Does The Local Church Teach/Preach Another Gospel and Another Jesus? 2

[zeek]

Each person's idea of the gospel is uniquely their's, so when they preach it, it is different than everyone else's. Each person's idea of the gospel Paul preached is different than everyone else's. Therefore, everyone's gospel is different. Furthermore, everyone's idea of the gospel changes over time as they learn more. Therefore, if a person continues to preach over a period of time they will preach another gospel than they preached earlier on. Paul's gospel in Galatians may well be another gospel than it was in Romans or 1 Thessalonians. And even if you can persuade yourself that Paul's gospel hangs together throughout his epistles, you will encounter differences between Paul's gospels and Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's and John's and between each of them and the other in turn. In the end, only the dogma that they must all be the same gospel SOMEHOW will be left after the abstruse arguments to unify them fail. Therefore, everyone preaches a different gospel and since that is the case, of course, Witness Lee preached a different gospel.

If all of the above is true, then we cannot speak knowledgeably of one gospel, since everyone's is different, but we must qualify the difference according to whether it is significant or not. For every individual that will require a judgment about what difference is significant and what isn't. Again, that will vary from person to person and within each person over time. What the ultimate criteria for a "different gospel" God only knows just as He is the only one who knows with certainty what the one gospel is. Thus, belief that there is one gospel requires faith and faith necessarily involves risk that goes beyond certain knowledge.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Each person's idea of the gospel is uniquely their's, so when they preach it, it is different than everyone else's. Each person's idea of the gospel Paul preached is different than everyone else's. Therefore, everyone's gospel is different. Furthermore, everyone's idea of the gospel changes over time as they learn more. Therefore, if a person continues to preach over a period of time they will preach another gospel than they preached earlier on. Paul's gospel in Galatians may well be another gospel than it was in Romans or 1 Thessalonians. Therefore, everyone preaches a different gospel and since that is the case, of course, Witness Lee preached a different gospel.

If all of the above is true, then we cannot speak of different gospels, since everyone's is different, but we must qualify the difference according to whether it is significant or not. For every individual that will require a judgment about what difference is significant and what isn't. Again that will vary from person to person and within each person over time. What the ultimate criteria for a "different gospel" God only knows.

True.

But the real question is not that the way it is presented or the words used are different. It is whether the thing that is called the gospel is truly different. Paul chastised the Galatians for letting OT ritual practices become part of their gospel requirement.

There is a lot that can be different without being different. Some simply teach about Christ. Everything. His life, teachings, etc. And they do it endlessly and expect that people will hear it and come to believe. Others distill the crux of the gospel into tracts or little sermonettes to be followed by a kind of road marker where the potential convert will pray a particular kind of prayer so that there is a clear delineation between saved and unsaved.

It seems that the real key is whether the means of salvation is compromised. Such as the teaching that Christ is not even God. Or that you have to work to obtain salvation. (That last one is difficult since only the death of Christ saves us, yet we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. So there is clearly more to it that the simplistic conversion.)

So if I am taught that I have to do something to receive salvation (I have never been taught that), yet it is explicitly stated that it is the death of Christ that provides the salvation, am I still saved? Some would argue "no" although I am convinced that the act of believing in the one who provides salvation (Christ) is sufficient even if there are some questionable teachings surrounding it. Others disagree.

I personally find the "different Gospel" or "different Christ" in the sense in which they are intended in the Bible to be difficult to come by. Yet in a different sense, I believe that Lee effectively taught both a different gospel and a different Christ — not at the level that makes salvation questionable, but still at a level that makes his theology of questionable value. A Christ that is simply the Holy Spirit is still Christ, but is incorrectly described. Belief in that Christ is belief in the only Christ. But the understanding of who He is in his relationship with the Father and Spirit, as well as the believer, is messed-up. But if the only goal is salvation, then the messed-upness doesn't really matter. The real problem (for Lee) is in what is taught that comes after salvation.

[awareness]

Okay I assume you guys are referring to :

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

And are trying to figure if Lee taught the "another's" mentioned in this verse.

But before we can determine the another's, we have to know Paul's originals.

And we can't know what "we" preached (Paul and apparently others) to the Corinthians. We weren't there when the preaching was proclaimed, and there were no tape recorders or Smartphones back then ... no youtube.

Same with the "another spirit." How can we know the original spirit they "received?"

And finally, "another gospel." How can we know the one the Corinthians originally "accepted?"

We weren't there. And all of what is written is speaking of historical events we have no hope of ever getting access to.

So we can't figure out if Lee's was another Jesus, spirit, or gospel, because we can't figure out the originals that happened before this writing was sent to the Corinthians.

However I might add this possibility: Whatever Paul was talking about, we can assume God must have been behind "the three originals," and God was not behind "the three another's."

And that determines if Lees' was "another Jesus, spirit, or gospel."

If God was behind Lee then Lee's wasn't any of the three another's. If not, then Lee was proclaiming all three of "the another's".

Did any of that answer this conundrum?

How about this:

2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. ???

Did Lee offer that?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

True.

But the real question is not that the way it is presented or the words used are different. It is whether the thing that is called the gospel is truly different. Paul chastised the Galatians for letting OT ritual practices become part of their gospel requirement.

Well lets start with the fact that there are vast disagreements about what the gospel entails as evidenced by the number of Christian denominations, and intra-denomination disagreements. Given the thousands of extant interpretations, what beyond hubris and/or faith would make us think that we have arrived at the correct one? The New Testament presentation is by no means systematic. Perhaps the matter is just too ambiguous to arrive at a conclusion with any certainty.

