don't understand what bro Evangelical visualizes about believers making up the living stones, that make up the New Jerusalem. I see it too ... or have ... maybe identical to EvanG, or close enough.

The problem as I see it is seeing into the book things that don't match what really is.

In other words, we can both read the text and see different things into it, and it may turn out that neither one matches what really is, or what the Lord is actually doing.

For example, if I consider that believers make up the stones, the picture is painted as made up of "all manner of precious stones." In this visualizing there's "jasper, pure gold like unto clear glass, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyx, sardius, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprasus, jacinth, amethyst ... all manner of stones."

I can see the NJ as made up of stones from around the world, and down thru history. That means there might be Local Church stones, Baptist stones, Lutheran stones, Pentecostal stones, Catholic stones, etc. etc..

Whether Lee agrees with this visualization or not, what if this is the actual case? that the NJ is made up of precious stones? that may not know all the other types of stones? yet all "like unto clear glass" (shining with the same light)?

I'm not saying that this visualization is accurate, but then, it begs the question : what, or whose, visualization is "the truth?"

The problem is, I'm not asking anyone to go "all in" on my visualization. Lee was. Lee sold his visualization as if it was the one and only true visualization from God.

Look, it doesn't matter to me if others go all in, to one Christian sect or another. As Jefferson would say, it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket. But given that there are many different visualizations, shouldn't we, if wise, be careful about going all in to one or another.

In the end, to each his or her own. I just can accept Lee's "exclusive" visualization of the stones.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Awareness makes a good point, Evangelical. The verses that Awareness gave do match the adornments of a bride that the new Jerusalem in Rev 21:2 is likened to. Those verses describing the new city obviously gives the physical characteristics of a place rather that of a people making the argument that the bride is a city rather than a people more plausible.

There is no pain or danger in the new earth so why we need a city? A city is a fortified structure for protection. Logically there is no need for it. Adam and Eve never needed it. Remember buildings and cities are mans invention not Gods.

The bride prepares herself is talking about a physical city preparing itself? It does not fit the language...as bible commentators have noted.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Right bro Drake. But is it also for fanciful imaginings?

It's not that I don't understand what bro Evangelical visualizes about believers making up the living stones, that make up the New Jerusalem. I see it too ... or have ... maybe identical to EvanG, or close enough.

The problem as I see it is seeing into the book things that don't match what really is.

In other words, we can both read the text and see different things into it, and it may turn out that neither one matches what really is, or what the Lord is actually doing.

For example, if I consider that believers make up the stones, the picture is painted as made up of "all manner of precious stones." In this visualizing there's "jasper, pure gold like unto clear glass, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyx, sardius, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprasus, jacinth, amethyst ... all manner of stones."

I can see the NJ as made up of stones from around the world, and down thru history. That means there might be Local Church stones, Baptist stones, Lutheran stones, Pentecostal stones, Catholic stones, etc. etc..

Whether Lee agrees with this visualization or not, what if this is the actual case? that the NJ is made up of precious stones? that may not know all the other types of stones? yet all "like unto clear glass" (shining with the same light)?

I'm not saying that this visualization is accurate, but then, it begs the question : what, or whose, visualization is "the truth?"

The problem is, I'm not asking anyone to go "all in" on my visualization. Lee was. Lee sold his visualization as if it was the one and only true visualization from God.

Look, it doesn't matter to me if others go all in, to one Christian sect or another. As Jefferson would say, it neither breaks my leg or picks my pocket. But given that there are many different visualizations, shouldn't we, if wise, be careful about going all in to one or another.

In the end, to each his or her own. I just can accept Lee's "exclusive" visualization of the stones.

A city made of dead stones is dead. If made of living stones is alive. Is your New Jerusalem alive or dead?

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That makes me L. O. L. But I'm glad, because it means less competition in the race to the top.

You're........glad?

You view fellow believers/brothers/sisters/pursuers as..........competition?

"race to the top"..........where you will be on the highest podium happily looking down at others below you that you stepped on en route? or what?

I had to blink a few times to make sure I was really seeing those words. I'm hoping I somehow misread what you wrote there.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no pain or danger in the new earth so why we need a city? A city is a fortified structure for protection. Logically there is no need for it. Adam and Eve never needed it.

The scriptures do not speak to there being "danger" in the new earth. It says there "will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain"

If we look at Revelation 21:25, we can conclude the gates and walls are not intended for safety reasons because the gates will never be shut;

"On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there"

Taken from wikipedia;

"Apart from having a purely military and defensive purpose, towers also played a representative and artistic role in the conception of a fortified complex. The architecture of the city thus competed with that of the castle of the noblemen and city walls were often a manifestation of the pride of a particular city."

We can see that towers and walls throughout history have not only been used for defense but were also used to make a statement.

Perhaps the walls in the New Jerusalem are a statement of exclusiveness. Scripture is not clear but just because we don't know for sure does not mean we need to apply an esoteric understanding to these things or assuming a wall is only used for defense when that is not fact.

The bride prepares herself is talking about a physical city preparing itself? It does not fit the language...as bible commentators have noted.

Rather than just isolate one verse, we need to take the whole of Revelation into account here and see the other things that are noted about the Bride or the New Jerusalem.

Reveation 21:2-3;

I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them.

In verse 3, we can see that this New Jerusalem or Bride in the “dwelling place" that is now among the people.

It is a place for the people. The distinction between a place and the people (his church) is plain in the language.

Just using simple logic. If the bride came down from Heaven with God, why is he just now dwelling with his people? If the bride is the church (or his people) were they not dwelling with God in heaven before coming down with him? The bride simply cannot be the people.

Moving on we can then see in Revelation 21:18-21, the physical details given about the city.

So going full circle Revelation 21:2 describes a physical location with physical characteristics (stones, precious metals) and then likening this spectacle to the appearance of a bride adorned for a wedding; presumably speaking to a bride's jewelery. Using the imagery of a bride to physically describe the new city is purely an analogy, it is not describing the actual city as an entity in any way, shape, or form.

Remember buildings and cities are mans invention not Gods.

Neither was the temple or the ark of the covenant but we do know from scripture that these things were a copy of the things in heaven;

Hebrews 8:5;

They serve at a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary. That is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle, “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The scriptures do not speak to there being "danger" in the new earth. It says there "will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain" If we look at Revelation 21:25, we can conclude the gates and walls are not intended for safety reasons because the gates will never be shut;"On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there"

But they are but a vision, and this same vision includes images of the woman and the dragon for example - I thought Satan is a fallen angel, he is now a literal dragon? The problem is, if we take one part of revelation literally, e.g. the city, then we must take all of it literally.

If we take a step back and consider the whole bible, God doesn't seem to do buildings or cities. He set Adam and Eve in a garden without any sort of home for shelter. He tolerated David/Solomon building him the temple, ended up destroying it anyway, a few times.

I also consider that of many testimonies of people who have died and gone to heaven and returned, none of them to my knowledge have mentioned seeing any sort of city or physical structure in heaven.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Just using simple logic. If the bride came down from Heaven with God, why is he just now dwelling with his people? If the bride is the church (or his people) were they not dwelling with God in heaven before coming down with him? The bride simply cannot be the people.

Whether the city is physical or not, this same logic seems to cast doubt on the commonly held belief that believers go to heaven when they die. I think that is the bigger question.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

You're........glad?
You view fellow believers/brothers/sisters/pursuers as..........competition?
"race to the top"..........where you will be on the highest podium happily looking down at others below you that you stepped on en route? or what?
I had to blink a few times to make sure I was really seeing those words. I'm hoping I somehow misread what you wrote there.

The Christian life is a race. Jesus said to strive to enter the narrow gate.

Hebrews 12:1, "Let us run with patience the race that is set before us."

Rev 3:21 "To the one who is victorious...."

To step on people en route seems like playing dirty.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A city made of dead stones is dead. If made of living stones is alive. Is your New Jerusalem alive or dead?

Revelation is a book of signs.

Perhaps the New Jerusalem is also a sign.

Whoever heard of a real city whose height, length, and width were all the same?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Revelation is a book of signs.
Perhaps the New Jerusalem is also a sign.
Whoever heard of a real city whose height, length, and width were all the same?

That's how I see it. The New Jerusalem symbolizes what Paul had in mind when he said "But as it is written: “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” I Cor. 2:9

[Drake]

Awareness>”Right bro Drake. But is it also for fanciful imaginings?”

Awareness,

You mean like when we die we go to heaven?

My objection was to the claim of “the pure word”. This phrase has no real meaning as there is no such thing. It is used to counter Brother Lee’s interpretation as if there are two choices..... his interpretation and the pure word, which is really someone else’s interpretation.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness>”Right bro Drake. But is it also for fanciful imaginings?”

Awareness,

You mean like when we die we go to heaven?

My objection was to the claim of “the pure word”. This phrase has no real meaning as there is no such thing. It is used to counter Brother Lee’s interpretation as if there are two choices..... his interpretation and the pure word, which is really someone else’s interpretation.

Drake

No, not at all. We can, and should, use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

Returning to the Bible, the pure word of God, has always been spoken in context. The context is the traditions, the ordinances, the teachings and the practices promoted by Nee, Lee, and the Blendeds which damage the children of God, undermine the leadership in the LC's, distort the truth, and make void the Word of God.

During the recent quarantine, a family member supportive of LSM told me specifically that returning to the word of God was a "tactic of the enemy." How ironic! Since that very same "tactic" was used by Luther, Darby, Nee, Lee, and every other so-called minister of the age.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A city made of dead stones is dead. If made of living stones is alive. Is your New Jerusalem alive or dead?

Hey, bro EvanG good question.

First, I fancy the idea of "my New Jerusalem."

Second, does the Apocalypse speak of living stones? I looked it up. The word 'living' occurs 3 times in the book ; living God, living fountain, and living soul ; but no mention of living stones.

So I don't know about my New Jerusalem, I haven't thought it thru. But apparently, if you are correct about dead stones, according to John's Apocalypse, the NJ is dead.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, not at all. We can, and should, use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

Returning to the Bible, the pure word of God, has always been spoken in context. .

This is a common misunderstanding.

First, every translation is someone’s interpretation. There are dozens in the English language alone.

Second, Bibles differ in which books they include. Catholic bibles for instance contain several more than the Protestant bibles.

Third, we have no, ZERO, original letters in the NT. There are variations in source manuscripts.. Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean,.....

Fourth, those mss were copied and translated by scribes often with a point of view...text variations, whole verses added or omitted, .. transcription errors.

Finally, when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit.

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Finally, when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit.

You make a good point Drake. The real problem comes when one of the interpreters claims his interpretation is "recovered truth". And here we are over 20 years since the man's death and the official, published leadership of the Local Church refuses to allow other voices in the movement. This is the kind of thing you expect among the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, and not a Christian ministry that purports to be orthodox and biblical.
-

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness>”Right bro Drake. But is it also for fanciful imaginings?”

Awareness,
You mean like when we die we go to heaven?
My objection was to the claim of “the pure word”. This phrase has no real meaning as there is no such thing. It is used to counter Brother Lee’s interpretation as if there are two choices..... his interpretation and the pure word, which is really someone else’s interpretation.

Good point bro Drake.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

The main reason why people search for God and His way of life is hunger and thirst for the Lord Himself.
So, what's about all of your life in the local churches under the direction of Living Stream office?

To be candidly honest, Witness Lee's "highest truth" never satisfied my hunger. Worshiping and praising the Lord was far more satisfying.

In fact, Lee's teachings over time created huge growing conflicts and bondage within. We would hear all the hype during the trainings, come back attempting to put into practice, and eventually they would be discarded as failed experiments. We constantly heard that Lee had all the riches, that we needed only them, but we slowly died from malnutrition. We had "irreconcilable differences," and apparently needed a "divorce." Because of Titus Chu's oversight, many of Lee's movements never made it into our LC's. Nearly none of Lee's winds and waves of teaching ever bore much fruit beyond the mid-80's "New Way" time frame. Yet we stuck it out, hoping beyond hope, until they excommunicated us.

