The Apostasy comes first

[Ohio]

I happened to read this sidebar quote on the Alt-Views forum, and it reminded me of 2 Thess 2.3, which mentions the end times "apostasy" which must "come first." Take a look at this statement ...

For too many people the name Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus' statement "I am the way, and of the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" actually means, "I am in the way of people seeking truth and life. I won't let anyone get to God unless he comes through me." -- Brian McLaren

God has established His Only Son as man's way to approach God. The O.T. shows this in the way of types and shadows, and the N.T. gives us the plain word of truth in the Gospel of John 14.6.

But here we have a twisted saying by McLaren, a new age pseudo Christian. Instead of Jesus being "The Way," he says Jesus is now "in the way." Instead of providing us with a glorious access to the Father thru faith in the Son and His death on the cross, Jesus is now blocking any and all access to God.

Since the days of Cain, man has tried a billion ways to God, and due to his pride, was willing to explore every available dead end alley he could find. McLaren in his pathetic liberal "wisdom" now tries to open new detours around God's Beloved Son, apparently convincing a few misguided churches that the 21st century offers new hope for those tired of the time-tested message and only "approved" way to the Father.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I happened to read this sidebar quote on the Alt-Views forum, and it reminded me of 2 Thess 2.3, which mentions the end times "apostasy" which must "come first." Take a look at this statement ...

God has established His Only Son as man's way to approach God. The O.T. shows this in the way of types and shadows, and the N.T. gives us the plain word of truth in the Gospel of John 14.6.

But here we have a twisted saying by McLaren, a new age pseudo Christian. Instead of Jesus being "The Way," he says Jesus is now "in the way." Instead of providing us with a glorious access to the Father thru faith in the Son and His death on the cross, Jesus is now blocking any and all access to God.

Since the days of Cain, man has tried a billion ways to God, and due to his pride, was willing to explore every available dead end alley he could find. McLaren in his pathetic liberal "wisdom" now tries to open new detours around God's Beloved Son, apparently convincing a few misguided churches that the 21st century offers new hope for those tired of the time-tested message and only "approved" way to the Father.

So I take you don't like the exclusive brethren, nor the exclusiveness of Lee's movement, and you don't like the inclusiveness of McLaren too?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So I take you don't like the exclusive brethren, nor the exclusiveness of Lee's movement, and you don't like the inclusiveness of McLaren too?

McLaren is not inclusive, since he is excluding all from the kingdom of God.

Read my OP.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

McLaren is not inclusive, since he is excluding all from the kingdom of God.

I'm familiar with McLaren. How is he excluding anyone from the kingdom of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm familiar with McLaren. How is he excluding anyone from the kingdom of God?

Mclaren is selling false promises by misrepresenting Jesus Christ and the way of salvation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Mclaren is selling false promises by misrepresenting Jesus Christ and the way of salvation.

So McLaren represents to you the apostasy spoken of in the NT?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

So McLaren represents to you the apostasy spoken of in the NT?

Do you believe the words of the Lord Jesus or not?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Awareness

So McLaren represents to you the apostasy spoken of in the NT?

What kind of answer is that? Please explain.

[UntoHim]

Brian McLaren (along with his Universalist/Emergent/Emerging buddy, Rob Bell) are essentially closet humanist/atheist disguised as Christians. The only reason they still call themselves "Christian" is for the sake of their pocketbook...and soon you will see them abandon the notion of being Christian altogether. They are just about there anyway, they just need a few more pseudo Christian books/conferences under their belt, and when the coffers are full enough they'll come totally clean with the public. It wouldn't surprise me to see them inviting Bart Ehrman to their conferences in the very near future. Both of them are "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18) and "are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." (Heb 6:6)

Christian Truth, Biblical Truth, is EXCLUSIVE BY DEFINITION. If something is true, then by definition, something opposite or opposing said truth is false. So when Jesus said "I AM THE TRUTH....NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME", then we can know for sure Rob Bell's claim that "To be a Christian is to claim truth wherever you find it" is patently false, and shows the advanced stages of abject apostasy has taken it's full grip on the poor man. May God have mercy.

[Freedom]

For too many people the name Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus' statement "I am the way, and of the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" actually means, "I am in the way of people seeking truth and life. I won't let anyone get to God unless he comes through me." -- Brian McLaren

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

When I read McLaren's statement, my reaction was that he is basically implying that Jesus isn't the only way. How can that be reconciled with what Jesus said, that the way to the Father is through him? Sure, what Jesus said sounds exclusive, but to throw it out means throwing out the whole NT in order to not accept who Jesus is. The NT doesn't leave any other alternatives.

From the verses I posted in 1 John 2, there is a name given to Christ-deniers: antichrists and liars. By denying Jesus, one cannot have the Father either. Plain and simple. This is what the Bible teaches. Other alternatives require cherry-picking. It occurred to me why some are called "antichrists". It's not just denying Christ or being opposed Christ, it's when people try to nullify everything that Jesus represents, and lead others down that path, claiming that He's not the only way or that there are other alternatives to the same end. Such people are also not always willing to come clean as to who they really are as is, or as John puts it: They went out from us, but they were not of us.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of these "alternative" ideas of Jesus lead anywhere. They are not what the Bible teaches, and to arrive at some of these ideas, like what McLaren believes, it means accepting unbiblical claims such as Jesus not being the only way to the Father.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

What kind of answer is that? Please explain.

Is Jesus Christ "the way" or is He "in the way" as McLaren states?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

1 John 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

When I read McLaren's statement, my reaction was that he is basically implying that Jesus isn't the only way. How can that be reconciled with what Jesus said, that the way to the Father is through him? Sure, what Jesus said sounds exclusive, but to throw it out means throwing out the whole NT in order to not accept who Jesus is. The NT doesn't leave any other alternatives.

From the verses I posted in 1 John 2, there is a name given to Christ-deniers: antichrists and liars. By denying Jesus, one cannot have the Father either. Plain and simple. This is what the Bible teaches. Other alternatives require cherry-picking. It occurred to me why some are called "antichrists". It's not just denying Christ or being opposed Christ, it's when people try to nullify everything that Jesus represents, and lead others down that path, claiming that He's not the only way or that there are other alternatives to the same end. Such people are also not always willing to come clean as to who they really are as is, or as John puts it: They went out from us, but they were not of us.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how any of these "alternative" ideas of Jesus lead anywhere. They are not what the Bible teaches, and to arrive at some of these ideas, like what McLaren believes, it means accepting unbiblical claims such as Jesus not being the only way to the Father.

First of all, McLaren is having great impact on Christians around the world. He's considered one of the most influential preachers of our time.

Second, who are we to judge and what do we know?

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring ...

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

And, the Logos has been since the beginning of time. And I don't think the Logos cares what religion we are of; the Logos doesn't care about religions. The Logos seeks hearts. And that we can't see or know. Who are we to judge?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Is Jesus Christ "the way" or is He "in the way" as McLaren states?

The Logos has been the way since before Jesus walked the earth. That's how the ancients came to the Father. That's how we all come to the Father.

Can a Buddhist come to the Father? Yes! if he opens his heart to the Logos.

That Jesus is the only way is really, really great. He has his arms open to everyone ... and is drawing us all.

Jesus is not in the way. But our dogma of Jesus certainly can be.

We should just love our neighbors, wherever they happen to be. That's an actual Jesus message. Reject that and you reject Jesus.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring ...

If you're implying what I think you are, then I'm pretty sure the "this fold" Jesus was referring to are the Jews, and the "other sheep" are the Gentiles.

Originally Posted by awareness

Luk 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Jesus had a completely different attitude between those who were doing things in his name, and those who were misrepresenting him. Some saw Jesus cast out demons, and many a few wanted to try to imitate that, as they say, imitation is flattery. But with other people who were against him (Pharisees), he took issue with that. Consider what he said in Matt 23:13 -
“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

Originally Posted by awareness

And, the Logos has been since the beginning of time. And I don't think the Logos cares what religion we are of; the Logos doesn't care about religions. The Logos seeks hearts. And that we can't see or know. Who are we to judge?

Judge what? The ways in which people are leading others?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Second, who are we to judge and what do we know?

We must judge what people say, otherwise we are fools, and will be deceived by every con artist that happens are way.

(Why is it that you don't apply this same principle to Johnathon Cahn? You have taken every opportunity to liberally judge him.)

And, by the way, we do know what the Lord has told us. Read John 14.6

Originally Posted by awareness

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring ...

Luke 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

The "other sheep" are the Gentiles.

Read the context. Luke 9.49 speaks of someone casting out demons "in Your name." Obviously to him Jesus was "the way."

What McLaren spoke in that quote makes it clear that he is not "for" Jesus as our "way" to the Father.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can a Buddhist come to the Father?

Not by way of Buddha!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring ...

But the text, nor the context, says that. That's just your interpretation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not by way of Buddha!