There is a lot that can be different without being different. Some simply teach about Christ. Everything. His life, teachings, etc. And they do it endlessly and expect that people will hear it and come to believe. Others distill the crux of the gospel into tracts or little sermonettes to be followed by a kind of road marker where the potential convert will pray a particular kind of prayer so that there is a clear delineation between saved and unsaved.

Is there anyway of measuring the reliability of these methods? I imagine not since who knows who is saved? Jesus posed the question himself in the form of parables.

It seems that the real key is whether the means of salvation is compromised. Such as the teaching that Christ is not even God.

Why does believing Jesus is God or having the right understanding of the mechanism of salvation even matter? Is there some kind of saving virtue in having the right concept about these things? Why would God care about that?

Or that you have to work to obtain salvation. (That last one is difficult since only the death of Christ saves us, yet we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. So there is clearly more to it that the simplistic conversion.)

Well, working for salvation is antithetical to trusting Jesus for it. So, you seemingly can't be doing both at the same time. But, pointing to an apparent contradiction to one understanding of salvation as you have done doesn't help resolve the uncertainty about the process.

So if I am taught that I have to do something to receive salvation (I have never been taught that), yet it is explicitly stated that it is the death of Christ that provides the salvation, am I still saved? Some would argue "no" although I am convinced that the act of believing in the one who provides salvation (Christ) is sufficient even if there are some questionable teachings surrounding it. Others disagree.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but how much credence does my opinion hold? It is based on my experience and logic. Hardly a foolproof basis for eternal security.

I personally find the "different Gospel" or "different Christ" in the sense in which they are intended in the Bible to be difficult to come by. Yet in a different sense, I believe that Lee effectively taught both a different gospel and a different Christ — not at the level that makes salvation questionable, but still at a level that makes his theology of questionable value.

In the end, for me, it became a qualitative judgment about the fruit of his ministry.

A Christ that is simply the Holy Spirit is still Christ, but is incorrectly described. Belief in that Christ is belief in the only Christ. But the understanding of who He is in his relationship with the Father and Spirit, as well as the believer, is messed-up. But if the only goal is salvation, then the messed-upness doesn't really matter. The real problem (for Lee) is in what is taught that comes after salvation.

I'm inclined to agree, but I'm far from certain about that. But, I don't think his doctrine about the nature of God was necessarily the source of the problem. It may have been a symptom of a deeper problem. He found it necessary to incessantly manipulate the content of orthodox Christian dogma on an abstract level. Possibly this served him by masking his deficiency on a human, spiritual and ethical level which is where it counts.

[UntoHim]

Right Harold, we weren't there....and neither was Bart Ehrman....so why to you so desperately cling to his hypotheses and wild speculations (like Jesus' body was actually eaten by wild animals and all the disciples were hallucinating) So you're ganna put your faith in this one guy (albeit highly educated one guy, but just one guy none-the-less) instead of the thousands upon thousands of scholars and theologians (some just as highly educated) over the centuries? Boy, I thought you gave up this kind of blind following of a man when you left the Local Church.

And all of what is written is speaking of historical events we have no hope of ever getting access to

Of course we do, Harold. IT IS CALLED FAITH - THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. I'm reminded of what Paul told the Romans: Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. How bout that hope Harold! Way better than the "hope and change" a certain politician tried to sell you on back a number of years ago. (...how's that workin out for ya, my man? Don't answer that)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Right Harold, we weren't there....and neither was Bart Ehrman....so why to you so desperately cling to his hypotheses and wild speculations (like Jesus' body was actually eaten by wild animals and all the disciples were hallucinating) So you're ganna put your faith in this one guy (albeit highly educated one guy, but just one guy none-the-less) instead of the thousands upon thousands of scholars and theologians (some just as highly educated) over the centuries? Boy, I thought you gave up this kind of blind following of a man when you left the Local Church.

Bart Ehrman? Where did I bring up Bart Ehrman? My, my, Bart must really get under your skin. Ye must be a true evangelical. None of them like Ehrman. He pulls the rug out from under their first fundamental. Plus, given all your remarks about him, I think you must be more obsessed with him than you claim I am. Just for the record I have NOT hooked my wagon to Ehrman, any more than I've hooked it to you. I'll pull my own wagon, thank you. But appreciate yer help when I get stuck. I'm helping you ain't I?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Of course we do, Harold. IT IS CALLED FAITH - THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Oh that faith thing again. Didn't you call that a cop-out, or some such?

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm reminded of what Paul told the Romans: Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. How bout that hope Harold! Way better than the "hope and change" a certain politician tried to sell you on back a number of years ago. (...how's that workin out for ya, my man? Don't answer that)

LOL ... yer just playing with me now.

Snazzy dodge tho, of my points about 2 Cor. 2:11, that we can't get access to Paul's preaching to the Corinthians, that he gave before writing to them, and therefore can't know what were the original Jesus, spirit, gospel, proclaimed, received, or accepted, by them. Sorry if this pops yer bubble bro UntoHim, of your certitude that you know what "the gospel" is. There are things we can't be certain of or know. Else why faith ... and hope, for that matter.

And about hope. When Pandora released from her jar all the evils in the world, when she tried to close the jar, it is said, hope was still at the bottom. Amen for hope. It's all we have left.

[UntoHim]

Moved from main Forum

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course the Corinthians knew what Jesus Paul was talking about, that was originally preached to them. They were there, when they preached it to them. But we weren't there, and we prolly have no possibility of ever knowing what Jesus Paul preached to the Corinthians, before writing this letter to them.