When I first entered the LC's, it was anointed Christ-centered teachings from the Bible. I was filled in the Spirit hearing the word and speaking for the Lord. Most LC ministers had some liberty to preach according to the local needs. They could labor in the word, and not be confined to Lee's regurgitated teachings.

I have been overwhelmingly convinced by the testimonies of many ex-members that the anointing on Lee's ministry (btw, common to all ministers of the Lord) slowly vanished because of all the pride and unrighteousness at LSM.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is a common misunderstanding.
First, every translation is someone’s interpretation. There are dozens in the English language alone.
Second, Bibles differ in which books they include. Catholic bibles for instance contain several more than the Protestant bibles.
Third, we have no, ZERO, original letters in the NT. There are variations in source manuscripts.. Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean,.....
Fourth, those mss were copied and translated by scribes often with a point of view...text variations, whole verses added or omitted, .. transcription errors.
Finally, when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit.

Sorry, Drake, but all of your claims here are bogus.

Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for making void the word of God. Sometimes (always?) Jesus quoted scripture from the Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation and not from the actual Hebrew scriptures. So your argument about original manuscripts is bunk, since Moses' original writings were also long gone. The scroll He read from in His Nazareth Synagogue was (gulp!) copied from a (gulp!) copy from a (gulp!) copy. You get the idea.

Using the "pure" original, Hebrew words of God was also unimportant to Jesus. Jesus used the "interpreted" Septuagint words of Greek scholars in Alexandria for His ministry. Can you believe that? Finally, that Septuagint version contained the Apocryphal books (like Maccabees) contained also in Catholic versions, and Jesus was not at all bothered by these extra books.

Your post actually surprised me, Drake. It was something awareness might write. Not exactly a fundamental, evangelical any more.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But they are but a vision, and this same vision includes images of the woman and the dragon for example - I thought Satan is a fallen angel, he is now a literal dragon? The problem is, if we take one part of revelation literally, e.g. the city, then we must take all of it literally.

So then if Revelation is pure allegory, why did Nee/Lee extract the entire ground of locality from this book and teach it as a literal fact?

"According to the book of Revelation, the oneness of the believers in Christ is a local oneness. Anyone who is not in the local oneness is not actually in the oneness at all. " -Witness Lee

Even then, taken as literal this book does not explicitly teach locality.

In the case that Revelation is entirely literal then the seven churches weren't cities at all, they were just lamp stands. This means that the foundation of the LC was entirely built on sand, or a subjective opinion, and not objective truth.

You see the problem with this line of thought? Presenting the false dichotomy that Revelation can only be taken entirely literally or purely allegorical is lazy, or at best, an ignorant approach to hermeneutics.

The Lord spoke both literally and figuratively during his ministry on earth, I'm sure he's capable of doing the same through John's vision.

If we take a step back and consider the whole bible, God doesn't seem to do buildings or cities. He set Adam and Eve in a garden without any sort of home for shelter. He tolerated David/Solomon building him the temple, ended up destroying it anyway, a few times.

But he did supply Adam and Eve with ingenuity and building material. And in the case of the temple, he gave Solomon instruction to build it.

I don't know why you say "tolerate" as if it were an idea that originated with David or Solomon. God himself commanded it to be build with precise details on how it was to be built.

God himself through his prophets founded the biblical nation of Israel, city of Jerusalem, and the Holy temple. How then can you say, "God doesn't seem to do buildings or cities"?

I also consider that of many testimonies of people who have died and gone to heaven and returned, none of them to my knowledge have mentioned seeing any sort of city or physical structure in heaven.

As did I. And as a matter of fact many of the testimonies speak to there being physical structures in heaven.

Whether the city is physical or not, this same logic seems to cast doubt on the commonly held belief that believers go to heaven when they die. I think that is the bigger question.

How so?

The big question is, where does this teaching that the church is the bride of Christ come from if neither an allegorical or a literal interpretation of Revelation support this view?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is a common misunderstanding.
First, every translation is someone’s interpretation. There are dozens in the English language alone.
Second, Bibles differ in which books they include. Catholic bibles for instance contain several more than the Protestant bibles.
Third, we have no, ZERO, original letters in the NT. There are variations in source manuscripts.. Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean,.....
Fourth, those mss were copied and translated by scribes often with a point of view...text variations, whole verses added or omitted, .. transcription errors.
Finally, when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit.
Drake

Bro Drake, thanks so much for this post. You express so much grounded truth about the Bible, and how we're stuck interpreting it, any way we take it.

But doesn't

when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit

also pull the rug out from brother Lee?

Thanks again brother ...
Harold

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry, Drake, but all of your claims here are bogus.

Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for making void the word of God. Sometimes (always?) Jesus quoted scripture from the Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation and not from the actual Hebrew scriptures. So your argument about original manuscripts is bunk, since Moses' original writings were also long gone. The scroll He read from in His Nazareth Synagogue was (gulp!) copied from a (gulp!) copy from a (gulp!) copy. You get the idea.

Using the "pure" original, Hebrew words of God was also unimportant to Jesus. Jesus used the "interpreted" Septuagint words of Greek scholars in Alexandria for His ministry. Can you believe that? Finally, that Septuagint version contained the Apocryphal books (like Maccabees) contained also in Catholic versions, and Jesus was not at all bothered by these extra books.

Your post actually surprised me, Drake. It was something awareness might write. Not exactly a fundamental, evangelical any more.

Oh, it is absolutely fundamental. There is nothing bogus about it. All those are known facts. And it does not change our faith in God's care of His Word delivered to us.

However, we as interpreters of God's Word need to be clear about what He has delivered into our hands. Since the Bible is the most important of ancient writings, especially to believers, then we should be diligent to try to determine the exact words of the text as the author intended them. It is called "textual criticism" of the Bible. Nothing to fear there.

However, if anyone claims to base the premise of their argument on the "pure word" and then in the same breath claim others, such as Brother Lee's, is just an interpretation then they are deluding themselves and maybe they are also attempting to pull a fast one with the rest of us.

Which brings us to a very important point. If God wanted to deliver us His "pure word", so there would be no mistaking who wrote it and what He wanted to say He could have done so by simply dropping it out of the sky in plain view, in brilliance and with magnificence... and in multiple languages. And yet, instead He chooses to work through men, men with ideas, holding world views, immersed in their culture, susceptible to misunderstanding, imperfect... and yet men moved by the Holy Spirit to document those thoughts and ideas .... and as interpreters of His inspiration in various times and places so that His word is living and operative.

Its a level playing field. Evaluate the interpretation.. but don't claim you are immune from it.

Drake

[Drake]

Bro Drake, thanks so much for this post. You express so much grounded truth about the Bible, and how we're stuck interpreting it, any way we take it.

But doesn't

also pull the rug out from brother Lee?

Thanks again brother ...
Harold

Hi Harold,

The only rug needing to be pulled out is this claim that some use the "pure word" while everyone else is merely interpreting the Word.

Its ok to interpret and there is really no choice no matter what any of us do. We are interpreting and those who have gone before are interpreting as do those who create a new translation, or select which mss to use, as do those scribes who made copies of copies of copies, etc. Even the design of the papyrus introduced transcription errors and many times the person making a copy did not even speak the language of the mss they were copying so errors were passed on to next gen mss. etc.

There is no question that Brother Lee was interpreting the Word. The only thing to consider here is whether that interpretation is according to the Scriptures as we know them, and if that is, to the best of available knowledge, what the author meant when he wrote it and if that interpretation is consistent with the whole Bible in context and in the vision presented therein.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is a common misunderstanding.

First, every translation is someone’s interpretation. There are dozens in the English language alone.

Second, Bibles differ in which books they include. Catholic bibles for instance contain several more than the Protestant bibles.

Third, we have no, ZERO, original letters in the NT. There are variations in source manuscripts.. Western, Alexandrian, Byzantine, Caesarean,.....

Fourth, those mss were copied and translated by scribes often with a point of view...text variations, whole verses added or omitted, .. transcription errors.

Finally, when someone claims they are using the “pure word” only, they are without exception applying their own understanding as a filter through which they interpret the Bible. Even the verses they select are a process of interpretation embracing some and ignoring others that don’t fit.

Drake

Seems like you have broken with Witness Lee who claimed everything he preached was according to the pure Word of God. Here are a few examples. If you need more examples I can provide them. This is less than the tip of the iceberg.

What we have been saying here is the pure word of God. It is not, as some have falsely said, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. That is devilish. What we are doing here is simply quoting the pure word of God. (Life-Study of Hebrews, Chapter 46, Section 2)

I can testify that the more I speak on the all-inclusive Spirit, the more I am confirmed that what we teach concerning the Spirit is according to the divine revelation in the pure word of God. Therefore, we shall continue to place the truth concerning the all-inclusive Spirit before the Lord's people. Let those who wish to criticize our teaching consider all things in the light of the Word. Be assured that all our writings concerning the Spirit are done carefully and with consideration according to the pure word of God.(Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 171, Section 3)

I studied all the traditional teachings when I was young, but I eventually began to see certain points concerning the Divine Trinity that are directly according to the revelation of the pure word of God. (The Divine Trinity as Revealed in the Holy Word, Chapter 1, Section 1)

I have especially encouraged the young people to study Greek for the purpose of going on to see further things in the pure word of God, not to go back to study those traditional things. The verses we have been considering illustrate the way to get into the pure word of God apart from any influence of traditional teaching. Even our brief consideration of these few verses in Revelation leaves no ground for the erroneous teaching that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three separate persons. In fact, it destroys that wrong teaching. (Elders' Training, Book 01: The Ministry of the New Testament, Chapter 7, Section 3)

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Seems like you have broken with Witness Lee who claimed everything he preached was according to the pure Word of God. Here are a few examples. If you need more examples I can provide them. This is less than the tip of the iceberg.

Brother Lee was not claiming his Bible teaching was not an interpretation. His was a contrast to using the Bible verses using tradition in his interpretation....and some of those traditions had no basis in the Bible.

Read your quotes.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Brother Lee was not claiming his Bible teaching was not an interpretation. His was a contrast to using the Bible verses using tradition and many of those traditions had no basis in the Bible.

Show me where Lee ever admitted that he was giving his interpretation. He claimed to be teaching the pure word of God.

"I can testify that the more I speak on the all-inclusive Spirit, the more I am confirmed that what we teach concerning the Spirit is according to the divine revelation in the pure word of God." (Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 171, Section 3)

He claimed he was doing exactly what you said could not be done in your four point post.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No, not at all. We can, and should, use the Bible to interpret the Bible.

Returning to the Bible, the pure word of God, has always been spoken in context. The context is the traditions, the ordinances, the teachings and the practices promoted by Nee, Lee, and the Blendeds which damage the children of God, undermine the leadership in the LC's, distort the truth, and make void the Word of God.

During the recent quarantine, a family member supportive of LSM told me specifically that returning to the word of God was a "tactic of the enemy." How ironic! Since that very same "tactic" was used by Luther, Darby, Nee, Lee, and every other so-called minister of the age.

Audible gasp from the bleachers. I truly hope that "returning to the word of God was a tactic of the enemy" is not being spoken to the saints in the LC! God have mercy on all the saints...

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

So then if Revelation is pure allegory, why did Nee/Lee extract the entire ground of locality from this book and teach it as a literal fact?

"According to the book of Revelation, the oneness of the believers in Christ is a local oneness. Anyone who is not in the local oneness is not actually in the oneness at all. " -Witness Lee

Even then, taken as literal this book does not explicitly teach locality.

I consider Revelation to be both allegory and literal. The problem is people are reading as allegory the parts which should be literal (they are not considering the facts of one church per city), and those parts which should be allegory, as literal (such as the New Jerusalem being a physical floating city of jewels).

We know that the city localities are not allegory because they truly existed. You cannot show me a floating jeweled city in the sky, or a dragon, these things don't exist.