Buddha was 500 years before Jesus. How do you know that he didn't find the ever present eternal Logos, and couldn't call it Jesus? Many of his teachings paralleled those of Jesus.

"It is one of the questions I am asked most frequently: “Do you think Jesus is the only way?” Sometimes Christians ask it as a test question, to see if I give the right answer. Sometimes nonChristians ask it, hoping to hear the opposite answer as the right answer.

The question raises another question, actually: “The only way to what?” If you want to learn about the eight noble truths or the four-fold path, Buddha is the way, not Jesus. If you want to learn about submission to Allah, Jesus can’t help you, but Mohammed can. If you want to talk about the triumph of the proletariat over the controlling elites, or the relation of id, ego, and superego, talk to Marx or Freud, and if you want to learn about how to get rich quick (without work) or healthy immediately (without diet or exercise) through faith and prayer, there are some prosperity televangelists who make bold promises, but not Jesus. If it’s the way to wealth through no-money-down real estate that you’re seeking, or the way to marriage without risk, or the way to world domination through terrorism or military conquest, Jesus is not your man. Nor does he want to be.

But if you are asking about the kingdom of God coming to earth, what that means, how that can happen, and how we can participate in it, Buddha, Mohammed, and all the others will step back and Jesus will step forward."
- Brian McLaren
http://www.brianmclaren.net/emc/arch...ohn%2014.6.pdf

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the text, nor the context, says that. That's just your interpretation.

The context of that chapter is that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and Jews. They are the fold that he speaks of. It is true that the text doesn't explicitly state who the other sheep are, but it is not difficult to draw conclusions about that. Consider the passage below, Jesus says that he wasn't sent "except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" when speaking to a Canaanite woman. He then says “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” So there you go, there is an example of one person Jesus viewed as being his "other sheep".

If you don't view the gentiles as being Jesus' "other sheep", then I am a bit curious as to exactly who you think these other sheep might be?

Matt 15:23-28
23 And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.”
²⁴ But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
²⁵ Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!”
²⁶ But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.”
²⁷ And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.”
²⁸ Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Buddha was 500 years before Jesus. How do you know that he didn't find the ever present eternal Logos, and couldn't call it Jesus? Many of his teachings paralleled those of Jesus.

Wrong Forum Harold! Way out there my man! There are Buddhist forums all over the Internet. There are a number of former LocalChurchers who have become Buddhists. At least a couple of them have posted on these forums. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS PLEASE FIND THE FORUM THESE GUYS ARE ON OR START YOUR OWN FORUM WHERE ANYTHING GOES. I will be the first one to joint and have you kick me off. I would feel honored!

In the meantime....BUDDHA AND THE RELIGION OF BUDDHISM IS OFF TOPIC..EVEN FOR ALT VIEWS. SORRY IF YOU GOT THE IMPRESSION OTHERWISE.

Ohio had a specific topic in mind when he started the thread. Please do not hijack it with your humanistic/atheistic stuff.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wrong Forum Harold! Way out there my man! There are Buddhist forums all over the Internet. There are a number of former LocalChurchers who have become Buddhists. At least a couple of them have posted on these forums. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS PLEASE FIND THE FORUM THESE GUYS ARE ON OR START YOUR OWN FORUM WHERE ANYTHING GOES. I will be the first one to joint and have you kick me off. I would feel honored!

In the meantime....BUDDHA AND THE RELIGION OF BUDDHISM IS OFF TOPIC..EVEN FOR ALT VIEWS. SORRY IF YOU GOT THE IMPRESSION OTHERWISE.

Ohio had a specific topic in mind when he started the thread. Please do not hijack it with your humanistic/atheistic stuff.

Oh knock it off bro Untohim. You must not be following. Buddha came in by way of McLaren (Ohio's very OP)

And bro Ohio made it clear with his one liner "Not by way of Buddha!"

Did you read the McLaren quote I presented? In there is mentioned, Buddha, Allah, Mohammed, Marx and Freud.

The topic is McLaren. Quoting McLaren is not off topic. And discussing his views and openness toward other religions (other than Evangelicalism) is the very nature of this thread.

But I'll conform. McLaren is the big boogeyman. Of course he is. He's a preacher, and in my book all preachers scary. (More on this to follow.)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

(Why is it that you don't apply this same principle to Johnathon Cahn? You have taken every opportunity to liberally judge him.)

I don't trust preachers of any ilk. McLaren included. (I have my reasons - that I won't go into.)

Cahn was easy to spot. He's using an old tried and true method to fleece the sheep: Prophecy and FEAR.

McLaren, however, is fleecing the sheep with something new (to me): LOVE.

So why do you support using fear, and buck at using love?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't trust preachers of any ilk. McLaren included. (I have my reasons - that I won't go into.)

Cahn was easy to spot. He's using an old tried and true method to fleece the sheep: Prophecy and FEAR.

McLaren, however, is fleecing the sheep with something new (to me): LOVE.

So why do you support using fear, and buck at using love?

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." -- Proverbs 1.7

McLaren's deceit isn't new, it's as old as time.

I'd rather be warned by a "mean" prophet, than deceived by some "loving" one.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh knock it off bro Untohim. You must not be following. Buddha came in by way of McLaren (Ohio's very OP)

And bro Ohio made it clear with his one liner "Not by way of Buddha!"

Did you read the McLaren quote I presented? In there is mentioned, Buddha, Allah, Mohammed, Marx and Freud.

The topic is McLaren. Quoting McLaren is not off topic. And discussing his views and openness toward other religions (other than Evangelicalism) is the very nature of this thread.

But I'll conform. McLaren is the big boogeyman. Of course he is. He's a preacher, and in my book all preachers scary. (More on this to follow.)

Actually the topic is McLaren's quote of Jesus being "in the way" of man reaching God the Father, and how this may relate to end times Apostasy predicted by Paul. But we are "inclusive" in these here parts of the forum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Wrong Forum Harold! Way out there my man! There are Buddhist forums all over the Internet. There are a number of former LocalChurchers who have become Buddhists. At least a couple of them have posted on these forums. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS PLEASE FIND THE FORUM THESE GUYS ARE ON OR START YOUR OWN FORUM WHERE ANYTHING GOES. I will be the first one to joint and have you kick me off. I would feel honored!

In the meantime....BUDDHA AND THE RELIGION OF BUDDHISM IS OFF TOPIC..EVEN FOR ALT VIEWS. SORRY IF YOU GOT THE IMPRESSION OTHERWISE.

Ohio had a specific topic in mind when he started the thread. Please do not hijack it with your humanistic/atheistic stuff.

Buddhism is an alternative view to Witness Lee and to your brand of Christian fundamentalism that you wish to maintain without controversy on the main forum. So, how does Buddhism exceed the boundaries of Alternative Views? It seems that you are now moderating Alt Views with the same yardstick as the main forum. And you're not allowing Awareness to even moderate Alt Views. Why try to keep up the sham that he is moderating this forum when it's really you who is doing it? My guess is that any views other than your narrow fundamentalist ones so go against your grain that you just can't tolerate them. Do I have that right?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Buddhism is an alternative view to Witness Lee and to your brand of Christian fundamentalism that you wish to maintain without controversy on the main forum. So, how does Buddhism exceed the boundaries of Alternative Views? It seems that you are now moderating Alt Views with the same yardstick as the main forum. And you're not allowing Awareness to even moderate Alt Views. Why try to keep up the sham that he is moderating this forum when it's really you who is doing it? My guess is that any views other than your narrow fundamentalist ones so go against your grain that you just can't tolerate them. Do I have that right, Chuck?

Talk about rude and disrespectful. Have you gone mad, or just blind?

So ... Christian fundamentals look that bad to you, that Buddha starts looking better?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Brian McLaren (along with his Universalist/Emergent/Emerging buddy, Rob Bell) are essentially closet humanist/atheist disguised as Christians. The only reason they still call themselves "Christian" is for the sake of their pocketbook...and soon you will see them abandon the notion of being Christian altogether. They are just about there anyway, they just need a few more pseudo Christian books/conferences under their belt, and when the coffers are full enough they'll come totally clean with the public. It wouldn't surprise me to see them inviting Bart Ehrman to their conferences in the very near future. Both of them are "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18) and "are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." (Heb 6:6)

Christian Truth, Biblical Truth, is EXCLUSIVE BY DEFINITION. If something is true, then by definition, something opposite or opposing said truth is false. So when Jesus said "I AM THE TRUTH....NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME", then we can know for sure Rob Bell's claim that "To be a Christian is to claim truth wherever you find it" is patently false, and shows the advanced stages of abject apostasy has taken it's full grip on the poor man. May God have mercy.

You’re confusing Apostasy in the Bible. It’s not referring to people like McLaren. In the Bible Apostasy is referencing those who say they are alive but are dead. It’s referring to those who say they are "born again" in the Fundamentalist Christian churches.