Of course we know Harold. It's called the Bible. It's called the New Testament. It's called the teachings of the Apostles. It's called the faith once delivered to the saints, and yes, it's called the Gospel. The canon of the New Testament has been settled for a LONG, LONG time. Get over it. It's not up for debate on this forum and you know that. Sorry, I'm not going to allow you to sidetrack us off of the theme of this thread. You've already taken this up over in Alt Views where it belongs.

So how can we ever hope to determine if Witness Lee preached another Jesus, spirit and/or gospel?

Easy, compare his preaching/teaching to that of the genuine thing! See above for all the details.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bart Ehrman? Where did I bring up Bart Ehrman?

Because you talk JUST LIKE HIM! Kinda like you can tell a true believer Leeite...by his lingo. You use the same tired old arguments that humanists and atheists have been using for eons. It's just that Bart has some impressive letters after his name so you think he has a corner on the truth. But for every Bart Ehrman there are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of scholars and historians over the centuries that have the same documents that BR has access to and have come to the conclusion that all the major tenets of the Christian faith are presented for us in the accepted canon. I'm very sorry you think the 400,000 undotted i's and uncrossed t's, misspelled words and differing stories about how Judas Iscariot committed suicide and who was at the empty tomb first negates that God sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins, was crucified and rose again, and that he is the only way to the Father.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay I assume you guys are referring to :
2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Yes that is what we were referring to.

And are trying to figure if Lee taught the "another's" mentioned in this verse.

Yes that was the original question of the OP. That was the starting point, but, in my first post I argued that if Lee preached another gospel it may follow from the fact that everybody who preaches one does. Or at least, until we can determine with certainty that someone doesn't, that is a possibility. Until that time, to accept that there is only one gospel requires a leap of faith.

But before we can determine the another's, we have to know Paul's originals.
And we can't know what "we" preached (Paul and apparently others) to the Corinthians. We weren't there when the preaching was proclaimed, and there were no tape recorders or Smartphones back then ... no youtube.

Which supports my hypothesis.

Same with the "another spirit." How can we know the original spirit they "received?"

We may know the signifier but not necessarily the signified.

And finally, "another gospel." How can we know the one the Corinthians originally "accepted?"

That would seem to require the inference that the gospel the Corinthians accepted was identical or essentially the same as he preaches in the epistles Has anyone actually demonstrated the gospel preached in the epistles is essentially the same from one to another?

We weren't there. And all of what is written is speaking of historical events we have no hope of ever getting access to. So we can't figure out if Lee's was another Jesus, spirit, or gospel, because we can't figure out the originals that happened before this writing was sent to the Corinthians.

Yes, but we can make reasonably probable yet uncertain inferences from the text.

However I might add this possibility: Whatever Paul was talking about, we can assume God must have been behind "the three originals," and God was not behind "the three another's." And that determines if Lees' was "another Jesus, spirit, or gospel." If God was behind Lee then Lee's wasn't any of the three another's. If not, then Lee was proclaiming all three of "the another's". Did any of that answer this conundrum? How about this: 2Co 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. ??? Did Lee offer that?

That was the simplicity of the one spirit. The answer can only be known subjectively. Everyone has to answer that question for themselves. There was certainly a time when I thought I was in Christ's simplicity. I'm not certain that I'm not in it now.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]Because you talk JUST LIKE HIM! ...

Wow! What a compliment! I thought that honor should go to Dave. I'm not worthy. But alas, if I'm not myself I'll be Bart Ehrman from now on.

Harold Dixon PHD (Poopy Harold Dixon) - but a PHD nonetheless.

Bart Ehrman? ... "400,000 undotted i's and uncrossed t's, misspelled words and differing stories about how Judas Iscariot committed suicide and who was at the empty tomb first . . . ???"

You are indeed a very funny guy bro. And you've got to be pulling my leg ...

I analyze 2 Cor 11:4 and suddenly sound like Bart Ehrman ...

That is very funny ...

[zeek]

Sorry Harold, your contention that we can't know the Gospel that Paul preached in not only nonsense, it is off topic. The question at hand is does the LC teach/preach another Gospel....the fact that there was a Gospel that was preached, and we know what that Gospel was, is not up for debate on this thread. Take your arguments over to Alt Views where they belong....or I'll do it for you.

Which underscores the problem of censorship on the so-called "open forum". One cannot even ask what the posited "one gospel" is from which "another gospel" would be differentiated without being rebuked and censored on the open forum. Which goes to prove that the "open forum" is not open. Rather, discourse there is limited to the unspecified parameters in the mind of its moderator. That's why I limit my comments to alternative views where the moderator has pledged to allow free speech.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Which underscores the problem of censorship on the so-called "open forum". One cannot even ask what the posited "one gospel" is from which "another gospel" would be differentiated without being rebuked and censored on the open forum. Which goes to prove that the "open forum" is not open. Rather, discourse there is limited to the unspecified parameters in the mind of its moderator. That's why I limit my comments to alternative views where the moderator has pledged to allow free speech.

Untohim is just being silly. Discussing 2 Cor 11:4 could not be off topic when asking if the local church taught another gospel. It's the very basis of the question.

Untohim explains what he thinks "the gospel" is. He said:

"Of course we know Harold. It's called the Bible. It's called the New Testament. It's called the teachings of the Apostles. It's called the faith once delivered to the saints, and yes, it's called the Gospel.

So the Bible is the gospel. The good news proclaimed by Jesus was the Bible before the NT of the Bible was ever formed. Yet he even states: "It's called the New Testament" ... that Jesus didn't even write. Some good news, or gospel, Jesus was proclaiming. Jesus apparently proclaimed a gospel that fell short ... and wasn't even finish when he died on the cross ... but had to be finished by a bunch of anonymous authors, and by one that never knew the Jesus of history.