We don't need Revelation to prove the ground of locality. The facts of history are enough - the church in Ephesus, for example, truly existed. You can book a holiday to Turkey and visit the site today if you like, there is one called "Seven Churches of Revelation Tour". I note with some amusement that it is not called the "seven denominations of revelation tour".

That the early church was arranged by city locality is a historical fact, as proven by the scholars.

Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435 says

"In the multiplicity of metropolitan Gentile churches there is still only one church in a Greek polis (a city). The Greek polis becomes the center for mission. Never is there more than one church in a city".

Originally Posted by Jo S

n the case that Revelation is entirely literal then the seven churches weren't cities at all, they were just lamp stands. This means that the foundation of the LC was entirely built on sand, or a subjective opinion, and not objective truth.

You see the problem with this line of thought? Presenting the false dichotomy that Revelation can only be taken entirely literally or purely allegorical is lazy, or at best, an ignorant approach to hermeneutics.

The Lord spoke both literally and figuratively during his ministry on earth, I'm sure he's capable of doing the same through John's vision.

I am not saying that we should take Revelation as purely one or the other. I am saying that if you ignore the literal facts of one city per church, and yet think there are literal cities of jewel in the sky, then you should also believe that there is a literal dragon. A floating city of jewels is just as believable as a flying dragon, but you cannot show them to me because they don't exist. Therefore they are allegorical. Lamp stands are also allegorical in Revelation, because a literal lamp stand per city did not literally exist.

Originally Posted by Jo S

But he did supply Adam and Eve with ingenuity and building material. And in the case of the temple, he gave Solomon instruction to build it.

I don't know why you say "tolerate" as if it were an idea that originated with David or Solomon. God himself commanded it to be build with precise details on how it was to be built.

The idea of building the temple originated with David and was not God's will. That's a fact.

2 Samuel 7

2 Then David said to Nathan the prophet, “Look, I am living in a palace made of cedar wood, but the Ark of God is in a tent!”

3 Nathan said to the king, “Go and do what you really want to do, because the Lord is with you.”

God then appeared to Nathan and rejected David’s offer, telling David not to build a temple (2 Sam. 7:5-7). This is clearer in 1 Chron 1:4 which plainly reads, “You shall not build Me a house to dwell in” (1 Chron. 17:4).

Centuries later and God still does not seem to appreciate David's offer because he allowed the temple to be destroyed multiple times and finally to be destroyed and never built again.

By the new testament time, the idea of the Temple is rejected almost completely. Christ said it would be destroyed, and the authors of the new testament reject the "God in the man-made temple" when they write:

Acts 7:48 However, the Most High doesn't live in temples made by human hands. As the prophet says,

When the disciples remarked how beautiful the temple was, Christ response was that it would be torn down. Christ did not seem to appreciate the outward beauty of the man made temple.

"Luke 21:5 "Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God"


Strong proof for the New Jerusalem being the church is given by the fact that the temple where God dwells is no longer the physical Temple built by David but the temple built by God - our human bodies.

Paul wrote:
1 Cor 3:16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?

In regards to those who think the NJ is a physical city 1 Cor 3:16 seems to be addressed to them as well. "Do you not know that you yourselves are God's city?".

Originally Posted by Jo S

God himself through his prophets founded the biblical nation of Israel, city of Jerusalem, and the Holy temple. How then can you say, "God doesn't seem to do buildings or cities"?

The first city was built by man, the city of Babel, by Nimrod. It was in rebellion against God, when fallen men decided to organize themselves together to make themselves great. God never instructed Adam and Eve to build cities.

In God's original creation there was no buildings or cities. If the new heavens and new earth is a restoration of God's creation then I expect there to be no buildings either. Cities are a symbol of man-made rebellion against God. Cities are also for protection from enemies. In a perfect new earth I cannot see why any of these things would be needed.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Show me where Lee ever admitted that he was giving his interpretation. He claimed to be teaching the pure word of God.


He claimed he was doing exactly what you said could not be done in your four point post.

zeek,

Your four references explain the contrast he was making... using the Bible or using traditions. I expect every fundamental Bible teacher will say he is teaching from the pure Word. They better.

Read those quotes of yours. He was not claiming that he does not interpret the Bible. That would be ridiculous. In fact, he provided these 5 guidelines and principles for interpreting the Bible and explained how he used them also:

"You must learn Brethren theology, you must learn the inner life teachings, and you must know where Calvinism and Reformed theology stand. Likewise, you must know where the school of Arminianism stands. Between Calvinism and Arminianism there is the kingdom teaching concerning the reward to the faithful ones and the punishment or discipline for the unfaithful ones. After you pick up these five things, you will become qualified and very much equipped to understand the Bible. I assure you that you could never go astray. This vision will govern your interpretation of every verse of the Bible. All the notes I wrote on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written under the governing of these five things. Although my teachings could be wrong in some small points, they are quite safe." Elders' Training, Book 05: Fellowship Concerning the Lord's Up-to-Date Move. Witness Lee


Drake

[awareness]

Bro EvanG the New Testament does speak of churches in cities. But it does not, and did not, develop a doctrine of one church one city. Nee and Lee made dogma where the NT did not and does not.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro EvanG the New Testament does speak of churches in cities. But it does not, and did not, develop a doctrine of one church one city. Nee and Lee made dogma where the NT did not and does not.

Like the principle of water baptism by full immersion, it's a principle. It's never violated. Like the principle of water baptism, many argue against it "there would have been babies baptized" (scripture dosen't say) " oh there would have been denominations existing at the time" (scripture doesn't say). So instead of following what the Bible shows, people are following their own imagined view of the early church.

I think its better to base on what the Bible does show(one church per city, adult baptism), than what the Bible doesn't show(denominations , infant baptism etc).

People who reject this are basing their life on what the Bible doesn't show. It doesn't show, you can go to whatever denomination you prefer. It doesn't show, you can establish multiple churches per city, or spread one particular denomination across the globe.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Audible gasp from the bleachers. I truly hope that "returning to the word of God was a tactic of the enemy" is not being spoken to the saints in the LC! God have mercy on all the saints...

This is how the last round of excommunications in the late 80's was explained to all the saints concerning former minister Bill Mallon in the SouthEast. His letters to Bro Lee can be found on the forum.

I'm sure this nonsense was repeated during the recent excommunications.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Oh, it is absolutely fundamental. There is nothing bogus about it. All those are known facts. And it does not change our faith in God's care of His Word delivered to us.

However, we as interpreters of God's Word need to be clear about what He has delivered into our hands. Since the Bible is the most important of ancient writings, especially to believers, then we should be diligent to try to determine the exact words of the text as the author intended them. It is called "textual criticism" of the Bible. Nothing to fear there.

However, if anyone claims to base the premise of their argument on the "pure word" and then in the same breath claim others, such as Brother Lee's, is just an interpretation then they are deluding themselves and maybe they are also attempting to pull a fast one with the rest of us.

Which brings us to a very important point. If God wanted to deliver us His "pure word", so there would be no mistaking who wrote it and what He wanted to say He could have done so by simply dropping it out of the sky in plain view, in brilliance and with magnificence... and in multiple languages. And yet, instead He chooses to work through men, men with ideas, holding world views, immersed in their culture, susceptible to misunderstanding, imperfect... and yet men moved by the Holy Spirit to document those thoughts and ideas .... and as interpreters of His inspiration in various times and places so that His word is living and operative.

Its a level playing field. Evaluate the interpretation.. but don't claim you are immune from it.

Drake

I debunked all of your arguments using the Lord Jesus Himself as an example.

Her you have conveniently created a moving target. When the saints reject the ministry of Lee and the Blendeds because it contains so much leaven and extras added to scripture, they long to return to God's word, not your "interpreted" word, and to God's word alone. You exalted Nee and Lee for doing this back in China, but condemn the saints who do this now, because supposedly there is no "pure' word. "Let wisdom be justified by her children."

The stench of hypocrisy is wafting up thru my computer.

[least]

Below quote by Drake from "Elders' Training, Book 05: Fellowship Concerning the Lord's Up-to-Date Move" by Witness Lee

Originally Posted by Drake

"You must learn Brethren theology, you must learn the inner life teachings, and you must know where Calvinism and Reformed theology stand. Likewise, you must know where the school of Arminianism stands. Between Calvinism and Arminianism there is the kingdom teaching concerning the reward to the faithful ones and the punishment or discipline for the unfaithful ones. After you pick up these five things, you will become qualified and very much equipped to understand the Bible. I assure you that you could never go astray. This vision will govern your interpretation of every verse of the Bible. All the notes I wrote on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written under the governing of these five things. Although my teachings could be wrong in some small points, they are quite safe." Elders' Training, Book 05: Fellowship Concerning the Lord's Up-to-Date Move. Witness Lee
Drake

So, WL attained MOTA status by - This vision that governed his interpretation of every verse of the Bible.
This vision he obtained from learning 'Brethren theology, the inner life teachings, where Calvinism and Reformed theology stands and where the school of Arminianism stands.'
All the notes he wrote on the twenty-seven books of the New Testament were written under the governing of these five things

*****
If the elders diligently learnt the 'must learns' as instructed by WL then they should also attain MOTA status.

Unless, they are mota's' in life and nature (only) but do not have the MOTA Head?

MOTA on top, mota elders below?

What and where then are the 'blended bros' ?
And what is a publishing company doing to this structure?
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I debunked all of your arguments using the Lord Jesus Himself as an example. .

You confirmed all my points, not debunked them.

Your claim that you use the “pure word” and that it is not your interpretation is pure deception.

Drake

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I consider Revelation to be both allegory and literal. The problem is people are reading as allegory the parts which should be literal (they are not considering the facts of one church per city), and those parts which should be allegory, as literal (such as the New Jerusalem being a physical floating city of jewels).

We know that the city localities are not allegory because they truly existed. You cannot show me a floating jeweled city in the sky, or a dragon, these things don't exist.

Scripture tells us that the New Jerusalem is a city that comes down out of heaven. Nowhere does it say it is "floating" and neither are we told explicity that it is a people. The church being the bride is a view that requires an esoteric interpretation of scripture.

Your caricature of the New Jerusalem as a "floating jeweled city" reminds me of when atheists call God, "sky daddy". It's childish and condescending.

If you don't have an issue with the physical body of a man ascending into heaven and then coming down the same way (Acts 1:11), I don't see why you would have such an issue with a physical structure descending out of heaven as well.

As far as the dragon is concerned, scripture does not make a claim that Satan = a literal dragon so it's only reasonable to assume the Lord is speaking to John in allegory by ascribing certain traits and characteristics of dragons to Satan himself because that's what we see through scripture when Satan is characterized. For example, Jesus described Satan as "lightning falling from heaven" or when Peter says that "the devil prowls around like a roaring lion...ect". Is Satan then a literal lion or a lightning bolt or a dragon OR can we safely assume from the consistent patterns throughout scripture that these are figures of speech whenever Satan is being mentioned?

As far as cities go, there are no places in scripture where a city is ultimitely anything other than a city so it's reasonable to assume when scripture describes the physical characteristics of a city that it's describing an actual city and not allegorically pointing to anything or anyone else.

We don't need Revelation to prove the ground of locality. The facts of history are enough - the church in Ephesus, for example, truly existed. You can book a holiday to Turkey and visit the site today if you like, there is one called "Seven Churches of Revelation Tour". I note with some amusement that it is not called the "seven denominations of revelation tour".

Sure, it's a fact that there were churches in each city in Revelation however it is neither a scriptural nor historical fact that there was only one location where believers met in each city. One location, one city is not fact.

Early Christians met in houses, not enormous multi-million dollar tax exempt facilities. It's not practical to assume the entire church in a city as big as Rome all met at Priscilla and Aquilla's home.

Here is a clip from an article titled "Earliest days of the Roman Christian Church";

"What we do know is that Christianity had become a major presence in the city of Rome by the late 40s A.D. Like most Christians in the ancient world, the Roman Christians were not collected into a single congregation. Instead, small groups of Christ-followers gathered regularly in house churches to worship, fellowship, and study the Scriptures together.