Here is one example in this regard. Fundamentalist Christian’s cherry-pick verses to suit their beliefs. They say that every word of the Bible is inspired by God but then they corrupt it for their own purposes. For example, Christ condemned divorce as well as remarrying. It is an absolute sin in the Bible to divorce (except for adultery) let alone remarry. According to the Bible Christians who divorce and remarry are living in sin. Mark 10:2-12, Matt. 5:31-32, 19:3-12, Luke 16:18. Paul continues to emphasize this in 1 Cor. 7:1-16. If you use the Bible as your baseline of truth then everything should be based on how God sees things and not on how man views them or interprets them in the Bible.

The very same ministers who have condemned same sex marriage justify divorced and remarried couples in their congregations. Fundamentalist Christians reconfigure the scriptures to fit their own prejudices. The only exceptions in the Bible are the ones they give themselves.

Further, it’s the same kind of confusing thinking regarding verses I previously mentioned in the OT where God was commanding Moses and others to murder women and children. Just repeating the mantra that “The Bible is the Word of God” is not supportable by the actions and the interpretations of white Christian fundamentalists.

A big part of the reason many people became involved in the LC was the mediocrity, inconsistencies, duplicity, lack of sincerity, lack of spirituality, etc within fundamentalist churches. All I see in these churches now is thousands of dollars’ worth of audio video equipment to attract people to their services. They justify it just like Jim Bakker and others like him before. What has changed where now it is okay? Thus, after some have left the LC despite the problems within fundamentalist churches they now are singing their praises. I guess they weren’t that bad after all. I guess they weren’t the Babylon WL mentioned. I guess they are the future of Christian thinking and beliefs.

I don’t think you need to worry about McLaren. What you face is right in front of you.

[Ohio]

Great logic here Dave!

Jim Bakker got busted for fraud and corruption, and that just proves all fundamental Christian churches are the real apostates!

Just look at all that audio video equipment. There's enough evidence there to remove all reasonable doubt in the readers' minds.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great logic here Dave!

Jim Bakker got busted for fraud and corruption, and that just proves all fundamental Christian churches are the real apostates!

Just look at all that audio video equipment. There's enough evidence there to remove all reasonable doubt in the readers' minds.

You left out my basic reasons which I mentioned previously and ignored the issue of why we initially left fundamentalist churches to begin with---oh, I forgot --- you were raised in the LC, sorry, my bad. I can understand why your insight is a little shortsighted.

Those are just obvious examples. Jim Bakker is back in business and many of these evangelists look like Bakker back in the day. It all looks like entertainment to me however you want it described. It is the true apostasy in the Christian world.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

You’re confusing Apostasy in the Bible. It’s not referring to people like McLaren. In the Bible Apostasy is referencing those who say they are alive but are dead. It’s referring to those who say they are "born again" in the Fundamentalist Christian churches.

Are you familiar with the usage of the Greek word ἀποστασία (apostasia)? It is absolutely referring to people like Brian McLaren, who were at one time considered orthodox but have "fallen away" from what is to be considered as orthodox teaching or practice. Of course you are free to make up any definition that you want.

If you use the Bible as your baseline of truth then everything should be based on how God sees things and not on how man views them or interprets them in the Bible.

This is a fair observation. Of course you want to make everything about cultural issues because you don't want to address the most important issue of the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Christ addressed cultural issues from God's standpoint in the Gospels. Of course many of the issues in His day revolved around the Jewish religion, but the main thrust of his teachings in this regard was "Love your neighbor as yourself".

The very same ministers who have condemned same sex marriage justify divorced and remarried couples in their congregations. Fundamentalist Christians reconfigure the scriptures to fit their own prejudices. The only exceptions in the Bible are the ones they give themselves.

"Fundamentalist Christians"? So you are in a position to know that ALL fundamentalist Christians believe this or that and practice this or that? I though maybe you had learned something about the dangers of this kind of stereotyping from Witness Lee. Yes, probably everyone "reconfigures the scriptures to fit their own prejudices" to one degree or another. But thankfully we live a society where were are free to do that. Christians of all different stripes are also free to comment on the teachings and practices of others.

All I see in these churches now is thousands of dollars’ worth of audio video equipment to attract people to their services. They justify it just like Jim Bakker and others like him before. What has changed where now it is okay? Thus, after some have left the LC despite the problems within fundamentalist churches they now are singing their praises. I guess they weren’t that bad after all. I guess they weren’t the Babylon WL mentioned. I guess they are the future of Christian thinking and beliefs.

All you see? Dude you need to get out more! Don't be like we were in the Local Church, all crammed up is those echo chambers that we called meeting halls. Now it seems you're in another kind of echo chamber, but an echo chamber nonetheless. Jim Bakker was a discredited fraud who went to jail and was NEVER, EVER considered an orthodox person by the vast majority of orthodox/evangelicals. Who is singing whose praises? Stop throwing stuff up against the wall to see what sticks.

I don’t think you need to worry about McLaren.

Do I look worried to you? I only commented on McLaren because Ohio made a good point in his opening post and I wanted to reinforce and add to his thoughts. Like I said, folks like McLaren and Bell are moving away from biblical/orthodox Christianity about as fast as they possibly can. The only time and space they are worth for me is to point out their gross errors.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

You left out my basic reasons which I mentioned previously and ignored the issue of why we initially left fundamentalist churches to begin with---oh, I forgot --- you were raised in the LC, sorry, my bad. I can understand why your insight is a little shortsighted.

Ohio wasn't raised in the LC. He was raised by Cleveland Browns fans, which is almost as bad.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Dave

Just repeating the mantra that “The Bible is the Word of God” is not supportable by the actions and the interpretations of white Christian fundamentalists.

Aka, the blue-eyed devils.

Nice that you've found someone else to hate, Dave. When in the LCM it was "those in Christianity." Now it's "white Christian fundamentalists."

I guess if the present version of your quest for moral superiority (aka self-esteem) goes bad you can find someone else to blame for your problems. There are plenty of groups to single out. Ask Hitler. He had a long list.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Ohio wasn't raised in the LC. He was raised by Cleveland Browns fans, which is almost as bad.

A horribly abusive upbringing which explains so much about me.

I heard some sports head talking about the Cowboys not winning for 20 years. Twenty years. Seriously?

It's no wonder folks around here can't understand me.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

A horribly abusive upbringing which explains so much about me.

I heard some sports head talking about the Cowboys not winning for 20 years. Twenty years. Seriously?

It's no wonder folks around here can't understand me.

I know! I understand a little bit, since I'm a Cowboys fan. But for the Browns it's about 65 years or something.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about rude and disrespectful. Have you gone mad, or just blind?

So ... Christian fundamentals look that bad to you, that Buddha starts looking better?

You are hilarious bro Ohio, with that picture of Buddha. Only, it's not Buddha. Buddha would have never allowed statues to him, or prayers. Those came along 500 yrs or so after Siddhartha Gautama.

But I have to say, as you know, I grew up in fundamentalism, and from what I've seen, and see here in Kentucky, it is not very pretty.

The fundamentalism I grew up in began as unapologetic bigots and slaveholders. Many in my extended family, and those I'm living around, are outspoken bigots. (I think I've mentioned that I've heard from more than one around here, "I don't want no nigger for a president."

Witness Lee was the biggest sort of bigot; against all Christians not in his movement, and eventually, even toward his closest and most loyal followers - Ingalls et al.

And I'm done with all that. Compared to that yes, Buddhism shines (no wonder some left the LC and went into Buddhism). And so does Rob Bell and McLaren. As I've stated, I'm no fan of preachers, including them. But I'm very sympathetic toward love. I'm with Jesus, Paul, and whoever wrote 1 John on that. They make me sympathetic toward Bell's and McLaren's message of non-bigoted love.

So I doubt that John 14:6 was meant to support bigotedness toward those that think they can come to the father in other ways, or toward anybody for that matter.

Jesus was hard on hypocrisy but I don't think he had a bigoted bone in his body. He even forgave those that killed him on the cross. We should be so forgiving.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Talk about rude and disrespectful. Have you gone mad, or just blind?

So ... Christian fundamentals look that bad to you, that Buddha starts looking better?