He also states "It's called the teachings of the Apostles." So Jesus didn't proclaim the gospel good news, he had to wait for his apostles to proclaim it.

His definition is silly, and sounds silly ... and does a dis-service to the gospel Jesus proclaimed. His answers for what the gospel is is a contrived projected overlay upon the real gospel proclaimed by Jesus.

Such as:

Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Mat 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven:

Jesus never once mentions the Bible. And even if he did he couldn't mention the New Testament.

For this reason, judging by UntoHim's words, methinks it's quite possible that UntoHim has made a god out of the Bible, and his gospel is actually Biblioidolatry.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

One cannot even ask what the posited "one gospel" is from which "another gospel" would be differentiated without being rebuked and censored on the open forum. Which goes to prove that the "open forum" is not open.

Actually Harold was making more definitive statements than asking questions....but then again you knew that.

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course the Corinthians knew what Jesus Paul was talking about, that was originally preached to them. They were there, when they preached it to them. But we weren't there, and we prolly have no possibility of ever knowing what Jesus Paul preached to the Corinthians, before writing this letter to them.
Same with the "another spirit." We don't know what spirit they originally "received," and can't possibly ever know.
And also it's the same for "another gospel." We can't know what gospel the Corinthians originally "accepted." That preaching, or preaching's, we have no record of.
We weren't there, and as far as we know the Jesus, spirit. and gospel, Paul was speaking of was never recorded. At least his earlier preaching, prior to this letter to the Corinthians, is not recorded in our canon of scripture.

Methinks our friend Harold is not so much interested in dialog as he is in torpedoing the thread with his "we don't have the original manuscripts so we are just playing around" garbage. It's just how he rolls and that's fine here in the dungeon but it doesn't cut it out on the main Forum.

Rather, discourse there is limited to the unspecified parameters in the mind of its moderator. That's why I limit my comments to alternative views where the moderator has pledged to allow free speech.

You said you were a moderator of a forum. Did you not have any rules, spoken or unspoken? Why have a moderator if anybody is going to be able to say anything at anytime. You know what that's called? It's called chaos, and forums with chaos become ghost towns real quick...ever looked over at the BARM forum lately? It's mostly off topic (from the LC) garbage.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Because you talk JUST LIKE HIM! Kinda like you can tell a true believer Leeite...by his lingo. You use the same tired old arguments that humanists and atheists have been using for eons. It's just that Bart has some impressive letters after his name so you think he has a corner on the truth. But for every Bart Ehrman there are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of scholars and historians over the centuries that have the same documents that BR has access to and have come to the conclusion that all the major tenets of the Christian faith are presented for us in the accepted canon. I'm very sorry you think the 400,000 undotted i's and uncrossed t's, misspelled words and differing stories about how Judas Iscariot committed suicide and who was at the empty tomb first negates that God sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins, was crucified and rose again, and that he is the only way to the Father.

A lot of what you state is redundant. I guess you just believe that if you say it enough times it will stick but it makes one wonder if you only have a cookie cutter response. I know you can do better than that.

Isn't Bart Ehrman today's Martin Luther? He has nailed his edicts on the door of Fundamental Christianity stating that they are selling Christians a bill of goods with an inerrant Bible and orthodox fundamentalism. Didn't Martin Luther change the Catholic Bible and wasn't he considered a heretic? Ehrman has raised serious Biblical questions but you seem to dismiss them maybe because of your own biases. Martin Luther quoted scripture and so did the RCC. The real question is: Are you preaching the same gospel Jesus and the Apostles taught? One can only wonder.

Shouldn't we be suspicious of individuals who after having left the LC return to the very thing they condemned. That doesn't show a lot of credibility. Please, not the cookie cutter response.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually Harold was making more definitive statements than asking questions....but then again you knew that.


Methinks our friend Harold is not so much interested in dialog as he is in torpedoing the thread with his "we don't have the original manuscripts so we are just playing around" garbage. It's just how he rolls and that's fine here in the dungeon but it doesn't cut it out on the main Forum.



You said you were a moderator of a forum. Did you not have any rules, spoken or unspoken? Why have a moderator if anybody is going to be able to say anything at anytime. You know what that's called? It's called chaos, and forums with chaos become ghost towns real quick...ever looked over at the BARM forum lately? It's mostly off topic (from the LC) garbage.

Here were the rules for the forum I moderated:

THE RULES

1. NO AD HOMINEM POSTS.

2. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY OTHER USER.

3. NO SLANDERING OR BELITTLEMENT OF ANY RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF.

4. NO SLANDERING OF WORLD RELIGIOUS LEADERS.

5. NO SLANDERING OF ATHEISM OR AGNOSTICISM.

6. NO INSTIGATION TO RISE BY POSTING BLATANT RELIGIOUS OR THEOLOGICALLY AGGRESSIVE MATERIAL - FOR OR AGAINST.

WARNINGS:
In the Religion Forum: First offense is the first warning, second offense is the second warning; within the same post or not.

WARNING'S FOLLOW THE ILP STANDARD FOUND AT ILP General Philosophy and Guideline:
1st warning: board warning, no further action
2nd: the user will be barred from posting for 24 hours
3rd: barred from posting for 4 days
4th: 1 week
5th: 1 month
6th: 3 months
7th: 3 months, but seriously, 7 warnings in 6 months when you can't post for 4.5 of them? Why do you come back?

Those rules were promulgated by my predecessor. I rarely took disciplinary action unless a member persisted in verbally attacking another individual personally. But there were individuals who did not refrain from personal attacks on other members and those received progressive discipline as above. Sometimes they would change their user name and come back as a sock puppet. I served as a moderator there for about three years and was happy to step down at the end of 2013. It took them months to find a replacement.