As an example, Paul mentioned a specific house church that was led by married converts to Christ named Priscilla and Aquilla (see Romans 16:3-5).
In addition, there were as many as 50,000 Jews living in Rome during Paul's day. Many of these also became Christians and joined the church. Like Jewish converts from other cities, they likely met together in the synagogues throughout Rome alongside other Jews, in addition to gathering separately in houses."

Now if you really want to get technical and follow scripture on locality, the first and only church at the time proceeding Jesus' resurrection was in Jerusalem.

So then, are we all now supposed to gather in the city of Jerusalem rather then being spread out into cities all across the globe? Pretty impractical if you think about it, right? This is the same as expecting all Christians to meet in one place in cities as massive as Rome. It's just not practical.

However we are told that one day we will all be gathered together again in the New Jerusalem but it's a work of God that will accomplish that, and not man-made movements like the "Lord's Recovery".

I am not saying that we should take Revelation as purely one or the other. I am saying that if you ignore the literal facts of one city per church, and yet think there are literal cities of jewel in the sky, then you should also believe that there is a literal dragon. A floating city of jewels is just as believable as a flying dragon, but you cannot show them to me because they don't exist. Therefore they are allegorical. Lamp stands are also allegorical in Revelation, because a literal lamp stand per city did not literally exist.

There are alot of things in scripture that I cannot show you right now. Jesus coming down from heaven as a resurrected and glorified human being in physical form or a city descending in physical form are not things that I can show you. But because they are not demonstrable doesn't mean they won't come to pass. Drake would agree with me that this line of thought is arguing from ignorance . As Christians, there are some things we just have to take on faith.

The idea of building the temple originated with David and was not God's will. That's a fact.

2 Samuel 7

2 Then David said to Nathan the prophet, “Look, I am living in a palace made of cedar wood, but the Ark of God is in a tent!”

The tent that originally housed the covenant was made by Moses and was the first tabernacle commanded to be built by God. It wasn't an idea of Moses. This tent can be viewed as a makeshift temple because Moses had not yet reached the land that God had promised the Israelites so it was obviously more practical to have a portable solution until a permanent settlement was established.
So we can see the idea of a housing for God's covenant did not originate with David but with God through Moses.

3 Nathan said to the king, “Go and do what you really want to do, because the Lord is with you.”

God then appeared to Nathan and rejected David’s offer, telling David not to build a temple (2 Sam. 7:5-7). This is clearer in 1 Chron 1:4 which plainly reads, “You shall not build Me a house to dwell in” (1 Chron. 17:4).

In 1 Chronicles, God simply says that David is not to build the temple because David shed too much blood therefore he wasn't allowed to be the one to build it. He does not say that no person in all of history is not to build a temple.

Centuries later and God still does not seem to appreciate David's offer because he allowed the temple to be destroyed multiple times and finally to be destroyed and never built again.

The temple was not destroyed because God disapproved of it. It was destroyed because Israel did not heed God's warning to them. God gave Solomon a warning that He would remove His presence and destroy the temple if Solomon or his sons ever turned their back on Him (1 Kings 9:6-9).

By the new testament time, the idea of the Temple is rejected almost completely. Christ said it would be destroyed, and the authors of the new testament reject the "God in the man-made temple" when they write:
Acts 7:48 However, the Most High doesn't live in temples made by human hands. As the prophet says,

When the disciples remarked how beautiful the temple was, Christ response was that it would be torn down. Christ did not seem to appreciate the outward beauty of the man made temple.

"Luke 21:5 "Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God"

Strong proof for the New Jerusalem being the church is given by the fact that the temple where God dwells is no longer the physical Temple built by David but the temple built by God - our human bodies.

This is no proof at all because you are equating the Most High God's unique attribute to Jesus Christ. Since the Most High God is spirit (John 4:24), it makes perfect sense that he does not live in a man-made temples. But since his son is not a spirit but a resurrected and glorified physical human being, it would then make more sense that Jesus would have a physical temple in the new city on the new earth that he is to be serve as High priest in when he gains his inheritance at the end of this age.

The first city was built by man, the city of Babel, by Nimrod. It was in rebellion against God, when fallen men decided to organize themselves together to make themselves great. God never instructed Adam and Eve to build cities.

This is false. "Enoch' was the first ever city recorded in scripture.


Genesis 4:17;

"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch.When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

In God's original creation there was no buildings or cities. If the new heavens and new earth is a restoration of God's creation then I expect there to be no buildings either. Cities are a symbol of man-made rebellion against God. Cities are also for protection from enemies. In a perfect new earth I cannot see why any of these things would be needed.

Since Babel was not the first city, this effectively renders the premise of city = rebellion invalid.

Perhaps these things were not realized in God's original creation because Adam and Eve fell from grace before they were able to build it, we do not know. However, we can conclude that God in fact had a beautiful city in mind because it is described in Revelation and will eventually come to pass when the new earth is created.

You still have not answered where the idea that the bride of Christ = the church comes from in scripture.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Scripture tells us that the New Jerusalem is a city that comes down out of heaven. Nowhere does it say it is "floating" and neither are we told explicity that it is a people. The church being the bride is a view that requires an esoteric interpretation of scripture.

If you don't have an issue with the physical body of a man ascending into heaven and then coming down the same way (Acts 1:11), I don't see why you would have such an issue with a physical structure descending out of heaven as well.

As far as the dragon is concerned, scripture does not make a claim that Satan = a literal dragon so it's only reasonable to assume the Lord is speaking to John in allegory by ascribing certain traits and characteristics of dragons to Satan himself because that's what we see through scripture when Satan is characterized. For example, Jesus described Satan as "lightning falling from heaven" or when Peter says that "the devil prowls around like a roaring lion...ect". Is Satan then a literal Lion or a lightning bolt or can we safely assume from the consistent patterns throughout scripture that these are figures of speech whenever Satan is mentioned?

As far as cities go, there are no places in scripture where a city is anything other than a city so it's reasonable to assume when scripture describes the physical characteristics of a city that it's describing an actual city and not allegorically pointing to anything or anyone else.

Even the measurements of this so-called literal city are symbolic. The number 12 is featured throughout. If someone said that their car was 12 foot high and 12 foot long and 12 foot wide, and the wheels were 6 foot in diameter would we believe them? Probably not. We would probably assume that the car is symbolic. Similarly, the dimensions and construction of the New Jerusalem are too fanciful to be believed as literal. The dimensions are symbolic, the stones and materials are symbolic, everything about this thing is symbolic. It's too symbolic to be practical.

Also consider the practicality of such a city. God creates a new earth, with no more pain, death or evil things, yet he makes his people live in a huge jewelry box. And the height is 1400 miles and extends into space. Space starts at 62 miles above the Earth. So 95% of this city is in space.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Sure, it's a fact that there were churches in each city in Revelation however it is neither a scriptural or historical fact that there was only one location where believers met in each city. One location, one city is not fact.

Early Christians met in houses, not enormous multi-million dollar tax exempt facilities. It's not practical to assume the entire church in a city as big as Rome all met at Priscilla and Aquilla's home.

Here is a clip from an article titled "Earliest days of the Roman Christian Church";

What we do know is that Christianity had become a major presence in the city of Rome by the late 40s A.D. Like most Christians in the ancient world, the Roman Christians were not collected into a single congregation. Instead, small groups of Christ-followers gathered regularly in house churches to worship, fellowship, and study the Scriptures together.

As an example, Paul mentioned a specific house church that was led by married converts to Christ named Priscilla and Aquilla (see Romans 16:3-5).
In addition, there were as many as 50,000 Jews living in Rome during Paul's day. Many of these also became Christians and joined the church. Like Jewish converts from other cities, they likely met together in the synagogues throughout Rome alongside other Jews, in addition to gathering separately in houses.

Now if you really want to get technical and follow scripture on locality, the first and only church at the time proceeding Jesus' resurrection was in Jerusalem.

So then, are we all now supposed to gather in the city of Jerusalem rather then being spread out into cities all across the globe? Pretty impractical if you think about it, right? This is the same as expecting all Christians to meet in one place in cities as massive as Rome. It's just not practical.

Indeed, Lee and Nee taught one church per city, not one location per city.

Originally Posted by Jo S

You still have not answered where the idea that the bride of Christ = the church comes from in scripture.

2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Romans 7:4 ...that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead,


Wikipedia has a an article devoted to the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ
Sometimes, the Bride is implied by calling Jesus a Bridegroom. For over 1500 years, the Church was identified as the bride betrothed to Christ. However, there are instances of the interpretation of the usage varying from church to church. Most believe that it always refers to the church.


I have never come across an interpretation which says that the Bride of Christ is a physical city.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

You confirmed all my points, not debunked them.

Your claim that you use the “pure word” and that it is not your interpretation is pure deception.

Drake

I snuck in "the pure word of God" on purpose. But I didn't expect it to be an issue. Being raised in the Southern Baptist church, going since diapers every time the doors opened, some of it had to stick, and one of them was the trope "the pure word of God." If I had a dime every time I've heard it I'd be rich. Then, on top of all that, as bro zeek has proven, Lee liked to use it.

He used it for the same reason I did ; to give authority to my/his words.
Then, if it's the pure Word of God bro Drake can't argue with me ... and I win, if that's important ... haha.

Anyway, I'm not sure which way to go here. I could bring up how that term is used by cult leaders to make it sound like God is speaking thru them -- I personally think Lee did that -- or, I could carry on with bro Drake's Four Point Post.

I'll go with bro Drake. Given his four points, concerning the Bible, we can't get the pure word of God. Cuz what we've got is tainted, to say the least ... and if tainted is not, and could not possibly be, the pure word of God.

So seems to me, if we hunger and thirst for the pure word of God, then that's gonna have to be the Rhema word of God. That has the benefit of not having middlemen ; preachers ; leaders ; teachers ; scholars ; priests and the like ; and/or any other human authorities.

Amen to that. Can I get an amen? (that's another one I remember since birth).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This is false. "Enoch' was the first ever city recorded in scripture.


Genesis 4:17;

"Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch.When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.

Quote:
In God's original creation there was no buildings or cities. If the new heavens and new earth is a restoration of God's creation then I expect there to be no buildings either. Cities are a symbol of man-made rebellion against God. Cities are also for protection from enemies. In a perfect new earth I cannot see why any of these things would be needed.
Since Babel was not the first city, this effectively renders the premise of city = rebellion invalid.

Perhaps these things were not realized in God's original creation because Adam and Eve fell from grace before they were able to build it, we do not know. However, we can conclude that God in fact had a beautiful city in mind because it is described in Revelation and will eventually come to pass when the new earth is created.

OK. I had the wrong city in mind. But I am correct that it was in rebellion, because God told Cain that he would wander the Earth, and Cain rebelled by building himself a city.

And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.(Genesis 4:16-17)

After leaving God's presence, Cain proceeded to create a life independently of God and the city was for new found protection and strength independent of God.

On the biblical principle of "first mention", we can conclude that from this time forward, cities built by men are symbols of independence and rebellion from God.

We should not confuse God's permissive will with His perfect will. In his perfect will, Israel would never have had a king, or a temple. Kings and temples was the habit of the surrounding pagan nations. God wanted his people to be different, as not realized until the New Testament and today.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

On the biblical principle of "first mention", we can conclude that from this time forward, cities built by men are symbols of independence and rebellion from God.

Actually, it may be the development of agriculture and animal husbandry that was the initial rebellion from God, as we stopped trusting in Him to provide for us. And it was that that produced the development of civilizations and cites. Could be that's why Cain's crops were rejected by God?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Scripture tells us that the New Jerusalem is a city that comes down out of heaven. Nowhere does it say it is "floating" and neither are we told explicity that it is a people. The church being the bride is a view that requires an esoteric interpretation of scripture.