That's not Gautama Buddha. That's Budai or Pu-Tai 布袋. He's is a Chinese folkloric deity. His name means "Cloth Sack," and comes from the bag that he is conventionally depicted as carrying. He is usually identified with or seen as an incarnation of Maitreya, the future Buddha, so much so that the Budai image is one of the main forms in which Maitreya is depicted in China. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛). In the West, the image of Budai is often mistaken for Gautama Buddha like you did. Source: Wikipedia

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That's not Gautama Buddha. That's Budai or Pu-Tai 布袋. He's is a Chinese folkloric deity. His name means "Cloth Sack," and comes from the bag that he is conventionally depicted as carrying. He is usually identified with or seen as an incarnation of Maitreya, the future Buddha, so much so that the Budai image is one of the main forms in which Maitreya is depicted in China. He is almost always shown smiling or laughing, hence his nickname in Chinese, the Laughing Buddha (Chinese: 笑佛). In the West, the image of Budai is often mistaken for Gautama Buddha like you did. Source: Wikipedia

You better go educate Google Images and the rest of the world about who Buddha really is, since I have so little interest in the subject.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The fundamentalism I grew up in began as unapologetic bigots and slaveholders. Many in my extended family, and those I'm living around, are outspoken bigots. (I think I've mentioned that I've heard from more than one around here, "I don't want no nigger for a president."

And I'm done with all that. Compared to that yes, Buddhism shines (no wonder some left the LC and went into Buddhism). And so does Rob Bell and McLaren. As I've stated, I'm no fan of preachers, including them. But I'm very sympathetic toward love. I'm with Jesus, Paul, and whoever wrote 1 John on that. They make me sympathetic toward Bell's and McLaren's message of non-bigoted love.

So I doubt that John 14:6 was meant to support bigotedness toward those that think they can come to the father in other ways, or toward anybody for that matter.

Jesus was hard on hypocrisy but I don't think he had a bigoted bone in his body. He even forgave those that killed him on the cross. We should be so forgiving.

awareness, your logic seems to dodge every issue at hand. Let me "read between the lines" here, and you can tell me if I am correct.

• You have been surrounded by nasty, bigoted, mean-spirited, and loveless fundamentalists your whole life
• Anyone who uses John 14.6 to say that Jesus is the "only way to God" must also be one of these bigoted fundamentalists
• WL was the worst bigoted fundamentalist of all
• These same bad guys in Kentucky, some of which are your relatives, also hate the current prez just because of his skin color, and not because of his policies
• Buddha, however, is all about love
• Ex-LC'ers ran to Buddha to get some of this love
• McLaren also preaches this same message of love -- in other words, man can get to God any way he chooses, and that every way should be applauded since God will receive them even if they detour around His Son
• McLaren felt Jesus was narrow and got "in the way" when He spoke these words to the disciple Thomas
• Your view of Jesus, however, is love and only love, which was proven when he forgave those who crucified Him

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

awareness, your logic seems to dodge every issue at hand. Let me "read between the lines" here, and you can tell me if I am correct.

I'll give it a shot.

[*]You have been surrounded by nasty, bigoted, mean-spirited, and loveless fundamentalists your whole life
No.

[*]Anyone who uses John 14.6 to say that Jesus is the "only way to God" must also be one of these bigoted fundamentalists
No.

[*]WL was the worst bigoted fundamentalist of all
He was pretty bad ... and a big hater.

[*]These same bad guys in Kentucky, some of which are your relatives, also hate the current prez just because of his skin color, and not because of his policies
Those that are outspoken racists are.

[*]Buddha, however, is all about love
No.

[*]Ex-LC'ers ran to Buddha to get some of this love
Or out of disgust.

[*]McLaren also preaches this same message of love -- in other words, man can get to God any way he chooses, and that every way should be applauded since God will receive them even if they detour around His Son
Jesus is drawing all men.

[*]McLaren felt Jesus was narrow and got "in the way" when He spoke these words to the disciple Thomas
Can we get the source of this quote by McLaren that troubles you so much? I'd like to read the context before commenting:

For too many people the name Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus' statement "I am the way, and of the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" actually means, "I am in the way of people seeking truth and life. I won't let anyone get to God unless he comes through me." -- Brian McLaren

[*]Your view of Jesus, however, is love and only love, which was proven when he forgave those who crucified Him
That was some pretty powerful love.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

In the West, the image of Budai is often mistaken for Gautama Buddha like you did.

Quite so. And in the South it's often mistaken for Guacamole Buddha, pictured below:

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Quite so. And in the South it's often mistaken for Guacamole Buddha, pictured below:

Give me some mor Guacamole Buddahaha on my ChikInBurrito!

[Cal]

Harold,

The New Testament confirms again and again both directly from Jesus and also from the writers that whether you have a genuine relationship with God depends on your relationship with Jesus. Specifically because Jesus was the unique one who died for our sins, but more generally because Jesus is God.

Jesus is not the answer to a spiritual trick question. Neither does believing in Jesus mean "belonging to the right religion." But he is a sharp test. Anyone can claim to be motivated by "love," or "God." But Jesus brought God more sharply into focus for us and made him more specific, to the point that not recognizing Jesus as the unique God, Savior and Lord is the same as rejecting God.

The bottom line is if you don't see Jesus for who he was, the only begotten Son of God, Savior and Lord, God himself, then you really don't see God at all or have God at all. Anyone who rejects Jesus, or sees him as just another religious leader like Buddha, doesn't really know God. According to the NT, their claims of knowing God are falsehoods, perhaps even lies.

The upshot is if you cannot see that Jesus is the unique Son of God you could not possibly see God in any other person or idea, because Jesus is the Word, and the Word expresses God more plainly than anything.

I believe the reality of Jesus's sacrifice can be applied to someone who never heard of him. That's general revelation at work. But once you've heard of Jesus and the gospel, rejection of him becomes rejection of God himself. That's the deal.

You are not an ignorant person in a third-world country. But you have tried to assume for yourself a "general revelation" ignorance, like someone trying to go back to the Garden of Eden after the fall. You are not eligible for this. You've heard the gospel. You have to make a decision about Jesus. It's time to fess up. Who was Jesus? Just another religious leader? A very "spiritual" man? Or God himself come to be our Savior and Lord? You owe us a clear confession of faith or lack thereof. It's time to stop playing footsie as if you were the son of Bilbodog. State it clearly please.

Is Jesus Christ the unique God, Lord and Savior of the world, with no peers, equals or eligible substitutes? Yes or no?

(Before you add any other commentary, please simply quote the above paragraph and answer with a simple "yes" or "no". I'll take failure to answer plainly as a "no.")

1 My dear friends, many false prophets are in the world now. So don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God. 2 This is how you can recognize God’s Spirit. One spirit says, “I believe that Jesus is the Messiah who came to earth and became a man.” That Spirit is from God. 3 Another spirit refuses to say this about Jesus. That spirit is not from God. This is the spirit of the enemy of Christ. You have heard that the enemy of Christ is coming, and now he is already in the world.
1 John 4 1-3 ERV


9 We believe people when they say something is true. But what God says is more important. And this is what God told us: He told us the truth about his own Son. 10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the truth that God told us. But people who do not believe God make God a liar, because they do not believe what God told us about his Son. 11 This is what God told us: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life, but whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
1 John 5 9-12 ERV

16 Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world. He did not send him to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him. 18 People who believe in God’s Son are not judged guilty. But people who do not believe are already judged, because they have not believed in God’s only Son.
Jesus speaking, John 3:16-18 ERV

[awareness]

Igzy,

I thought I had issues. I'll pray for you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Igzy,

I thought I had issues. I'll pray for you.

So you respond with a smart aleck insult to a serious, important and sincere question that is central to the theme of this board? You're a moderator here, for gosh sakes. You ought to have a higher standard than that.

You don't think you owe the members of this board a clear explanation of your beliefs about the basic Christian faith? Where in the world, as a moderator, would you get such a priviledge?!


I'll take this as a confession that you DO NOT believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or Savior or Lord of all.

Is that correct?


By the way, just what "issues" of mine are you referring to? Please be specific.

[Cal]

Another honest question, Harold. So I'd appreciate an honest answer. How can a righteous God, however loving, forgive you for your many sins and offenses if you do not accept the sacrifice of his only Son Jesus, who is Savior and Lord of all? How can you say you love God if you reject that sacrifice?

[Cal]

7 Many false teachers are in the world now. They refuse to say that Jesus Christ came to earth and became a man.* Anyone who refuses to accept this fact is a false teacher and the enemy of Christ. 8 Be careful! Don’t lose the reward we have worked for. Be careful so that you will receive all of that reward.

9 Everyone must continue to follow only the teaching about Christ. Whoever changes that teaching does not have God. But whoever continues to follow the teaching about Christ has both the Father and his Son. 10 Don’t accept those who come to you but do not bring this teaching. Don’t invite them into your house. Don’t welcome them in any way. 11 If you do, you are helping them with their evil work.
2 John 1:7-11 ERV

*"Jesus Christ came to earth and became a man" means that Jesus is the Son of God, God himself, Lord and Savior, and he came to earth as a real man. To "change that teaching" means to deny the Person and Work of Christ in any way, including denying his deity, denying he is Lord, denying he is Savior, denying he became a real man, denying his resurrection, denying his perfection, or lowering his status to be just another religious leader, like Buddha, etc.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

7 Many false teachers are in the world now. They refuse to say that Jesus Christ came to earth and became a man.* Anyone who refuses to accept this fact is a false teacher and the enemy of Christ. 8 Be careful! Don’t lose the reward we have worked for. Be careful so that you will receive all of that reward.