I've been moderator on a Facebook page entitled "Christian Existentialists" for several years. I only intervene for personal attacks or obscenity and I have only had to do that twice. When I did intervene it was by removing the offending post and notifying the member via a private message. The parties who's posts I removed did not contest my action. Had they, I would have considered their arguments. The group is quite civil despite some passionate religious debate, so there is rarely a problem that even requires a warning..

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

A lot of what you state is redundant. I guess you just believe that if you say it enough times it will stick but it makes one wonder if you only have a cookie cutter response. I know you can do better than that.

Isn't Bart Ehrman today's Martin Luther? He has nailed his edicts on the door of Fundamental Christianity stating that they are selling Christians a bill of goods with an inerrant Bible and orthodox fundamentalism. Didn't Martin Luther change the Catholic Bible and wasn't he considered a heretic? Ehrman has raised serious Biblical questions but you seem to dismiss them maybe because of your own biases. Martin Luther quoted scripture and so did the RCC. The real question is: Are you preaching the same gospel Jesus and the Apostles taught? One can only wonder.

Shouldn't we be suspicious of individuals who after having left the LC return to the very thing they condemned. That doesn't show a lot of credibility. Please, not the cookie cutter response.

After John Ingalls and Bill Mallon left the local church they showed up at the C. of Ft. Lauderdale. I was gone by then, but Hosepipe (from early on at Elden Hall) was there. And after John and Bill spoke Hosepipe stood up and said something like this to John and Bill: "Why should we listen to anything you have to say? You've mislead us for years." It killed whatever John and Bill were up to.

But then, we're all exLCers. And so, we can't trust any of us.

I liked your cookie-cutter metaphor. UntoHim knows that I grew up with his cookie-cutter gospel, and know it as well as he, maybe better.

But when I came into the LC I left that cookie-cutter system behind. And so, when I left the LC I left both of them behind.

I don't know if UntoHim grew up in evangelicalism. It may be something he discovered after the local church ... and that's why he thinks it's better.

What say ye UntoHim? Am I wrong or right?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm very sorry you think the 400,000 undotted i's and uncrossed t's, misspelled words and differing stories about how Judas Iscariot committed suicide and who was at the empty tomb first negates that God sent his Son as a sacrifice for our sins, was crucified and rose again, and that he is the only way to the Father.

I had to revisit this.

First, I like when you pontificate, as much as I enjoy a good fire and brimstone sermon, which I still miss from time to time. Maybe you can give me one some time.

Second, I know because you believe the Bible is the word of God, and not just the words of men (and not women), that you have to dismiss all the variants in the manuscripts as just minor human errors by fallen human scribes.

But just one variant provides us with an example that blows that view out of the water, and perchance reveals your fanaticism toward the Bible.

I'm talking about the last 12 verses in Mark. The manuscripts reveal a short version of Mark and a long version of Mark. Textual scholars (like Bart Ehrman, and most others educated at most seminaries in the West) point out that the most trusted mss witnesses don't have the long version.

At any rate, it's obvious that later scribes meddled with the ending of Mark. And it wasn't just a failure to cross t's and dot i's.

So bro UntoHim, you may be able to sell your dismissing of the mss variants to the uneducated, but I doubt it will sell to those of us down here in this dungeon ... where the educated have been banished into ...

Ha ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dave

Shouldn't we be suspicious of individuals who after having left the LC return to the very thing they condemned. That doesn't show a lot of credibility. Please, not the cookie cutter response.

UntoHim....How far is the closest church from your church that essentially believes the same as you? 1 mile? 2 miles? 3 miles? How many churches do you pass on the way to your church who essentially believe the same thing? What separates you? Or do you live way out in the boondocks away from other Christian churches? It's essentially a free for all. Let's face it...you're divided from other churches and Christians over doctrine, methods, worship practices and viewpoints regarding the scriptures, clergy and creed.

You go to your church because you like the people and the way they practice church and not because they have the same fundamental beliefs. Do you think Paul would have approved of this division? Is this what you believe Christ intended? Is this the Bible you preach? Go to the church of your choice?

In my opinion, before you start preaching your cookie cutter gospel don't you think you should reconcile your own issues? The Bible is inerrant are just words because you are divided from others with the same beliefs just down the street. Where is that in the inerrant Bible?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

Shouldn't we be suspicious of individuals who after having left the LC return to the very thing they condemned. That doesn't show a lot of credibility. Please, not the cookie cutter response. UntoHim....How far is the closest church from your church that essentially believes the same as you? 1 mile? 2 miles? 3 miles? How many churches do you pass on the way to your church who essentially believe the same thing? What separates you? Or do you live way out in the boondocks away from other Christian churches? It's essentially a free for all. Let's face it...you're divided from other churches and Christians over doctrine, methods, worship practices and viewpoints regarding the scriptures, clergy and creed.

You go to your church because you like the people and the way they practice church and not because they have the same fundamental beliefs. Do you think Paul would have approved of this division? Is this what you believe Christ intended? Is this the Bible you preach? Go to the church of your choice?

In my opinion, before you start preaching your cookie cutter gospel don't you think you should reconcile your own issues? The Bible is inerrant are just words because you are divided from others with the same beliefs just down the street. Where is that in the inerrant Bible?

-----------------------------------------------

Wow, so I'm the only one who isn't allowed a cookie cutter response? What happened to all the love, all the liberal thinking, all the accepting of any and all? I thought you were a Unitarian Universalist. What's up with being so strict and mean? You kind of sound like Harold's Baptist mother at this point. Lighten up!