John only saw the city coming down from heaven. So we know it came down. But we don't know it landed. Nowhere does Scripture say that the city lands on the Earth. Because scripture omits such an important detail, we can conclude that it is floating above the Earth. That it is suspended, was believed by early church pillars such as Tertullion.

The church being the bride, esoteric interpretation or not, is a very old, 1500 year old view in Christianity. Many many people believe it, and even some bible versions have deliberately inserted words to enforce the idea.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Even the measurements of this so-called literal city are symbolic. The number 12 is featured throughout. If someone said that their car was 12 foot high and 12 foot long and 12 foot wide, and the wheels were 6 foot in diameter would we believe them? Probably not. We would probably assume that the car is symbolic. Similarly, the dimensions and construction of the New Jerusalem are too fanciful to be believed as literal. The dimensions are symbolic, the stones and materials are symbolic, everything about this thing is symbolic. It's too symbolic to be practical.

Also consider the practicality of such a city. God creates a new earth, with no more pain, death or evil things, yet he makes his people live in a huge jewelry box. And the height is 1400 miles and extends into space. Space starts at 62 miles above the Earth. So 95% of this city is in space.

There is nothing "fanciful" about a city that is 1400 miles in all directions. It would obviously be considered a big city by our standards but obviously not by God's. If you consider that all of God's people throughout all of combined history will be dwelling there you'd need a pretty large city, don't you think? God created the earth and the earth is uniform, is it not? Why then would God's holy city also not be uniform?

Indeed, Lee and Nee taught one church per city, not one location per city.

Which is still not biblical. In what way does the bible teach that a city's boundaries have the authority to separate churches? Were the literal boundaries of Rome, Ephesus, Smyrna, ect. inherently divisive in nature?

With this mentality I'd imagine if the LC were around in early Christianity, instead of calling denominations evil, they'd probably end up calling cities evil....oh wait....

2 Cor 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Preceding this statement, Paul says;

"I hope you will bear with a little of my foolishness..."

This here makes it clear Paul is using hyperbole and is not meaning for this to be taken literally or as doctrine.

Romans 7:4 ...that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead

There is only one translation that I'm aware of that uses the english word "marries" here in Romans 7:4 and it is the KJV. This makes sense because the context in which the the word is used would be that of the old english language.

The word "marries" it is not used in the sense of marriage like that of a bride and a bridegroom. Instead, this word as the KJV renders it is used in the sense of being united.

The Greek word that KJV translates from is "ginomai" and it is a word that does not in any way connote a marraige between a man and women, husband and wife, ect. The Greek word used for "marriage" or "married" in a matrimonial sense in scripture is "gameo" or "gamos".

[b]Wikipedia has a an article devoted to the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ
Sometimes, the Bride is implied by calling Jesus a Bridegroom. For over 1500 years, the Church was identified as the bride betrothed to Christ. However, there are instances of the interpretation of the usage varying from church to church. Most believe that it always refers to the church.


I have never come across an interpretation which says that the Bride of Christ is a physical city.

Maybe this is because you've been sheltered by the LC for so long.

I understand that not only the LC but also other segments of Christianity hold the view that the bride = the church. But even if a majority holds something to be true does not automatically make it true.

Many also hold to the view that the New Jerusalem is "the bride" as per Revelation 21:2.

Scripture teaches that Christian's are the "body" of Christ and not the bride. Common sense would tell you that Christ "marrying" himself is a strange concept indeed. In fact, what this doctrine does is feminize the church.

Scripture teaches us that God is masculine in nature as is Christ, it follows that the church being Christ's body would also be considered masculine.

This is not about anything feminine as being inferior, but it is about secretly introducing heretical gnostic elements into Christian doctrine unbeknownst to most people. Scripture does warn us that Satan is crafty and subtle...

In Gnosticism, many gnostics held to teachings based on the traditions of "Sophia", the supposed feminine aspect of God.

In short, within Gnosticism there was a belief that we are all spiritual beings composed of masculine and feminine energy. In order to be made whole and freed from ignorance (enlightenment), one would have to unite the masculine along with the feminine energies in a sort of "holy spiritual matrimony". This is the mentality where the outward androgynous customs of ancient pagan cultures and elements seen in our modern culture stem from.

This is really the roots of where the teaching of the church being the bride come from. The imagery of the female aspect of Christ (the bride or church) becoming united and married to the masculine aspect of Christ (the bridegroom or the head) is a gnostic teaching and is unbiblical.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The church being the bride, esoteric interpretation or not, is a very old, 1500 year old view in Christianity. Many many people believe it, and even some bible versions have deliberately inserted words to enforce the idea.

Gnosticism within Christianity is even older than that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

There is nothing "fanciful" about a city that is 1400 miles in all directions. It would obviously be considered a big city by our standards but obviously not by God's. If you consider that all of God's people throughout all of combined history will be dwelling there you'd need a pretty large city, don't you think?

I agree it needs to be large. I disagree that it needs to be as per the stated dimensions. I disagree that it's needed at all actually, if the new earth is a safe place to live. "all directions"? 1400 miles high? If the new Earth is of the same size as the current one, do you realize that 95 % of the building will be in space? Unlike Noah's ark (whose dimensions is a ship-building marvel), this is not a city built for practically housing God's people. It's a city built for symbolism, it's a monument. I think a city built for practicality would be much longer and wider than it is high, so it can take advantage of the Earth's space.

It also makes little sense to restrict the dimensions of the city to cover only part of the Earth and contain God's people to only one area. It would be better to spread God's people out over the whole earth to cover as much as possible.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Which is still not biblical. In what way does the bible teach that a city's boundaries have the authority to separate churches? Were the literal boundaries of Rome, Ephesus, Smyrna, ect. inherently divisive in nature?

With this mentality I'd imagine if the LC were around in early Christianity, instead of calling denominations evil, they'd probably end up calling cities evil....oh wait....

People meet for worship on a Sunday. They also practice baptism of adults by full immersion. These things are not taught in scripture either, but they are principles, and we follow them. So by the standards of current Christian practice, it is biblical. One church per city is a biblical and historical fact. That's how the early church was arranged by God.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Preceding this statement, Paul says;

"I hope you will bear with a little of my foolishness..."

This here makes it clear Paul is using hyperbole and is not meaning for this to be taken literally or as doctrine.

Not doctrine? Doesn't this view contradict 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is useful for doctrine?

Based on 2 Corinthians 11:21, the reason why he says he is being foolish is because of his boasting. Not because he intends what he says to not be taken as doctrine.

Originally Posted by Jo S

There is only one translation that I'm aware of that uses the english word "marries" here in Romans 7:4 and it is the KJV. This makes sense because the context in which the the word is used would be that of the old english language.

The word "marries" it is not used in the sense of marriage like that of a bride and a bridegroom. Instead, this word as the KJV renders it is used in the sense of being united.

The Greek word that KJV translates from is "ginomai" and it is a word that does not in any way connote a marraige between a man and women, husband and wife, ect. The Greek word used for "marriage" or "married" in a matrimonial sense in scripture is "gameo" or "gamos".

Remember that the KJV is the Church of England's bible. They believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ. So the unwritten assumption in these translations is that the church is the bride of Christ. That is also a factor in the choice of words used.

Originally Posted by Jo S

Maybe this is because you've been sheltered by the LC for so long.

I understand that not only the LC but also other segments of Christianity hold the view that the bride = the church. But even if a majority holds something to be true does not automatically make it true.

Many also hold to the view that the New Jerusalem is "the bride" as per Revelation 21:2.

Scripture teaches that Christian's are the "body" of Christ and not the bride. Common sense would tell you that Christ "marrying" himself is a strange concept indeed. In fact, what this doctrine does is feminize the church.

Scripture teaches us that God is masculine in nature as is Christ, it follows that the church being Christ's body would also be considered masculine.

This is not about anything feminine as being less superior, but it is about secretly introducing heretical gnostic elements into Christian doctrine unbeknownst to most people. Scripture does say the Satan is crafty and subtle...

In Gnosticism, many gnostics held to teachings based on the traditions of "Sophia", the supposed feminine aspect of God.

In short, within Gnosticism there was a belief that we are all spiritual beings composed of masculine and feminine energy. In order to be made whole and freed from ignorance (enlightenment), one would have to unite the masculine along with the feminine energies in a sort of "holy spiritual matrimony". This is where the outward androgynous customs of pagan cultures and modern culture stem from.

This is really the roots of where the teaching of the church being the bride come from. The imagery of the female aspect of Christ (the bride or church) becoming united and married to the masculine aspect of Christ (the bridegroom or the head) is a gnostic teaching and is unbiblical.

What you say about Gnosticism sounds too much like conspiracy theory to me. God referred to His people Israel as a woman, in the female gender. And I doubt that the Old Testament was influenced by Gnosticism. The church being referred to in the female gender comes from Judaism, not gnosticism.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I agree it needs to be large. I disagree that it needs to be as per the stated dimensions. I disagree that it's needed at all actually, if the new earth is a safe place to live. "all directions"? 1400 miles high? If the new Earth is of the same size as the current one, do you realize that 95 % of the building will be in space? Unlike Noah's ark (whose dimensions is a ship-building marvel), this is not a city built for practically housing God's people. It's a city built for symbolism, it's a monument. I think a city built for practicality would be much longer and wider than it is high, so it can take advantage of the Earth's space.

It also makes little sense to restrict the dimensions of the city to cover only part of the Earth and contain God's people to only one area. It would be better to spread God's people out over the whole earth to cover as much as possible.

Well, there is the outer darkness that Christ talks about in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30. Perhaps the walls act as a veil that separate Christ's kingdom from hell until it is given over to God after 1000 years and Satan is destroyed for good.

People meet for worship on a Sunday. They also practice baptism of adults by full immersion. These things are not taught in scripture either, but they are principles, and we follow them. So by the standards of current Christian practice, it is biblical. One church per city is a biblical and historical fact. That's how the early church was arranged by God.

I would call adult water baptisms and Sunday meetings traditions rather then fundamental Christian principles. I don't view the LC's one city one church doctrine as either.

Not doctrine? Doesn't this view contradict 2 Timothy 3:16 that all scripture is useful for doctrine?

That's not only what Paul says in Timothy. He says scripture is useful for many things, one being doctrine, but others being; rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

Based on 2 Corinthians 11:21, the reason why he says he is being foolish is because of his boasting. Not because he intends what he says to not be taken as doctrine.

Paul is prefacing his following statement as a type of foolish analogy. It has nothing to do with his boasting here.

Remember that the KJV is the Church of England's bible. They believe that the Church is the Bride of Christ. So the unwritten assumption in these translations is that the church is the bride of Christ. That is also a factor in the choice of words used.

This would be believable if not for the fact that the Greek word that the KJV translates from has nothing to do with matrimony.

What you say about Gnosticism sounds too much like conspiracy theory to me. God referred to His people Israel as a woman, in the female gender. And I doubt that the Old Testament was influenced by Gnosticism. The church being referred to in the female gender comes from Judaism, not gnosticism.

Gnosticism is documented history, it's not a theory.

God does not refer to the people of Israel as a "she" in the Old Testament however he does refer to the city of Jerusalem as a woman in the Old Testament which further supports the view that the New Jerusalem is the bride.

Look at the language in Lamentations 1:1;

How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!

and also Ezekiel 16;

1 "And the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices 3 and say,....'

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

OK. I had the wrong city in mind. But I am correct that it was in rebellion, because God told Cain that he would wander the Earth, and Cain rebelled by building himself a city.

And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.(Genesis 4:16-17)

After leaving God's presence, Cain proceeded to create a life independently of God and the city was for new found protection and strength independent of God.

On the biblical principle of "first mention", we can conclude that from this time forward, cities built by men are symbols of independence and rebellion from God.

We should not confuse God's permissive will with His perfect will. In his perfect will, Israel would never have had a king, or a temple. Kings and temples was the habit of the surrounding pagan nations. God wanted his people to be different, as not realized until the New Testament and today.