9 Everyone must continue to follow only the teaching about Christ. Whoever changes that teaching does not have God. But whoever continues to follow the teaching about Christ has both the Father and his Son. 10 Don’t accept those who come to you but do not bring this teaching. Don’t invite them into your house. Don’t welcome them in any way. 11 If you do, you are helping them with their evil work.
2 John 1:7-11 ERV

*"Jesus Christ came to earth and became a man" means that Jesus is the Son of God, God himself, Lord and Savior, and he came to earth as a real man. To "change that teaching" means to deny the Person and Work of Christ in any way, including denying his deity, denying he is Lord, denying he is Savior, denying he became a real man, denying his resurrection, denying his perfection, or lowering his status to be just another religious leader, like Buddha, etc.

Just wanted to follow this up that I had a good talk with Harold (awareness) on the phone. Great guy, and he explained some of his beliefs to me. I understand him better now. I would say I still think some of his beliefs are questionable, but I will try to be less demanding going forward. However I think the verses I shared need to be taken seriously.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Brian McLaren (along with his Universalist/Emergent/Emerging buddy, Rob Bell) are essentially closet humanist/atheist disguised as Christians. The only reason they still call themselves "Christian" is for the sake of their pocketbook...and soon you will see them abandon the notion of being Christian altogether. They are just about there anyway, they just need a few more pseudo Christian books/conferences under their belt, and when the coffers are full enough they'll come totally clean with the public. It wouldn't surprise me to see them inviting Bart Ehrman to their conferences in the very near future. Both of them are "enemies of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18) and "are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." (Heb 6:6)

Christian Truth, Biblical Truth, is EXCLUSIVE BY DEFINITION. If something is true, then by definition, something opposite or opposing said truth is false. So when Jesus said "I AM THE TRUTH....NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME", then we can know for sure Rob Bell's claim that "To be a Christian is to claim truth wherever you find it" is patently false, and shows the advanced stages of abject apostasy has taken it's full grip on the poor man. May God have mercy.

I find it a little disingenuous to make all the statements you did here.

I will agree that McLaren and Bell have made themselves out to be something other than those who would spread the word of the Gospel.
But when you take a single sentence, like "To be a Christian is to claim truth wherever you find it" out of its context, you make it into something that Bell did not say at that time.

Now as an ongoing thing, both Bell and McLaren finally have made the move to obscurity by taking a stand. But before those stands were taken, they began deep within Christianity (I think McLaren may have been a Plymouth Brethren minister, or at least grew up in that). But they thought they saw flaws in the dogma and positions of mainstream Christianity. So they became part of what was the Emergent movement. (I think that it is fair to say that the Emerging movement is a broad tent and too much so to have much true meaning. But the Emergents were something else. They seemed to want to disrupt the whole.)

And both Bell and McLaren are now fairly well shipwrecked.

But as they progressed, I believe that they saw meaningful things. I would not point to them as evidence of any kind of truth. But when you assess some of what they said, it was true.

And when Bell said that truth is truth wherever you find it, how can you refute that? If it is true, it is true. Everything that is true is not captured in the text of the Bible. And many religions and philosophies come to the same conclusions about truth that the Bible would surely support. Paul even declares that much of what is true is written in out hearts without ever hearing of God. So if it is true, it is true.

What you are reading into it is that someone thinks something is true from another source, therefore the other source is true. That is not what Bell said. McLaren was more slippery in this arena. At one point he made some comment about preaching Jesus to a Hindu or Buddhist so that he/she would become a better Hindu/Buddhist. I might accept that as a step toward belief. But as an acceptable end-point??? No!

Yes, both Bell and McLaren have fallen off a cliff. But truth is still truth, no matter where you find it. And sometimes you need to hear it from a different source (even simply the same Bible verse from a different translation or paraphrase) to understand the truth that it conveys.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yes, both Bell and McLaren have fallen off a cliff. But truth is still truth, no matter where you find it. And sometimes you need to hear it from a different source (even simply the same Bible verse from a different translation or paraphrase) to understand the truth that it conveys.

"Truth is truth wherever you find it" is a dodgy statement. What is truth? Jesus said he was Truth. Jesus is a divine person, God. But it's also truth that my front yard is green. (Texas has finally been getting rain!!) So is Jesus my yard? Does the fact that my yard is green have anything to do with Jesus being the truth?

This is what I mean by dodgy. Just what is meant by "truth" here?

So when McLaren says truth is truth wherever you find it, and if some Hindu sect stresses loving others, does that mean Jesus is there? Is he saying Jesus inhabits this Hindu sect? Good question. I can't claim to know what he really meant.

There is Ultimate Truth, which is God, or Jesus. And there is shadow truth, which is the form of good human behavior according to God's commandments. They are not the same thing, at least not necessarily.

I think the problem to have with McLaren's statement is it can be taken to mean Jesus or God, Truth, is necessarily in that Hindu sect, when what may only be there is shadow truth.

The LCM, it must be said, was way over on one extreme with this. They would scoff at shadow truth--for example a non-Christian family that was full of love for each other--as not only not being enough for salvation (which it wasn't), but something evil in itself because it didn't have "the reality." That's too much. That's the other extreme from McLaren.

[awareness]

If I didn't know better I'd conclude that y'all were writing in jest. I can't believe my eyes. Jesus is the only truth, and all else is shadow truth. What silly nonsense. Good thing y'all are writing behind anonymous avatars. Otherwise those close to you should have your head examined. Have y'all gone completely Bible crazy? It's like y'all are intoxicated, or smoking some strong wacky baccy.

Please don't take this personal ... ... like I said, I can't believe my eyes.

And I suppose, to follow Bible logic to it's ultimate conclusion, that y'all think it will be a good thing when Jesus pours out bowls of God's wrath on those Hindu's and Buddhists ; and burns the heretics McLaren and Bell for ever and ever

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Truth is truth wherever you find it" is a dodgy statement. What is truth? Jesus said he was Truth. Jesus is a divine person, God. But it's also truth that my front yard is green. (Texas has finally been getting rain!!) So is Jesus my yard? Does the fact that my yard is green have anything to do with Jesus being the truth?

This is what I mean by dodgy. Just what is meant by "truth" here?

So when McLaren says truth is truth wherever you find it, and if some Hindu sect stresses loving others, does that mean Jesus is there? Is he saying Jesus inhabits this Hindu sect? Good question. I can't claim to know what he really meant.

There is Ultimate Truth, which is God, or Jesus. And there is shadow truth, which is the form of good human behavior according to God's commandments. They are not the same thing, at least not necessarily.

I think the problem to have with McLaren's statement is it can be taken to mean Jesus or God, Truth, is necessarily in that Hindu sect, when what may only be there is shadow truth.

The LCM, it must be said, was way over on one extreme with this. They would scoff at shadow truth--for example a non-Christian family that was full of love for each other--as not only not being enough for salvation (which it wasn't), but something evil in itself because it didn't have "the reality." That's too much. That's the other extreme from McLaren.

Igzy, it seems as though you like to redefine everything. OBW's statement, "...truth is still truth, no matter where you find it." is irrefutable. Today's truth is not necessarily tomorrow's truth because truth changes as revelation comes into being. Using science as a model --- from Newton to Einstein---truth changed because our knowledge changed...thus, truth is wherever you find it.

Martin Luther and "justification by faith" was a new truth that was hidden for centuries but many on this forum think they know all of the truth. If it wasn't for Luther we might be living in a Catholic world with the pope as king. The problem is that you have God in a box and maybe because of various sects and belief systems such as the Mormons, JWs etc you are afraid (concerned) to go outside the box. However, that was Jesus' model, going outside the box. Truth is wherever you find it.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

If I didn't know better I'd conclude that y'all were writing in jest. I can't believe my eyes. Jesus is the only truth, and all else is shadow truth. What silly nonsense. Good thing y'all are writing behind anonymous avatars. Otherwise those close to you should have your head examined. Have y'all gone completely Bible crazy? It's like y'all are intoxicated, or smoking some strong wacky baccy.

Please don't take this personal ... ... like I said, I can't believe my eyes.

Please don't take this personal Harold....WRONG FORUM my friend. So now you've added "silly nonsense" to your repertoire of insults and flaming? Come on Harold, you ARE better than that, much better. Are you so weak minded and insecure that you have to resort to insults and flaming? "Alternative Views" does NOT mean alternative to being respectful. "Open discussions" does not mean anything goes. Stop trying to be the Shock Jock of LCD, and get back to being the thoughtful, respectful poster that you really are.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

If I didn't know better I'd conclude that y'all were writing in jest. I can't believe my eyes. Jesus is the only truth, and all else is shadow truth. What silly nonsense. Good thing y'all are writing behind anonymous avatars. Otherwise those close to you should have your head examined. Have y'all gone completely Bible crazy? It's like y'all are intoxicated, or smoking some strong wacky baccy.