Man oh man, I'm just a Admin of a forum which includes a lot of former members of some obscure Christian cult/sect, and you're challenging me to answer for one of the major ills of the largest religion on earth? You think too much of me Dave. I couldn't begin to answer for the ills that which plagues the Christian Church, much, much, less come up for a solution for you.

Let's face it...you're divided from other churches and Christians over doctrine, methods, worship practices and viewpoints regarding the scriptures, clergy and creed.

So, what's your point? I'm also divided from Christians who live too far from me to meet with them on Sunday morning. I'm also divided from Christians who speak a different language than me. I'm also divided from Christians who live in some country that doesn't even allow Christians to meet together or communicate with other Christians. And I'm even divided from my dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church of Witness Lee because...well you know why.

Would I like there to be one giant building that housed every Christian on earth, all of them white evangelicals, every Sunday morning, all sang the same hymns/songs, all prayed the exact same prayers, all heard the exact same message from the same guy, all gave the exact same offering, all drove up and parked in the same exact vehicle of the same exact color, all went to the same restaurant for the same meal, all had 2.5 children (including .017 of them that were gay)??? NO - HELL NO. Why? Because the Gospel, the true, glorious Gospel that is related to us in the New Testament does NOT produce such uniformity, rather it produces people who have believed the Good News, have been transformed by it, and wish others the same.

You're probably disappointed with my cookie-cutter response, but that's pretty much how this cookie crumbles.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

-----------------------------------------------

Wow, so I'm the only one who isn't allowed a cookie cutter response? What happened to all the love, all the liberal thinking, all the accepting of any and all? I thought you were a Unitarian Universalist. What's up with being so strict and mean? You kind of sound like Harold's Baptist mother at this point. Lighten up!

Man oh man, I'm just a Admin of a forum which includes a lot of former members of some obscure Christian cult/sect, and you're challenging me to answer for one of the major ills of the largest religion on earth? You think too much of me Dave. I couldn't begin to answer for the ills that which plagues the Christian Church, much, much, less come up for a solution for you.

So, what's your point? I'm also divided from Christians who live too far from me to meet with them on Sunday morning. I'm also divided from Christians who speak a different language than me. I'm also divided from Christians who live in some country that doesn't even allow Christians to meet together or communicate with other Christians. And I'm even divided from my dear brothers and sisters in the Local Church of Witness Lee because...well you know why.

Would I like there to be one giant building that housed every Christian on earth, all of them white evangelicals, every Sunday morning, all sang the same hymns/songs, all prayed the exact same prayers, all heard the exact same message from the same guy, all gave the exact same offering, all drove up and parked in the same exact vehicle of the same exact color, all went to the same restaurant for the same meal, all had 2.5 children (including .017 of them that were gay)??? NO - HELL NO. Why? Because the Gospel, the true, glorious Gospel that is related to us in the New Testament does NOT produce such uniformity, rather it produces people who have believed the Good News, have been transformed by it, and wish others the same.

You're probably disappointed with my cookie-cutter response, but that's pretty much how this cookie crumbles.

Okay, maybe I have been a little harsh but I like your response and especially your new perspective as "this cookie crumbles". You provided some provocative thought and I'll respond in time.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Okay, maybe I have been a little harsh but I like your response and especially your new perspective as "this cookie crumbles". You provided some provocative thought and I'll respond in time.

Oh c'mon. UntoHim appears to be the bastion of orthodox Christianity. So let's throw all the sins of Christianity, past and present, at his feet.

He can be our Sacrificial Anode, or some such. Or maybe our scapegoat. We can put all those sins on him and drive him into the wilderness, carrying all those sins away ; a new up to date Jesus, that's needed in the 21st c. for the sins of Christianity since the first Jesus. Cuz apparently the first Jesus didn't clear all the sins that would occur the next 2000 years, or Christendom wouldn't have sinned at all after Him.

What say ye UntoHim? are you willing to lay down your life for your brothers and sisters of the past 2000 yrs?

[OBW]

I recently read a post on a Christian blog I regularly read. It was looking into why it is that we are not more like Christ. I think that behind that question is the fact that beyond basic salvation, many of us are preaching a different Christ. Here is a bit of the post:

Most Christians aren’t like Jesus.

Should we even try to be? Isn’t that impossible?

None of us can be like Jesus perfectly, but the Gospel of the Kingdom calls Jesus’ disciples to hear his call and set the goal and direction of their lives to be like him. For a follower of Jesus, Paul’s words of “follow me as I follow Christ,” are translated simply, “follow Christ in every way possible.”�

Gandhi said “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”� He’s far from the only one to have made that observation, and those critics aren’t holding anyone to a standard of perfection. They are simply looking for enough congruence that the claim to be a follower of Jesus makes sense.

Christians have gotten very good at explaining why they really shouldn’t be expected to be like Christ. At various points, these explanations are true. At other points, they start sounding like winners in a competition for absurdist doublespeak.

Perhaps many Christians don’t resemble Jesus because they don’t really know what Jesus was like. Or — more likely — they assume Jesus was very much like themselves, only a bit more religious.

Maybe the problem is not that Lee taught a different Jesus (which I believe he did at some level) but that so many are busy teaching a variety of different Jesus'.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh c'mon. UntoHim appears to be the bastion of orthodox Christianity.

Appearances can be deceiving.

So let's throw all the sins of Christianity, past and present, at his feet.

Go ahead, try me. Compared to trying to hold this popcorn stand together, this will be a piece of cake.

Cuz apparently the first Jesus didn't clear all the sins that would occur the next 2000 years, or Christendom wouldn't have sinned at all after Him.