When Abraham established Israel, was that also considered rebellion against God or was it considered righteousness by faith? Was David's establishment of Jerusalem also rebellion against God?

If the concept of kings is a pagan thing and not of God, why then is Jesus called the "king of kings" in scripture?

God didn't want to give Israel a king because there was no one fit to be it's king before Jesus.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Gnosticism is documented history, it's not a theory.

Yes, but I was talking about your idea that the church being the bride comes from Gnosticism. Do you have any scholarly proof that this is the case?

Originally Posted by Jo S

God does not refer to the people of Israel as a "she" in the Old Testament however he does refer to the city of Jerusalem as a woman in the Old Testament which further supports the view that the New Jerusalem is the bride.

Look at the language in Lamentations 1:1;

How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people! how is she become as a widow! she that was great among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!

and also Ezekiel 16;

1 "And the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, confront Jerusalem with her detestable practices 3 and say,....'

Ezekiel 16:1 must refer to the people. Because a physical city does not do detestable practices.

Also, this verse makes no sense if the bride is not the church:

Revelation 19:7-8 Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8 it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

The Bride made herself ready is clearly the saints, who have clothed themselves in righteous deeds. The clothing of Christ's bride is the righteous deeds of the saints. This makes no sense if the Bride is the physical city.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The highest truth according to Witness Lee is being made God in life and nature corporately, i.e. the New Jerusalem.
...

I wrote this letter in 1994 but I never mailed it. Despite the levity, I asked some important questions which need to be answered by those who still espouse the notion that "man becomes God".

********************************

9/9/94

Brother Witness Lee
1853 West Ball Road
Post Office Box 2121
Anaheim, CA 92804

Dear Brother Lee:

I heard you say in a meeting in Irving, Texas on March 6, 1994 that you believe and are teaching that man becomes God. I think I've made it. I mean, I think I've become God.

Women can be God-persons too, can't they? So I can be sure, if someone in the Bible has become God, who would that be? What verse in the Bible tells us that person or persons' name? I need someone to compare myself to. I must also know the name of any subsequent person or persons who have become God, living or dead, if any, since Biblical times. I want to get us all together for a little home group meeting. I have lots of ideas about how all of us God-persons can go on together in the Us-ordained way. I think we should all get together in Hawaii as soon as possible, maybe Thanksgiving would be an appropriate time. There's so much we need to talk about.

I would like to know the name of the person or persons who make the determination that someone has actually become God, and your scripture reference for the qualifications of this person, or do you become God by self-determination? Does the person or committee who decides that another person is God have to himself or herself be God? How do you know for sure when you get to be God? Or, supposing self-determination, when you become God, do you tell people that you are God and they are supposed to take your word for it? In the past, we have always swallowed everything you said, hook, line and sinker, regardless of what the Bible said, but I thought this might be different.

When you become God, is it proper for you to tell people about it? Do you just say "I'm God" or is there a more delicate way to do it? All the people I know about who claim to be Jesus have either been certifiable mental cases or cult leaders. Gosh, I sure hope no one gets any crazy ideas like that about You and Me!

Will my friends and family still call me "Nell" or will I have another title? Can I quit work?

Will the Living Stream Ministry Office be the governing body for designation of God-persons? (Maybe you can bring your son, Phillip, in to help out with this new certification process. Is he a Christian?) Will we apply for some kind of papers authenticating our new status? Will we take an exam? If so, I think I'm ready. I was under Your ministry for fifteen years, and I have been back into Your elders' training books lately (I think that's what put me over the top.) I have read the first eight books. They are quite uplifting—many times I came right out of my chair.

Since "God" by definition is deity, where is your scripture reference for Godship without deity? Don't you think we could just leave that part out? Just this once?

You're God too, aren't you? I think you are. Don't be coy! Tell me. I won't tell. I'm pretty sure I want to start giving conferences and trainings now. You and I have a big job to do if we want to turn Our recovery around. You know how the morale has just about bottomed out.

Since I'm younger, I'll take the lead. You and I can decide who else gets to be God, and when Phillip gets here, he can help. We need a proper title, and, of course, I'll need to look at the books (financial records). We can't have any more little scrapes like the one you got into with Sal in Boston. Since your career is winding down we need some continuity, so I'm sure you'll agree that this is best for Us.

Well, Witness, it's good to fellowship these things with You. If you need any help, now, You know Who to call. You're not alone anymore. You've got all us God-persons to watch out for you. We are all equal aren't we?

Love,
Nell, G-p

PS: Is a "god" without deity a false god or no? I was thinking about that Dagon idol in the Old Testament and wondered if he was one of us.

***********************************************

It should also be noted that in 1994 I waited with great anticipation for the "Life Study" of this March 9, 1994 meeting in Irving. When published, it had been sanitized beyond recognition as the meeting I actually attended. "Man becomes God" had been morphed into something else. Also note that “corporately, I.e. the New Jerusalem” wasn’t part of the package in 1994.

So those of you who bought into this "high truth", please support your belief and answer the above questions. That shouldn't be hard. You are God, aren't you?

[Drake]

-1

You should have sent it.

Missed opportunity.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

You should have sent it.

Missed opportunity.

Like Lee would have even opened a letter from a sister ... much less read it ... and even less, count it as something that matters.

After all, Athanasius didn't write : “God became man that woman might become God.”

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Also, this verse makes no sense if the bride is not the church:

Revelation 19:7-8 Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8 it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

The Bride made herself ready is clearly the saints, who have clothed themselves in righteous deeds. The clothing of Christ's bride is the righteous deeds of the saints. This makes no sense if the Bride is the physical city.

What makes no sense is our deeds translating into literal clothing.

So of course we can conclude that "linen" is metaphor for splendor.

Now, if we can cloth ourselves in righteous deeds how come we are not yet glorified? Does our glory come before or after Christ return's? If before, as you interpret this verse, then you claim we can glorify ourselves. Can you bring Christ down from heaven with your righteousness?

This goes back to where Christ talks about storing up our treasure in heaven.

What then is that treasure he talks about? It's our righteous deeds.

Since our righteous deeds are stored in heaven, it follows that they will be presented when heaven or the New Jerusalem comes to earth with Christ.

Christ talks about showing other's our righteous deeds in order for God to be glorified, not so we can be glorified.

"In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5:16

Our light is from God. Our righteousness is not our glory but God's glory and when that holy city appears, it'll will be clothed in his light, not ours.

Revelation 22:5

"And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever."

So yes Revelation 19:7-8 talks about the city, the New Jerusalem, appearing clothed in God's bright and awesome glory.

Ezekiel 16:1 must refer to the people. Because a physical city does not do detestable practices.

This then all ties back to Ezekiel 16:1.

It is not likening the city of Jerusalem to the people themselves, but their works or practices.

See, if the detestable practices of the people can condemn Jerusalem then the righteous deeds or treasures of the Lord's people can bring glory to the New Jerusalem.

And I'll end on this note.

Here we also see a city likened to a women in Revelation 17:18:

"The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

If you do not have issue with the the great city Babylon being called a "whore", you should find no issue with the New Jerusalem being called the bride.

[awareness]

By the way sister Nell, this was top notch sarcasm (left below)

Harold
----------------------.

Originally Posted by Nell

I wrote this letter in 1994 but I never mailed it. Despite the levity, I asked some important questions which need to be answered by those who still espouse the notion that "man becomes God".

********************************

9/9/94

Brother Witness Lee
1853 West Ball Road
Post Office Box 2121
Anaheim, CA 92804

Dear Brother Lee:

I heard you say in a meeting in Irving, Texas on March 6, 1994 that you believe and are teaching that man becomes God. I think I've made it. I mean, I think I've become God.

Women can be God-persons too, can't they? So I can be sure, if someone in the Bible has become God, who would that be? What verse in the Bible tells us that person or persons' name? I need someone to compare myself to. I must also know the name of any subsequent person or persons who have become God, living or dead, if any, since Biblical times. I want to get us all together for a little home group meeting. I have lots of ideas about how all of us God-persons can go on together in the Us-ordained way. I think we should all get together in Hawaii as soon as possible, maybe Thanksgiving would be an appropriate time. There's so much we need to talk about.

I would like to know the name of the person or persons who make the determination that someone has actually become God, and your scripture reference for the qualifications of this person, or do you become God by self-determination? Does the person or committee who decides that another person is God have to himself or herself be God? How do you know for sure when you get to be God? Or, supposing self-determination, when you become God, do you tell people that you are God and they are supposed to take your word for it? In the past, we have always swallowed everything you said, hook, line and sinker, regardless of what the Bible said, but I thought this might be different.

When you become God, is it proper for you to tell people about it? Do you just say "I'm God" or is there a more delicate way to do it? All the people I know about who claim to be Jesus have either been certifiable mental cases or cult leaders. Gosh, I sure hope no one gets any crazy ideas like that about You and Me!

Will my friends and family still call me "Nell" or will I have another title? Can I quit work?

Will the Living Stream Ministry Office be the governing body for designation of God-persons? (Maybe you can bring your son, Phillip, in to help out with this new certification process. Is he a Christian?) Will we apply for some kind of papers authenticating our new status? Will we take an exam? If so, I think I'm ready. I was under Your ministry for fifteen years, and I have been back into Your elders' training books lately (I think that's what put me over the top.) I have read the first eight books. They are quite uplifting—many times I came right out of my chair.

Since "God" by definition is deity, where is your scripture reference for Godship without deity? Don't you think we could just leave that part out? Just this once?

You're God too, aren't you? I think you are. Don't be coy! Tell me. I won't tell. I'm pretty sure I want to start giving conferences and trainings now. You and I have a big job to do if we want to turn Our recovery around. You know how the morale has just about bottomed out.

Since I'm younger, I'll take the lead. You and I can decide who else gets to be God, and when Phillip gets here, he can help. We need a proper title, and, of course, I'll need to look at the books (financial records). We can't have any more little scrapes like the one you got into with Sal in Boston. Since your career is winding down we need some continuity, so I'm sure you'll agree that this is best for Us.

Well, Witness, it's good to fellowship these things with You. If you need any help, now, You know Who to call. You're not alone anymore. You've got all us God-persons to watch out for you. We are all equal aren't we?

Love,
Nell, G-p

PS: Is a "god" without deity a false god or no? I was thinking about that Dagon idol in the Old Testament and wondered if he was one of us.

***********************************************

It should also be noted that in 1994 I waited with great anticipation for the "Life Study" of this March 9, 1994 meeting in Irving. When published, it had been sanitized beyond recognition as the meeting I actually attended. "Man becomes God" had been morphed into something else. Also note that “corporately, I.e. the New Jerusalem” wasn’t part of the package in 1994.

So those of you who bought into this "high truth", please support your belief and answer the above questions. That shouldn't be hard. You are God, aren't you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Like Lee would have even opened a letter from a sister ... much less read it ... and even less, count it as something that matters.

After all, Athanasius didn't write : “God became man that woman might become God.”

We know that W. Lee would not even read letters from his long-term co-workers.

Lee only liked good reports from sycophants. He could not bear any critique from peers.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Like Lee would have even opened a letter from a sister ... much less read it ... and even less, count it as something that matters.

After all, Athanasius didn't write : “God became man that woman might become God.”

"God-woman" just don't sound right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

What makes no sense is our deeds translating into literal clothing.

So of course we can conclude that "linen" is metaphor for splendor.

Now, if we can cloth ourselves in righteous deeds how come we are not yet glorified? Does our glory come before or after Christ return's? If before, as you interpret this verse, then you claim we can glorify ourselves. Can you bring Christ down from heaven with your righteousness?

This goes back to where Christ talks about storing up our treasure in heaven.

What then is that treasure he talks about? It's our righteous deeds.

Since our righteous deeds are stored in heaven, it follows that they will be presented when heaven or the New Jerusalem comes to earth with Christ.

Christ talks about showing other's our righteous deeds in order for God to be glorified, not so we can be glorified.