Doesn't the Logos doctrine which you have repeatedly espoused say the same thing? The problem seems to be with the branding. Unless the exclusivist sees the "Jesus" label on a thing, he won't accept that it is the genuine article. Whereas, the inclusivist sees Jesus everywhere even when there is no "Jesus" label. In the beginning God labeled everything but the devil snuck in and removed the labels.

Like love, truth is where you find it. Now Nee in the Spiritual Man was an exclusivist's exclusivist. Didn't matter if you were a Christian or not, your soulical love wasn't the real deal; only spiritual love passed muster. Lee following him and not very loving himself from my POV, built on Nee's foundation, thus putting a damper on the natural love that was there in the churches. Thus, the churches became cold places where you could hear some really jazzy high peak theology from the little Chinese guy on the TV set but unless there was a service group designed to address your problem you were out of luck. There should have been a Love Service Group in order to free up the regular members so they could spend more time digesting the Life-Studies. Maybe if there had been, the saints would have been transformed and brought the Lord back already.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please don't take this personal Harold....WRONG FORUM my friend. So now you've added "silly nonsense" to your repertoire of insults and flaming? Come on Harold, you ARE better than that, much better. Are you so weak minded and insecure that you have to resort to insults and flaming? "Alternative Views" does NOT mean alternative to being respectful. "Open discussions" does not mean anything goes. Stop trying to be the Shock Jock of LCD, and get back to being the thoughtful, respectful poster that you really are.

Good call UntoHim. Awareness should put "Shock Jock of LCD" in his signature line. By the way, if you want to reinforce the policy of not referring to members by their real names, it would be best if you maintained it consistently yourself. Just sayin'. It's the principle known as "setting a good example."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Good call UntoHim. Awareness should put "Shock Jock of LCD" in his signature line. By the way, if you want to reinforce the policy of not referring to members by their real names, it would be best if you maintained it consistently yourself. Just sayin'. It's the principle known as "setting a good example."

Just sayin' what? UntoHim consistently sets the standard on this forum.

You, however, would do well to take a few courses in anger management and written communication skills.

As you say, just sayin'

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Please don't take this personal Harold....WRONG FORUM my friend. So now you've added "silly nonsense" to your repertoire of insults and flaming? Come on Harold, you ARE better than that,

Maybe you are right, that I am better than that.

It's just that it was sounding so silly to me. It's like the Bible is being taken so literally that it begins to sound silly.

But maybe it's not silly if we combine John 14:6 with the Logos in the beginning of John. Then the truth is not the human person of Jesus, but the all encompassing eternal Logos; the creative and sustaining force of the universe (as defined by Heraclitus, who coined the word 500 yrs before the book of John was written). In that case the Logos is the truth; in that we have our life and being in it, and can't get around, over or under it. We can't dodge it (as Igzy claims us Skeptics are doing.) There's no getting away from the Logos ; it's ultimate absolute reality.

Then Jesus saying "I am the truth" doesn't sound so silly. And "Before Abraham was, I am" makes sense (also very silly sounding. How can you be 'before' and 'am' at the same time (also found in John))? Unless figuring in the Logos.

But then truth is truth wherever found makes sense too. Cuz when we find truth we find the creative and sustaining force (person if you will) of the universe, which is ultimate and absolute reality: the Logos.

So yes Untohim, maybe I am "better than that." And "shadow truth" hit my funny bone because I failed to add up the we see that ultimate reality, the I am, thru a glass darkly. Which means that we can't be so certain about what we know about this Logos, about ultimate truth ... and taking the Bible literal doesn't solve that. And trying makes us look silly.

Thanks Untohim for making me think deeper about this matter of Truth, and seeing beyond what I thought sounded like silly nonsense.

Isn't that at least one purpose of AltVs?

So stop making up new limits -- on the fly-and out of the blue -- of what's allowed on AltVs. We're just trying to get at the bottom of things. Show some grace ... especially to this idiot ... please.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Just sayin' what? UntoHim consistently sets the standard on this forum.

You, however, would do well to take a few courses in anger management and written communication skills.

As you say, just sayin'

Do you teach those courses?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

I find it a little disingenuous to make all the statements you did here.

Oh, I'm very genuine in my absolute disdain for those who would sell their Christian birthright for the humanist/PC pottage of postmodern and "post Christian" drivel... or couldn't you tell?

But when you take a single sentence, like "To be a Christian is to claim truth wherever you find it" out of its context, you make it into something that Bell did not say at that time.

Have you read "Love Wins" OBW? Have you listened to even a little bit of the dozens upon dozens of YouTube videos of Bell explaining exactly what he means by "being a Christian is to claim truth wherever you find it"? And just as I don't need to quote reams and reams of Witness Lee to proclaim that his teaching that "God became a man that man may become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" is junk theology, neither do I feel obligated to provide tons of Bell quotes to proclaim that his teachings regarding the nature of truth are off base big time.

And both Bell and McLaren are now fairly well shipwrecked.

Exactly, and Bell's teaching regarding truth and McLaren's teachings regarding the plain declarations of Jesus Christ in the Gospels are red banner examples of how they have become shipwrecked.

But as they progressed, I believe that they saw meaningful things. I would not point to them as evidence of any kind of truth. But when you assess some of what they said, it was true.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee saw some meaningful things too, but they were so off on many of the most basic, fundamental elements of the Christian Faith, so much so as to put them in the category of teachers to be avoided. These men (Bell and McLaren) claim to be Christian ministers/teachers. They are attempting to influence the Christian Church at large. The early apostles and even many of the early church fathers pulled out the apostasy card on men like these, and many evangelicals/apologists are doing the same today with Bell and McLaren. They have become apologists for, and are using the same age old arguments of humanists and universalists. They are both headed on the exact same path as the late Marcus Borg, who, at the end of his life, denied the bodily resurrection of Christ and admitted that the two most influential men to him were Jesus Christ and the Bhudah...and he didn't even say in which order! What part of apostasy do you not understand?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

If I didn't know better I'd conclude that y'all were writing in jest. I can't believe my eyes. Jesus is the only truth, and all else is shadow truth. What silly nonsense. Good thing y'all are writing behind anonymous avatars. Otherwise those close to you should have your head examined. Have y'all gone completely Bible crazy? It's like y'all are intoxicated, or smoking some strong wacky baccy.

Please don't take this personal ... ... like I said, I can't believe my eyes.

And I suppose, to follow Bible logic to it's ultimate conclusion, that y'all think it will be a good thing when Jesus pours out bowls of God's wrath on those Hindu's and Buddhists ; and burns the heretics McLaren and Bell for ever and ever

You've forgotten I've spoken to you on the phone, so I know this is you yanking my chain, Harold.

Let me spell it out fer yew Southeastern Yewnited States hillbilly filawsofers.

God is truth. So for anything else to be truth in the sense God is truth then that thing must be God. This means that anything that is true is God. That means everything is God. That's pantheism.

So given an ugly dog, the statement "that dawg shur is ugly" is truth, thus the statement is God. So you don't need to find God, just find a true statement and have fellowship with it. Heck the statement, "The outhouse stanks" (which should hit close to home for y'all) is truth and thus God. You don't have to go to church, just walk to the outhouse!

Duh. Talk about country crazy. At least the guys on "Duck Dynasty" don't pretend to be theologians and philosophers. Good grief you guys are weird.

Happy Halloween, guys!
Maybe y'all can go out dressed like Immanuel Kant and John Calvin, and scare a bunch of kids.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You've forgotten I've spoken to you on the phone, so I know this is you yanking my chain, Harold.

Let me spell it out fer yew Southeastern Yewnited States hillbilly filawsofers.

God is truth. So for anything else to be truth in the sense God is truth then that thing must be God. This means that anything that is true is God. That means everything is God. That's pantheism.

So given an ugly dog, the statement "that dawg shur is ugly" is truth, thus the statement is God. So you don't need to find God, just find a true statement and have fellowship with it. Heck the statement, "The outhouse stanks" (which should hit close to home for y'all) is truth and thus God. You don't have to go to church, just walk to the outhouse!

Duh. Talk about country crazy. At least the guys on "Duck Dynasty" don't pretend to be theologians and philosophers. Good grief you guys are weird.

Happy Halloween, guys!
Maybe y'all can go out dressed like Immanuel Kant and John Calvin, and scare a bunch of kids.

Ha ha ha ... ya sure got one of dem good senses of humor. Happy spook day.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

Ha ha ha ... ya sure got one of dem good senses of humor. Happy spook day.

You too, my friend!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Using science as a model --- from Newton to Einstein---truth changed because our knowledge changed...thus, truth is wherever you find it.

So was Einstein an apostate from Newton?