Harold, this might be deepest and most profound theological thing you have ever said (that I know of). Unfortunately, your theological understanding falls quite a bit short of the apostle John, who wrote this a number of years after our Savior's departure:
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1,2)

What say ye UntoHim? are you willing to lay down your life for your brothers and sisters of the past 2000 yrs?

First of all Somebody already did that for them....if you believe in that sort of stuff. But alright, I'll play along. If I promise to fulfill your request, will you guarantee to stay on topic and not flame any poster for the rest of your natural born life?

[OBW]

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1,2)

A good verse. Note that "so that you may not sin" comes before "but if anyone does sin . . . ." So the target is to not sin. When you fail, then you have the advocate with the Father to plead on our behalf. But first you are to TRY to not sin.

That was not the gospel that Lee taught. He taught not trying. Only doing. If you set out to do and fail, then you just tried "in your own strength" and should be ashamed. Never try in your own strength. Better to not even try.

That is a different gospel.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1,2)

A good verse. Note that "so that you may not sin" comes before "but if anyone does sin . . . ." So the target is to not sin. When you fail, then you have the advocate with the Father to plead on our behalf. But first you are to TRY to not sin.

That was not the gospel that Lee taught. He taught not trying. Only doing. If you set out to do and fail, then you just tried "in your own strength" and should be ashamed. Never try in your own strength. Better to not even try.

That is a different gospel.

"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ." Charles C. Ryrie (1999-01-11). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Kindle Locations 5503-5504). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Thus, the model is motivated seems to be motivated by fear. Neuroscience has demonstrated that negativity bias is built into the neural structure of our brains. A so-called "gospel" that is based on fear of ultimate retribution seems to feed off of our tendency toward negative thinking.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ." Charles C. Ryrie (1999-01-11). Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Kindle Locations 5503-5504). Moody Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Thus, the model is motivated seems to be motivated by fear. Neuroscience has demonstrated that negativity bias is built into the neural structure of our brains. A so-called "gospel" that is based on fear of ultimate retribution seems to feed off of our tendency toward negative thinking.

I understand the thrust. But at the same time, a level of fear is not a bad thing. Our brain naturally fears heights. We can eventually train it to be less fearful. But if we just walk up to the windows inside of the tallest buildings, you get at least a moment of pause. I visited the World Trade Center in 1987 and went to the inner observation level where you walk down a few steps before arriving at the windows where you look out at the city, or the harbor. My heart skipped a beat as I approached it.

The point is that we sometimes need a certain level of fear to keep us from doing stupid things. And whether it is fear of the wrath of God, or simply the desire to be back on God's side of the equation, if God is, then it is fruitless to complain about the fact that there is something that might be worthy of fear.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I understand the thrust. But at the same time, a level of fear is not a bad thing. Our brain naturally fears heights. We can eventually train it to be less fearful. But if we just walk up to the windows inside of the tallest buildings, you get at least a moment of pause. I visited the World Trade Center in 1987 and went to the inner observation level where you walk down a few steps before arriving at the windows where you look out at the city, or the harbor. My heart skipped a beat as I approached it.

The point is that we sometimes need a certain level of fear to keep us from doing stupid things. And whether it is fear of the wrath of God, or simply the desire to be back on God's side of the equation, if God is, then it is fruitless to complain about the fact that there is something that might be worthy of fear.

Right, fear is appropriate in certain situations and has obvious survival value. According neuroscience theory, that's why negative bias developed in the first place. Over the course of evolution, animals that were nervous, driven, and clinging were more likely to pass on their genes, and these inclinations are now woven into our DNA. So our brains are always on the lookout for potential dangers or losses. Even when we feel relaxed and happy and connected, our brains keep scanning for potential dangers, disappointments, and negative interpersonal issues. In the back of our minds, there’s a sense of unease. Negative stimuli are perceived more rapidly and easily than positive stimuli. Bad experiences routinely overpower good ones. So we project our fear onto our our notion of ultimate reality and imagine a God who is angry at us for being human and who requires human sacrifice in order to be appeased.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, fear is appropriate in certain situations and has obvious survival value. According neuroscience theory, that's why negative bias developed in the first place. Over the course of evolution, animals that were nervous, driven, and clinging were more likely to pass on their genes, and these inclinations are now woven into our DNA. So our brains are always on the lookout for potential dangers or losses. Even when we feel relaxed and happy and connected, our brains keep scanning for potential dangers, disappointments, and negative interpersonal issues. In the back of our minds, there’s a sense of unease. Negative stimuli are perceived more rapidly and easily than positive stimuli. Bad experiences routinely overpower good ones. So we project our fear onto our our notion of ultimate reality and imagine a God who is angry at us for being human and who requires human sacrifice in order to be appeased.

I'm still looking for answers. It's still a mystery to me as to why I joined the local church. I've got theories but they fall flat. There had to be something within me, driving me.

Fear had to have something to do with it. I was raised that I was fallen, and to fear hell. I carried a Bible all the time, in a special punch I made for it ... and read 20 chapters a day.

So maybe it was fear that made me reach out for what the local church offered.

And what were they offering? They offered a "positive bias." They offered joy and love, and a cause I could actually contribute to.

Negative bias, in the form of fear, pushed me, but positive bias drew me.

Was there more internal machinery at work there, back then? Prolly. And for some crazy reason I'd like to identify them.

Maybe I'm being driven right now, this very second, and God just wants to show me, again, just how incredibly stupid I can be. But maybe not. Maybe discovering our internal machinery can bring happiness, or a positive bias ...

I'm figuring it as I go along, trying to avoid the negative and enhance the positive.

But really. How can I point the finger at bro Lee ... when I have a gospel that's considered to be way out there. I believe in a loving God. It's the greatest positive bias ... if'n ye have those ears to hear, that is.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm still looking for answers. It's still a mystery to me as to why I joined the local church. I've got theories but they fall flat. There had to be something within me, driving me.