"In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5:16

Our light is from God. Our righteousness is not our glory but God's glory and when that holy city appears, it'll will be clothed in his light, not ours.

Revelation 22:5

"And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever."

So yes Revelation 19:7-8 talks about the city, the New Jerusalem, appearing clothed in God's bright and awesome glory.



This then all ties back to Ezekiel 16:1.

It is not likening the city of Jerusalem to the people themselves, but their works or practices.

See, if the detestable practices of the people can condemn Jerusalem then the righteous deeds or treasures of the Lord's people can bring glory to the New Jerusalem.

And I'll end on this note.

Here we also see a city likened to a women in Revelation 17:18:

"The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”

If you do not have issue with the the great city Babylon being called a "whore", you should find no issue with the New Jerusalem being called the bride.

It says that the Bride is wearing fine linen. Why don't you believe that the city , the physical structure is adorned with literal fine white linen? Why are the stones literal and the linen is not? Who is wearing this fine linen, is it the physical structure or the people inside it? If it is the people inside it, then the Bride refers to the people, not the physical structure. The people inside the structure is the Church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"God-woman" just don't sound right.

God-man means God-human. Man is a species, it comes from human. Woman is not a species - there is no such thing as huwoman.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

I wrote this letter in 1994 but I never mailed it. Despite the levity, I asked some important questions which need to be answered by those who still espouse the notion that "man becomes God".

********************************

9/9/94

Brother Witness Lee
1853 West Ball Road
Post Office Box 2121
Anaheim, CA 92804

Dear Brother Lee:

I heard you say in a meeting in Irving, Texas on March 6, 1994 that you believe and are teaching that man becomes God. I think I've made it. I mean, I think I've become God.

Women can be God-persons too, can't they? So I can be sure, if someone in the Bible has become God, who would that be? What verse in the Bible tells us that person or persons' name? I need someone to compare myself to. I must also know the name of any subsequent person or persons who have become God, living or dead, if any, since Biblical times. I want to get us all together for a little home group meeting. I have lots of ideas about how all of us God-persons can go on together in the Us-ordained way. I think we should all get together in Hawaii as soon as possible, maybe Thanksgiving would be an appropriate time. There's so much we need to talk about.

I would like to know the name of the person or persons who make the determination that someone has actually become God, and your scripture reference for the qualifications of this person, or do you become God by self-determination? Does the person or committee who decides that another person is God have to himself or herself be God? How do you know for sure when you get to be God? Or, supposing self-determination, when you become God, do you tell people that you are God and they are supposed to take your word for it? In the past, we have always swallowed everything you said, hook, line and sinker, regardless of what the Bible said, but I thought this might be different.

When you become God, is it proper for you to tell people about it? Do you just say "I'm God" or is there a more delicate way to do it? All the people I know about who claim to be Jesus have either been certifiable mental cases or cult leaders. Gosh, I sure hope no one gets any crazy ideas like that about You and Me!

Will my friends and family still call me "Nell" or will I have another title? Can I quit work?

Will the Living Stream Ministry Office be the governing body for designation of God-persons? (Maybe you can bring your son, Phillip, in to help out with this new certification process. Is he a Christian?) Will we apply for some kind of papers authenticating our new status? Will we take an exam? If so, I think I'm ready. I was under Your ministry for fifteen years, and I have been back into Your elders' training books lately (I think that's what put me over the top.) I have read the first eight books. They are quite uplifting—many times I came right out of my chair.

Since "God" by definition is deity, where is your scripture reference for Godship without deity? Don't you think we could just leave that part out? Just this once?

You're God too, aren't you? I think you are. Don't be coy! Tell me. I won't tell. I'm pretty sure I want to start giving conferences and trainings now. You and I have a big job to do if we want to turn Our recovery around. You know how the morale has just about bottomed out.

Since I'm younger, I'll take the lead. You and I can decide who else gets to be God, and when Phillip gets here, he can help. We need a proper title, and, of course, I'll need to look at the books (financial records). We can't have any more little scrapes like the one you got into with Sal in Boston. Since your career is winding down we need some continuity, so I'm sure you'll agree that this is best for Us.

Well, Witness, it's good to fellowship these things with You. If you need any help, now, You know Who to call. You're not alone anymore. You've got all us God-persons to watch out for you. We are all equal aren't we?

Love,
Nell, G-p

PS: Is a "god" without deity a false god or no? I was thinking about that Dagon idol in the Old Testament and wondered if he was one of us.

***********************************************

It should also be noted that in 1994 I waited with great anticipation for the "Life Study" of this March 9, 1994 meeting in Irving. When published, it had been sanitized beyond recognition as the meeting I actually attended. "Man becomes God" had been morphed into something else. Also note that “corporately, I.e. the New Jerusalem” wasn’t part of the package in 1994.

So those of you who bought into this "high truth", please support your belief and answer the above questions. That shouldn't be hard. You are God, aren't you?

The LGBTI version of Athanasius is:

God became a man, so that man could become a woman

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It says that the Bride is wearing fine linen. Why don't you believe that the city , the physical structure is adorned with literal fine white linen? Why are the stones literal and the linen is not? Who is wearing this fine linen, is it the physical structure or the people inside it? If it is the people inside it, then the Bride refers to the people, not the physical structure. The people inside the structure is the Church.

In Revelation 19:8, the bride is clothed in linen. We know that linen is an analogy because it's right in the text in the following sentence so there is no guessing;

"For the fine linen she wears is the righteous acts of the saints."

If you argue that the bride in verse 8 is the church then you have to explain the following verse 9;

"Then the angel told me to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

It says blessed are those that are invited. Now, does a bride have to be invited to her own wedding if in fact the bride is the church? The answer is obviously no, so the church cannot be the bride.



Now the friends of the bridegroom, on the other hand, do need invitation to a wedding. If you go back to the gospel of John you will see that John the Baptist did not consider himself as the bride but he did consider himself a "friend of the bridegroom".

John 3:39;

"The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete."

So comparing scripture with scripture we can conclude that those that make up Christ's church are the "friends" of the bridegroom because just like John, we are looking to Jesus' coming.



Now going to Revelation 21 we see John likening the holy city's appearance to that of a bride. The analogy of the city and bride is clear. He goes ahead to specifically describe a city (not people or any other thing) and give properties and measurements in line with that of a physical location. So we can conclude that the bride is a metapor for a city because it's plainly right there in the text.

Revelation 21:2

"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband."


There is no indication given in the text, like in Rev 19, that when John is describing the walls of the New Jerusalem that these walls of the city are analogous to anything else other than actual walls.

There isn't anything in this chapter that would make you come to the conclusion that the bride in Revelation is anything other than a heavenly city. The descriptors John gives are not obscure, they're specifically related to a physical city.

To claim that the city is the body of believers would require tremendous amounts of esoteric interpretation to even remotely conform this premise to the rest of scripture. You'd then have to explain what the walls, stones, gates, precise measurements, ect and how these things point to people. Without substantive biblical support for the idea that these things are describing a group of people the burden of proof remains on you.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

In Revelation 19:8, the bride is clothed in linen. We know that linen is an analogy because it's right in the text in the following sentence so there is no guessing;

"For the fine linen she wears is the righteous acts of the saints."

If you argue that the linen in verse 8 is the church then you have to explain the following verse 9;

"Then the angel told me to write, “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

It says blessed are those that are invited. Now, does a bride have to be invited to her own wedding if in fact the bride is the church? The answer is obviously no, so the church cannot be the bride.



Now the friends of the bridegroom, on the other hand, do need invitation to a wedding. If you go back to the gospel of John you will see that John the Baptist did not consider himself as the bride but he did consider himself a "friend of the bridegroom".

John 3:39;

"The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete."

So comparing scripture with scripture we can conclude that those that make up Christ's church are the "friends" of the bridegroom because just like John, we are looking to Jesus' coming.



Now going to Revelation 21 we see John likening the holy city's appearance to that of a bride. The analogy is clearly laid out He then goes ahead to specifically describe a city (not people or any other thing) and give properties and measurements in line with that of a physical location. So we can conclude that the bride is a metapor for a city because it's plainly right there in the text.

Revelation 21:2

"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband."


There is no indication given, like in Rev 19, that when John is describing the walls of the New Jerusalem that the walls of the city are analogous to anything else. Logically we can conclude that he is actually describing a real city.

There is nothing in this chapter to come to the conclusion that the bride in Revelation is anything other than a real heavenly city. The descriptors John gives are not obscure, they're specifically related to a physical city.

To claim that the city is the body of believers would require tremendous amounts of esoteric scripture interpretation to even remotely conform this premise to the rest of scripture. You'd then have to explain what the walls, stones, gates, precise measurements, ect and how these things point to people. Without substantive biblical support for the idea that these things are describing a group of people the burden of proof remains on you.



ByHisMercy asked to have a discussion on this topic. Evangelical, I'm not trying to convince you of anything but I do appreciate your challenge.

I disagree that the burden of proof remains on me. This is because in Christianity the most commonly accepted interpretation of the bride of Christ is the Church, and your view is an uncommon interpretation.

Normally the most commonly accepted view is the one that must be disproven. So really the burden of proof is on you to be able to provide enough evidence to reject this idea that the Bride of Christ is the Church. Do you have any book or scholar or author you can refer me to for further reading?

From biblehub I can easily quote bible scholars who say that the bride is the people, not the physical structure:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/3-29.htm

Vincent's Word studies says:

The bride

A common figure in the Old testament prophecies, of the relation between Jehovah and His people (Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2:19; Malachi 2:11). See also on Matthew 1:21, concerning Hosea.

It goes on to explain how the friends of the bridegroom are those who leads out God's people to meet God.

The friends of the bridegroom are Moses, John the Baptist, even the Apostles,. who lead God's people to meet Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ

The great difficulty with the bride = city interpretation is that it means Christ is "marrying" a physical structure and as "friends of the bridegroom" we get to watch Christ marry a building. Who or what is in this building that Christ is marrying and why would Christ love a mere building when He died for people?

My understanding of the terms Babylon and Jerusalem is that it refers to the people inside them, and their condition, not the physical structure which contains them. Nothing makes much sense if we only talk about the physical structures and not the people in them.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"God-woman" just don't sound right.

Yeah...neither does God-man, huh?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by awareness

By the way sister Nell, this was top notch sarcasm (left below)

Harold
----------------------.

Thanks—Good questions though.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I disagree that the burden of proof remains on me. This is because in Christianity the most commonly accepted interpretation of the bride of Christ is the Church, and your view is an uncommon interpretation.

Normally the most commonly accepted view is the one that must be disproven. So really the burden of proof is on you to be able to provide enough evidence to reject this idea that the Bride of Christ is the Church. Do you have any book or scholar or author you can refer me to for further reading?

The view of the bride of Christ = the church is not a concept that has ever been proven to begin with. Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say "church = bride". It's a view based on subjective interpretation so there is nothing there to disprove.

Scripture does however plainly make the claims that "New Jerusalem = holy city" and "new Jerusalem = adorned bride"

Those that think that this city John is describing is anything other than a city and that the bride is being likened to anything other than an actual city have the burden to prove otherwise.

BTW, if you do your research you'll find the roots of this teaching trace back to gnosticism and then later adopted and made mainstream through Catholicism.

Here is an excerpt from a teaching on the catholic catechism from Vatican.va website;

"789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ."

This is Sophian gnosticism ^^^

From biblehub I can easily quote bible scholars who say that the bride is the people, not the physical structure:.........

I'm here having a discussion with you, I'm not looking for a scholar's view. Jesus and the apostles were unlearned men yet they understood scripture where as the educated Pharisees that opposed them did not. What makes a scholar's or PhD's views more important than yours?

The great difficulty with the bride = city interpretation is that it means Christ is "marrying" a physical structure and as "friends of the bridegroom" we get to watch Christ marry a building. Who or what is in this building that Christ is marrying and why would Christ love a mere building when He died for people?