Apostasy is in the eye of the beholder. But not all apostasy is bad. We here, for example, are considered apostates to those in the local church. The Roman Church considered the Monk Martin Luther an apostate. Luther and Protestants considered The Church The Great Apostasy.

Originally Posted by Untohim

What part of apostasy do you not understand?

So what's apostasy? Apostasy is other people's religion.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

God is truth. So for anything else to be truth in the sense God is truth then that thing must be God. This means that anything that is true is God. That means everything is God. That's pantheism.

So given an ugly dog, the statement "that dawg shur is ugly" is truth, thus the statement is God. So you don't need to find God, just find a true statement and have fellowship with it. Heck the statement, "The outhouse stanks" (which should hit close to home for y'all) is truth and thus God. You don't have to go to church, just walk to the outhouse!

Is this a satire of your own position? After all, it was you who defined God as Truth on the Fundamentalist thread. And you said that meant that the truth was that on which everything depends. Everything includes the ugly dog and the outhouse, doesn't it? So maybe your the pantheist.

Please disambiguate God as Truth from truth in the usual sense. Maybe your reference to "shadow truth" was an attempt to do that. But, if everything depends on God doesn't a shadow truth depend on God too? Or, if not, then doesn't that contradict your statement that everything depends on God? Seems like you want to have it both ways. Isn't that the kind of move you called "dodgy"?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Is this a satire of your own position? After all, it was you who defined God as Truth on the Fundamentalist thread. And you said that meant that the truth was that on which everything depends. Everything includes the ugly dog and the outhouse, doesn't it? So maybe your the pantheist.

Please disambiguate God as Truth from truth in the usual sense. Maybe your reference to "shadow truth" was an attempt to do that. But, if everything depends on God doesn't a shadow truth depend on God too? Or, if not, then doesn't that contradict your statement that everything depends on God? Seems like you want to have it both ways. Isn't that the kind of move you called "dodgy"?

The disambiguation is that God is God but other things are not God, even if they are "true."

So just because a belief system has "truth" does not mean it has God. McLaren seemed to be trying to imply in a rather equivocating way that if "truth" was there then God was, too. I disagree. Something can be true without being God.

This is what I mean by "shadow truth." An atheistic family can have love for one another, but that doesn't mean they have God. I believe God is pleased with their love for one another, but he's certainly not pleased with their denying him. And in the end none of us can love the way we should without God's help anyway. That's why our natural love is just a "shadow," even if it is "true."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Untohim

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee saw some meaningful things too, but they were so off on many of the most basic, fundamental elements of the Christian Faith

It's eerie ; the way you and Igzy sling your weight around out here reminds me of Nee and Lee. In fact, it creeps me out. It's like Mel Porter is hanging out around here ... and I'm expected to take someone else's personality for mine. But fat chance for that. I walked from that a long time ago. It taught me, along with Witness Lee, about people and their opinions, and how I don't have to blindly buy into them, as I was doing in the local church.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

These men (Bell and McLaren) claim to be Christian ministers/teachers. They are attempting to influence the Christian Church at large. The early apostles and even many of the early church fathers pulled out the apostasy card on men like these, and many evangelicals/apologists are doing the same today with Bell and McLaren. They have become apologists for, and are using the same age old arguments of humanists and universalists.

You toss these words 'humanist' and 'universalist' around like they are dirty words.

When it could be said that Jesus was the quintessential humanist.

And the idea of universalism has been around in the history of Christianity since the early days, at least the 2nd c. and prolly earlier. And if whoever wrote 1 John is right that, God is Love, it makes all the sense in the world.

And you want to castigate McLaren and Bell like they are evil people, when in reality they are about love. Isn't God Love?

So in the end what you say about humanism, universalism, McLaren, and Bell, is just your opinion, or opinions you decided to adhere to.

And I learned about people and their opinions a looooong time ago. And really I don't have to buy into them ... also, it might sound odd, I don't have to buy into McLaren or Bell either. I can take some and leave some from y'all.

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

It's eerie ; the way you and Igzy sling your weight around out here reminds me of Nee and Lee.

Oh, yes. I know. It's sooo eerie.

Did you hear that, UntoHim? He compared us to Nee and Lee. Whatever shall we do now? We're undone!

Come on, Harold. You can do better.... I think.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oh, yes. I know. It's sooo eerie.

Did you hear that, UntoHim? He compared us to Nee and Lee. Whatever shall we do now? We're undone!

Come on, Harold. You can do better.... I think.

Actually, I can't do any worse than to compare you guys to Nee and Lee. Not unless, I suppose, I compared you to McLaren and Bell. OMG. God forbide. Y'all are antithetical to those two.

I suppose I could try harder, to do better ... but really y'all are so much better than them all. Can't help it if I buck at authoritative proclamations. It's a reflex. Sorry for that. It does make me cantankerous. As is plain to all.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually, I can't do any worse than to compare you guys to Nee and Lee.

I can work with this so long as I get to be Watchman Nee and Igzy gets to be Witness Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Actually, I can't do any worse than to compare you guys to Nee and Lee.

I am so relieved that zeek and I have been kept out of this mud fight. Whew!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Truth is truth wherever you find it" is a dodgy statement. What is truth? Jesus said he was Truth. Jesus is a divine person, God. But it's also truth that my front yard is green. (Texas has finally been getting rain!!) So is Jesus my yard? Does the fact that my yard is green have anything to do with Jesus being the truth?

This is what I mean by dodgy. Just what is meant by "truth" here?

So when McLaren says truth is truth wherever you find it, and if some Hindu sect stresses loving others, does that mean Jesus is there?

Over time, I begin to have the same questions as you do. But you can't typically find the answers in what he says. Rather it is in trying to read between the lines in the questions he asks without ever answering.

(That was one of his primary gimmicks from the very beginning. Use questions to get people thinking but never intend to come to an answer, but rather leave everything that could be imagined as possible without critique.)

But the question is reasonable. Do you have to believe in substitutionary atonement to be follower of Christ and be saved? I think the answer is resoundingly "NO." Not because I think it is not true. Rather because I think it is not relevant to the life of the believer to even put his mind to those aspects of theology. I believe it is true. And it is true whether I know it exists or understand it enough to agree with it. And it is still true if I am not sure that it is right. Does that somehow shipwreck my faith in Christ? If so, it would be better if most of us never heard of a lot of the various theological issues because we can have full faith in Christ without them and be among the best of "overcomers." But making us think about all of these unnecessary theological considerations is just opportunity for people (and the Evil One) to sift us from both the inclusion by others, and the certainty of our own faith. We are better off being diligent followers in very simple ways, knowing little of the theology.

As for Bell and McLaren, early on I think that asking the questions had value. For example, McLaren made some point about substitutionary atonement several years ago. Another one of those questions. I think the real question was something like whether you have to believe in substitutionary atonement to be saved. He never answered the question himself. And when others asked him what he would say on the matter, he never answered, but put on a kind of incredulity that anyone would question his salvation, or other dodges.

There is a rule in argumentation that silence does not prove any point. But there is a corollary (probably not the correct term) that says continued silence may eventually be inferred as an answer contrary to what would be considered proper or correct.

But as dodgy as "truth is truth wherever you find it" may seem to be, without a context it is a true statement. If it is tied to inferences about the overall Truth of a philosophy or religion, then there is a problem. If it is inferred that just because it is truth that you can presume Jesus into the equation is also a problem.

But from my reading of both Bell (when he first made that particular statement - in Velvet Elvis, I believe) and McLaren (a couple of his books and his blog for a while), they are consistently Emergent in style. They ask questions but give no answers leaving you do decide whether your reasonably orthodox conclusion is what they meant, or whether they meant something else.

Until much later on. Love Wins. A New Kind of Christianity. Note that both essentially disappeared from primary view with those books, and the whole Emerging/Emergent mindset dropped off the landscape. The primary web sites for both somehow went dormant or shut down altogether. Many were dismantled at the turn of events and rejected those ways. Others realized that they couldn't remain open in their ways and have at least temporarily retreated to their closets.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

When it could be said that Jesus was the quintessential humanist.

Just drop the "ist" and your just about getting there my man. Jesus Christ was actually the quintessential human, which is exactly why the apostle Paul dubbed him "the last Adam". He then became the quintessential spiritual being when he "became a life giving spirit". Actually Jesus had many interactions with what we might consider humanists and universalists. Most of them were of his very own ethnic/religious heritage. And from the sinful woman at the well to the ultra pious and highly educated Nicodemus, Jesus clearly indicated to both of them that life's ultimate answers had to come from something outside of themselves. "Living Water" for the woman at the well, and "born of water and the Spirit" for Nicodemus. If Jesus was a humanist he would have told them to exercise rationality or maybe empiricism, but that's not what he did. Even after Jesus' clear statement, Nicodemus still didn't get it. "Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?" To Nicodemus' understanding, if one could just start all over again, he could get it right the next time...and maybe even become a quintessential human himself.