Fear had to have something to do with it. I was raised that I was fallen, and to fear hell. I carried a Bible all the time, in a special punch I made for it ... and read 20 chapters a day.

So maybe it was fear that made me reach out for what the local church offered.

And what were they offering? They offered a "positive bias." They offered joy and love, and a cause I could actually contribute to.

Negative bias, in the form of fear, pushed me, but positive bias drew me.

Was there more internal machinery at work there, back then? Prolly. And for some crazy reason I'd like to identify them.

Maybe I'm being driven right now, this very second, and God just wants to show me, again, just how incredibly stupid I can be. But maybe not. Maybe discovering our internal machinery can bring happiness, or a positive bias ...

I'm figuring it as I go along, trying to avoid the negative and enhance the positive.

But really. How can I point the finger at bro Lee ... when I have a gospel that's considered to be way out there. I believe in a loving God. It's the greatest positive bias ... if'n ye have those ears to hear, that is.

According to the theory, positivity doesn't have the status of being a "bias". However, it is an emergent possibility that can be cultivated.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the theory, positivity doesn't have the status of being a "bias". However, it is an emergent possibility that can be cultivated.

Then I question the theory. Existentially I only have my life to judge it by. And that means I can't prove or disprove the theory.

By the way y'all, the theory comes from a book: Hardwiring Happiness: The New Brain Science of Contentment, Calm, and Confidence, by Rick Hanson

Zeek and I are reading it.

But back to the theory. Yes, when looking at my self, I clearly recognized a instinct, or reflex, toward negative bias. It's a protective firewall, so to speak. One keeps me from falling for a Witness Lee like cult, or way of thinking even.

But also, when I look at my self, i recognize a positive bias. It was the love I saw and felt that drew me into the local church.

I had a reflex to that or, a positive bias instinct.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Then I question the theory. Existentially I only have my life to judge it by. And that means I can't prove or disprove the theory.

By the way y'all, the theory comes from a book: Hardwiring Happiness: The New Brain Science of Contentment, Calm, and Confidence, by Rick Hanson

Zeek and I are reading it.

But back to the theory. Yes, when looking at my self, I clearly recognized a instinct, or reflex, toward negative bias. It's a protective firewall, so to speak. One keeps me from falling for a Witness Lee like cult, or way of thinking even.

But also, when I look at my self, i recognize a positive bias. It was the love I saw and felt that drew me into the local church.

I had a reflex to that or, a positive bias instinct.

I don't think that there can be both a negative and a positive bias. If the tendency toward negativity equals the tendency toward positivity, they cancel each other out. There is no bias and one has equal propensity to the good or bad. The theory doesn't claim that we are incapable of good or never seek it. It claims that the inclination to negativity is stronger because our evolutionary past rewarded brains that focus on the bad. Wikipedia cites numerous studies documenting negativity bias in various cognitive domains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

So, the local church may have been attractive to you precisely because it appeared to be a way of escape from that negativity that you saw in yourself and/or all around you in society. And it did have positive aspects like the fact that superficially people seemed to be enjoying themselves in the meetings. It wasn't until got into it deeper that we that we found that there were negative aspects beneath the positive veneer.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the theory, positivity doesn't have the status of being a "bias". However, it is an emergent possibility that can be cultivated.

That may be the theory, but I seem to run into certain kinds of people who are hell-bent on finding positivity, and more specifically, God in everything. (And there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.) And in the few cases that they cannot, they try to find God's judgment in it.

"That accident where I had to pull that guy out of a car just before it exploded was ordained so that I could preach the gospel to that paramedic there on the side of the road." Of course, they are the kind that no matter how incongruous their life and actions have just been in the sight of everyone, they are always going to preach the gospel to someone at every possible opportunity, so it is more like they are needing to declare the will of God upon the specifics rather than just the fact that the word went out to someone. (I will refrain from getting into much of my conclusion that preaching the gospel at every opportunity is actually not the calling for most, if any.)

Then, in the cases where they just can't make it positive, then it is evidence of the judgment of God upon [whoever] because of [name your favorite "extreme sin"]. Like 9/11 is because of judgment on America for allowing open homosexuality or not defending Israel strongly enough.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

That may be the theory, but I seem to run into certain kinds of people who are hell-bent on finding positivity, and more specifically, God in everything. (And there's an oxymoron if ever there was one.) And in the few cases that they cannot, they try to find God's judgment in it.

"That accident where I had to pull that guy out of a car just before it exploded was ordained so that I could preach the gospel to that paramedic there on the side of the road." Of course, they are the kind that no matter how incongruous their life and actions have just been in the sight of everyone, they are always going to preach the gospel to someone at every possible opportunity, so it is more like they are needing to declare the will of God upon the specifics rather than just the fact that the word went out to someone. (I will refrain from getting into much of my conclusion that preaching the gospel at every opportunity is actually not the calling for most, if any.)

Then, in the cases where they just can't make it positive, then it is evidence of the judgment of God upon [whoever] because of [name your favorite "extreme sin"]. Like 9/11 is because of judgment on America for allowing open homosexuality or not defending Israel strongly enough.

The theory doesn't rule out positive thinking. It says that positivity will generally have less of an impact on a person's behavior and cognition than something equally emotional but negative. So if we wish to experience more happiness we should consciously attend to the good that is in our life. Otherwise, negative reactivity may rule us. That sounds kind of like sin to me. But, the negativity bias isn't there because of a "fall" from a sinless state. It's there because our cognition is tied to a brain which is the result of evolution over millions of years.