You're taking the analogy of marriage as literal matrimony and making an argument that of course looks silly presented in that way.

If I do that same and go with the view that Christ is marrying those that consist of the church. With you being a male, you don't find it strange that you are being married to another male?

We can then be safe in saying that the marriage language in scripture refers to a joining or unifying rather than human matrimony.

If viewed this way Christ joining himself to his inheritance, or his kingdom on earth, doesn't seem strange at all.

Again, Jesus himself does not refer to us as the bride but friends of the bridegroom in Mark 2:19;


"And Jesus said unto them, Can the friends of the bridegroom fast, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast."

My understanding of the terms Babylon and Jerusalem is that it refers to the people inside them, and their condition, not the physical structure which contains them. Nothing makes much sense if we only talk about the physical structures and not the people in them.

Yes God's people will eventually be part of that city when it is established on earth.

You're allowed to have you're own views, Evangelical. Just know, I'm not here to convince you or anybody else of anything. That's not my place. ByHisMercy asked if I could have this discussion and you provided the challenge to make that happen. You gave the view you've been taught and I provided mine. I'll leave it at that.




.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Yeah...neither does God-man, huh?

Only for Jesus Christ.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Nell

Thanks—Good questions though.

It was a great letter. And thanks for posting it. It's a keeper.

My wish is not that you mailed it to Lee, but rather, to make sure that he didn't just toss it into the circular file, so he couldn't avoid it, you went to him and read it to his face.

Athanasius was Sainted by both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox. And Lee made a lot of his statement that man could become God, when it supported his position on theois/divination.

I think you know what they think about sisters. They like to quote that statement by Anthanasius, but when it came to sisters, they skipped over the fact that Athanasius supported women priests :

Some things I've picked up about "the saint" and sisters :

" . . . for in the Kingdom of Heaven there is neither male nor female. All women who were well received by the Lord attained the rank of men.”

". . . that while in the fallen state of humanity woman was subjected to man, that has been overturned in Christ, for woman as well as man was made in the image of God and is equal in God’s sight."

Lee and followers thought Athanasius was great when he said "man" could become God, but rejected his position on women ... as did those that sainted him.

Thanks again sister ...
Harold

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

"789 The comparison of the Church with the body casts light on the intimate bond between Christ and his Church. Not only is she gathered around him; she is united in him, in his body. Three aspects of the Church as the Body of Christ are to be more specifically noted: the unity of all her members with each other as a result of their union with Christ; Christ as head of the Body; and the Church as bride of Christ."
This is Sophian gnosticism ^^^

Is it possible to discuss sophian gnosticism in the church further in Alternative Views? I know that Witness Lee said many things about Catholics and daughter Protestants, but not sure that he raised the matter of sophian gnoistism infiltrating the church. Maybe it comes under "pagan Christianity". I am particularly interested in your view of how far you think sophian gnosticism is present in today's Christianity, i.e., Protestantism.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is it possible to discuss sophian gnosticism in the church further in Alternative Views?

Well you could start a thread there.

But I doubt you'll find many sophian gnostics in Protestantism today. Maybe in early Christianity, but the heresiologist Irenaeus condemned them to extinction.

I like the feminine Sophia as wisdom, but the Gnostics, at least some of them, turned her into the creator of this awful material world. At least Proverbs speaks highly of her ... like she's the Logos.

Personally, I think Christianity, including the local church, could use the numinous female energy like Sophia found in Proverbs. Women are better than men because they think with their brains.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by awareness

But I doubt you'll find many sophian gnostics in Protestantism today. Maybe in early Christianity, but the heresiologist Irenaeus condemned them to extinction.

Gnosticism is alive and well and hidden in plain sight. It survived through certain practices (mysticism) and doctrines that many Christian denominations and sects today accept as truth eg. the bride of Christ being the church or the personification of wisdom (Sophia) ect...

Gnosticism is a way of thought. It's not a sect or anything like that. That's why it's so effective in infiltrating groups of Christians and slowly taking over.

As hard as it is for some to hear, Nee's/Lee's/Chu's teachings and views are riddled with gnostic thought.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Gnosticism is alive and well and hidden in plain sight. It survived through certain practices (mysticism) and doctrines that many Christian denominations and sects today accept as truth eg. the bride of Christ being the church or the personification of wisdom (Sophia) ect...

Gnosticism is a way of thought. It's not a sect or anything like that. That's why it's so effective in infiltrating groups of Christians and slowly taking over.

As hard as it is for some to hear, Nee's/Lee's/Chu's teachings and views are riddled with gnostic thought.

Jo S can you provide some descriptions of Gnosticism hidden in plain sight, or perhaps some examples of gnosticism in the LCs's?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jo S can you provide some descriptions of Gnosticism hidden in plain sight, or perhaps some examples of gnosticism in the LCs's?

I touched on this a little in this thread;

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=6072

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well you could start a thread there.

But I doubt you'll find many sophian gnostics in Protestantism today. Maybe in early Christianity, but the heresiologist Irenaeus condemned them to extinction.

I like the feminine Sophia as wisdom, but the Gnostics, at least some of them, turned her into the creator of this awful material world. At least Proverbs speaks highly of her ... like she's the Logos.

Personally, I think Christianity, including the local church, could use the numinous female energy like Sophia found in Proverbs. Women are better than men because they think with their brains.

Sophian gnosticism is just another sign of degradation. I knew that Christianity was pagan thanks to Viola and Barna but gnostic too it seems.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Gnosticism is alive and well and hidden in plain sight. It survived through certain practices (mysticism) and doctrines that many Christian denominations and sects today accept as truth eg. the bride of Christ being the church or the personification of wisdom (Sophia) ect...

Gnosticism is a way of thought. It's not a sect or anything like that. That's why it's so effective in infiltrating groups of Christians and slowly taking over.

As hard as it is for some to hear, Nee's/Lee's/Chu's teachings and views are riddled with gnostic thought.

Yes, there's been a rise in Gnosticism since the find of Gnostic writings at Nag Hammadi in the 40s. Thanks to professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton (where Kangas went to seminary), an expert on the Gnostic manuscripts, we can learn about them.

Before that we only knew anything about the Gnostics from their orthodox opposers. But thanks to Pagel's The Gnostic Gospels we can get their side of the story. She also wrote The Gnostic Paul and The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis.

There were different kinds of Gnosticism in early Christian days. Not all of Gnosticism is bad.

But where do you see it in Lee's movement?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro EvanG the New Testament does speak of churches in cities. But it does not, and did not, develop a doctrine of one church one city. Nee and Lee made dogma where the NT did not and does not.

Response by Evangelical:
Like the principle of water baptism by full immersion, it's a principle. It's never violated. Like the principle of water baptism, many argue against it "there would have been babies baptized" (scripture dosen't say) " oh there would have been denominations existing at the time" (scripture doesn't say). So instead of following what the Bible shows, people are following their own imagined view of the early church.

I think its better to base on what the Bible does show(one church per city, adult baptism), than what the Bible doesn't show(denominations , infant baptism etc).

People who reject this are basing their life on what the Bible doesn't show. It doesn't show, you can go to whatever denomination you prefer. It doesn't show, you can establish multiple churches per city, or spread one particular denomination across the globe.

I didn't read where anyone replied to this and I wondered if anyone wants to give it a shot?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I didn't read where anyone replied to this and I wondered if anyone wants to give it a shot?

Have a go.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

people are following their own imagined view of the early church.

And that imagined view is that the NT developed a dogma of one church one city. That's Nee's and Lee's imagined view ... and apparently yours too.

[Sons to Glory!]

Response by Evangelical:
Like the principle of water baptism by full immersion, it's a principle. It's never violated. Like the principle of water baptism, many argue against it "there would have been babies baptized" (scripture dosen't say) " oh there would have been denominations existing at the time" (scripture doesn't say). So instead of following what the Bible shows, people are following their own imagined view of the early church.

I think its better to base on what the Bible does show(one church per city, adult baptism), than what the Bible doesn't show(denominations , infant baptism etc).

People who reject this are basing their life on what the Bible doesn't show. It doesn't show, you can go to whatever denomination you prefer. It doesn't show, you can establish multiple churches per city, or spread one particular denomination across the globe.

So what is wrong with this logic?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So what is wrong with this logic?

See post #103 ...

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

See post #103 ...

Please elaborate in a more effective way.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

So what is wrong with this logic?

Awareness's counter-argument that "there is no NT dogma" is a weak argument based on descriptive vs prescriptive reading of the Bible. Passages in the bible are either descriptive or prescriptive. Descriptive meaning something that happened, and prescriptive meaning something that should happen (e.g. a command).

Sometimes it is not clear if a passage should be descriptive or prescriptive. For example, the Lord's Table in Mark 14:22-25 seems prescriptive, and it has been viewed as such by Christians for a long time, particularly Catholics and their Protestant derivatives which make such a big fuss about it, even to say that the Priest must drink all the wine and must not drop one little bit. However someone could argue that it is only descriptive, as it applied only to the 12 disciples at the time, and not to us today. People make this same sort of argument all the time against head coverings - explain away a prescriptive passage (to wear head coverings) as if it were descriptive ("it only applied to them at the time").

When people cherry-pick the prescriptive commands out of the bible they are missing the bigger picture - descriptive and prescriptive passages go together. Descriptive verses are like "teaching by example", and prescriptive are like "teaching by word".

For example:
Jesus appeared to command meeting together to break bread to remember Him (1 Cor 11:23). That can be considered prescriptive.

In practice, they broke bread from house to house each Sunday (Acts 2:46 and others) - this is how they obeyed Jesus's prescriptive command.

Baptism is a command.
In practice, they baptized adults by full immersion - that is how they obeyed the command.

Similarly, God commanded unity between believers, no divisions, and no one saying "I follow Paul, I follow Apollos".
In practice, they met as the church in each city.

To ignore the descriptive verses is to ignore how the early church obeyed the prescriptive commands. It it as if to say, "I think I know how to obey these commands better than the apostles and Christians who actually knew Christ in the flesh". "We don't need to break bread every Sunday, we can do it whenever we feel like it", "we don't need to baptize in water, we can baptize in sand, scripture doesn't say we have to use water", "we don't have to meet as the church in the city, we can meet with any denomination that we like".

People use this descriptive vs prescriptive argument to excuse themselves from following the Bible, even though many of Christianity's practices are from descriptive reading of Scripture anyway (or even paganism, as shown by Viola and Barna's book). We can use this "descriptive vs prescriptive" argument to justify just about anything.

People who argue "descriptive vs prescriptive" also must not think the whole bible is God's Word - God gave us the whole bible but we only need to observe the prescriptive parts. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is useful. In other words, we should take inspiration and instruction not only from the prescriptive parts, but from the descriptive parts as well. Often in the new testament, old testament descriptive passages are used as examples to follow, for instruction and teaching.

[Sons to Glory!]

Response by Evangelical:
Like the principle of water baptism by full immersion, it's a principle. It's never violated. Like the principle of water baptism, many argue against it "there would have been babies baptized" (scripture dosen't say) " oh there would have been denominations existing at the time" (scripture doesn't say). So instead of following what the Bible shows, people are following their own imagined view of the early church.

I think its better to base on what the Bible does show(one church per city, adult baptism), than what the Bible doesn't show(denominations , infant baptism etc).

People who reject this are basing their life on what the Bible doesn't show. It doesn't show, you can go to whatever denomination you prefer. It doesn't show, you can establish multiple churches per city, or spread one particular denomination across the globe.

I just thought this was a pretty simple statement that needed looking at more. This idea of one church one city is perhaps the first and most famous of the LC preaching.

I think the idea that the Bible is silent on many things is interesting. For instance, as in the example put forth, infant baptism. I haven't seen where the word specifically addresses infant baptism and says not to do it. However, what it does provide are many instances of adult baptism (and again, no mention of infant baptism).

So since it is silent on infant baptism, should we perhaps all run out and start practicing it?