And the idea of universalism has been around in the history of Christianity since the early days, at least the 2nd c. and prolly earlier. And if whoever wrote 1 John is right that, God is Love, it makes all the sense in the world.

Lot's of things have been around since the early days awareness, but only the things that have been related to us by God through the Scriptures and the Spirit of Truth are the genuine thing. Yes, God is love. But he is not only love, he is righteous and holy too. God's love is not in conflict with or contrary to his righteousness. In fact, because God is love he sent his righteous and holy Son as a sacrifice: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21) This may not "make all the sense in the world", but it makes sense to God and that's what counts!

And you want to castigate McLaren and Bell like they are evil people, when in reality they are about love. Isn't God Love?

Let God be true though every one were a liar (Rom 3:4) Both McLaren and Bell have pitted the truth that has been related to us in the Scriptures against their own human understandings and sensibilities. Sorry if it disappoints you, but I'm going to side with the Gospel and the teachings of the apostles, and if this makes McLaren and Bell out to be liars, so be it.

So in the end what you say about humanism, universalism, McLaren, and Bell, is just your opinion, or opinions you decided to adhere to.

Well, let's just say that they are my informed opinions. What are your opinions informed by Harold? You don't live in a pristine, hermetically sealed vacuum do you? What are McLaren and Bells opinions being informed by? At one time I believe it was the Bible. Now it seems they are informed by all sorts of extra-biblical understandings, worldviews and philosophies, and as an orthodox Christian I am going to call them out on this. Call me a literalist, call me a fundamentalist, heck you can even call me creepy.....just don't call me late for dinner.

1Tim 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

If this is your attempt to show that God is a universalist.....nice try but you whiffed at that one. Let me use John 3:16 to straighten you out: "For God so loved the world (that would be the 'all people' part) that he gave his only Son (that would be 'the Savior' part) that whoever believes in him (this would be the faith part that you always seem to ignore) should not perish but have eternal life. (this would be the fulfillment of righteousness part) I'm glad to see you quoting Bible verses Harold, but you gotta look at the bigger picture. There's going to be a test! The good news is that it's an open book test. The bad news is.... "and books were opened....Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.(Revelation 20:12,15)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I suppose I could try harder, to do better ... but really y'all are so much better than them all. C

Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Jesus clearly indicated to both of them that life's ultimate answers had to come from something outside of themselves.

Other than attacking the existence of God himself, I think the devil's biggest lie is that human beings can be fixed by psychology. People want to believe that. This is why the Cross is such stumbling block to some, because it says that something is so fundamentally wrong with you that you need a new life, a new life which was bought with the death of God's son.

Humanists hate that message. They can't stand the idea that they in themselves are hopeless and need a Savior. They so want to think they have some redeemable value in the themselves. But they do, or Jesus wouldn't have died for them. But somehow that's not enough for them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Other than attacking the existence of God himself, I think the devil's biggest lie is that human beings can be fixed by psychology. People want to believe that.

People want to believe whatever helps them get by. I've seen psychology help some and fail some; like everything else that humans have to do with.

Originally Posted by Igzy

This is why the Cross is such stumbling block to some, because it says that something is so fundamentally wrong with you that you need a new life, a new life which was bought with the death of God's son.

But the cross didn't seem to fix humanity either. Maybe humanity is unfixable. Maybe both heaven and earth need to be made brand new, for humanity to have any hope at all ... if humanity still exists after renewal. Maybe humanity is the problem.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Humanists hate that message. They can't stand the idea that they in themselves are hopeless and need a Savior. They so want to think they have some redeemable value in the themselves. But they do, or Jesus wouldn't have died for them. But somehow that's not enough for them.

I looked for a humanist church around where I live but can't find any. Too bad. I was hopin' to meet some of dem humanists, and talk to 'em first hand.

I did find one in New York. He's dressed as goofy as many Christian preachers in mainline Christianity. Don't look to be much different than anti-humanists to me ... or better or worse. Is this the humanists yer talkin' 'bout?:
http://churchofhumanism.org/

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I looked for a humanist church around where I live but can't find any. Too bad. I was hopin' to meet some of dem humanists, and talk to 'em first hand.

Try Dave's church. He'll make you a real human.

No need to fear that funny fundamentalist foolery.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

But the cross didn't seem to fix humanity either. Maybe humanity is unfixable. Maybe both heaven and earth need to be made brand new, for humanity to have any hope at all ... if humanity still exists after renewal. Maybe humanity is the problem.

The Cross wan't to fix humanity, it was to save it. The "fixing" comes with the New Heaven and New Earth. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away". (Rev 21:3) Until then, there will be tears, mourning, crying and pain, and yes, even death. Of course humanity will still exist after the renewal...the renewal IS FOR humanity - - For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Until we obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God humanity will indeed be the problem, however we have some foretastes today. This is what the Gospel is all about. And like that verse I posted recently from Jeremiah says "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Praise God for plans he has for us!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Try Dave's church. He'll make you a real human.

There ain't no UU churches around here either, for me to try out. And Dave lives way down yonder. I think yer UU church is closer. Why don't you try it out and report back?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

. . . Of course humanity will still exist after the renewal...!

Well maybe ... we can't know for sure ... but Paul says "what is made of flesh and blood cannot share in God's Kingdom, and what is mortal cannot possess immortality."

So being human just might be the problem.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The Cross wan't to fix humanity, it was to save it.

So bro Untohim are you saying that Jesus was so heavenly minded that he was no earthly good?

Originally Posted by Untohim

The "fixing" comes with the New Heaven and New Earth.

New Heaven? I understand why we may need a new earth, but a new heaven? What's wrong with heaven? Is both earth and heaven defective? In that case how can we be certain that the new heaven and earth won't be defective too? Maybe there is a serpent in every paradise.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well maybe ... we can't know for sure ... but Paul says "what is made of flesh and blood cannot share in God's Kingdom, and what is mortal cannot possess immortality."
So being human just might be the problem.

Before you read my post here, please read the entire chapter of 1 Cor 15. Try, as best you can, to read it like you've never seen or read it before. Try to read it apart from and in spite of everything you have ever heard. I have done this many times over the past number of years and it has revolutionized my understanding of what Paul was trying to get across. In the Local Church we just concentrated on 15:45 "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit". To be sure, this is a key, pivotal part of the entire chapter, but not for the reasons Witness Lee taught us.

"It is sown, it is raised." "It is sown, it is raised." "It is sown, it is raised." Do you get the feeling that this guy is trying to get something across to us? "It is sown, it is raised." - " If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." My dear friend, Harold, we are merely in the seed stage. This is all we can see for now. The spiritual body is a matter of hope and faith. Didn't your mommy ever tell you that "good things come to those who wait"? For now it seems death has the victory. We see and feel the sting of death all around us, and in our own lives. We will see and feel the consequences of sin until our last breath. Even all creation will see and feel the consequences of sin until God steps in - "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."(vrs 51,52)

Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross did not remove the consequences of sin and death IN THIS LIFE. Any so called preacher or teacher who tells you this is doing you a serious disservice. Being human is not the problem. Being human IN THIS LIFE is a big problem, and always will be. But the good news is that Jesus' sacrificial death did remove the eternal consequences of sin. "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." (John 11:26)

[awareness]

Thanks Untohim. I think I get it. Right now we are just a Caterpillar. And with the Bible we weave our silky cocoon, waiting as a chrysalis, until we become a beautiful butterfly.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Before you read my post here, please read the entire chapter of 1 Cor 15. Try, as best you can, to read it like you've never seen or read it before. Try to read it apart from and in spite of everything you have ever heard. I have done this many times over the past number of years and it has revolutionized my understanding of what Paul was trying to get across. In the Local Church we just concentrated on 15:45 "The last Adam became a life-giving spirit". To be sure, this is a key, pivotal part of the entire chapter, but not for the reasons Witness Lee taught us.

"It is sown, it is raised." "It is sown, it is raised." "It is sown, it is raised." Do you get the feeling that this guy is trying to get something across to us? "It is sown, it is raised." - " If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body." My dear friend, Harold, we are merely in the seed stage. This is all we can see for now. The spiritual body is a matter of hope and faith. Didn't your mommy ever tell you that "good things come to those who wait"? For now it seems death has the victory. We see and feel the sting of death all around us, and in our own lives. We will see and feel the consequences of sin until our last breath. Even all creation will see and feel the consequences of sin until God steps in - "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed."(vrs 51,52)

Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross did not remove the consequences of sin and death IN THIS LIFE. Any so called preacher or teacher who tells you this is doing you a serious disservice. Being human is not the problem. Being human IN THIS LIFE is a big problem, and always will be. But the good news is that Jesus' sacrificial death did remove the eternal consequences of sin. "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." (John 11:26)