Hi From Cincy

[Cincy]

Hi everyone I just joined. I had a longer introduction post but when I submitted it the site had logged me out. I live in Cincinnati and have stopped meeting with the LC here for about a year. I’m a lot happier. I use the struggle with depression when meeting. After going to a home meeting I would feel worse about myself and cry on the way home. I really don’t like the whole courtship thing is handled and how older brothers get involved. I first met in Fairborn in 2006 and was a new believer. I still enjoy talking to some of the sisters I met there. I was pressured to court brothers I wasn’t attached to (not just looks but other aspects also). I’m 30 and single but so glad I didn’t marry a LC brother. I am educated and have a great career I support myself with. I have no regrets

[least]

Originally Posted by Cincy

I really don’t like the whole courtship thing is handled and how older brothers get involved. ....
I was pressured to court brothers I wasn’t attached to (not just looks but other aspects also). I’m 30 and single but so glad I didn’t marry a LC brother. I am educated and have a great career I support myself with. I have no regrets

Phew!
Thank the Lord Cincy overcame the stupidity of pressuring to court.
No regrets. Rejoice. You will have the husband and children you love.
Pray for yourself in the matter of marriage. Trust and obey the Lord's leading.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Cincy

Hi everyone I just joined. I had a longer introduction post but when I submitted it the site had logged me out. I live in Cincinnati and have stopped meeting with the LC here for about a year. I’m a lot happier. I use the struggle with depression when meeting. After going to a home meeting I would feel worse about myself and cry on the way home. I really don’t like the whole courtship thing is handled and how older brothers get involved. I first met in Fairborn in 2006 and was a new believer. I still enjoy talking to some of the sisters I met there. I was pressured to court brothers I wasn’t attached to (not just looks but other aspects also). I’m 30 and single but so glad I didn’t marry a LC brother. I am educated and have a great career I support myself with. I have no regrets

Hi Cincy, welcome to the forum!

I knew Fairborn elder RR many years ago, when I was young like you. It is quite good that you are still single and have stopped meeting there. Unless he has changed, the brother I knew was a master manipulator.

[Cincy]

Yeah he’s gone. Got kicked out about 4 years ago. He was only nice to me if he needed money or if a brother was interested in me. He was embezzling money and like you said manipulating believers. There were some other things he was doing too but I only heard it through gossip so not sure how true it is. I feel like he was a product or creation of LSM. Because sometimes I would hear and see similar things from the “leading” brothers from Anaheim that RR was doing.

[leastofthese]

Hi Cincy,

Where does the LSM church in Cincinnati meet?

Glad to hear you are out, I’ll try to remember and pray for you as you seek the Lord.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Cincy

Hi everyone I just joined. I had a longer introduction post but when I submitted it the site had logged me out. I live in Cincinnati and have stopped meeting with the LC here for about a year. I’m a lot happier...

Congratulations sister Cincy. I'm happy for you. I've been out longer than you've been on this earth. But am very happy I left. And hey, God didn't strike me dead ... haha. He won't you either. Blessings wherever life leads you sister.

[Sons to Glory!]

[QUOTE=Cincy;77223]

Originally Posted by Cincy

Hi everyone I just joined. I had a longer introduction post but when I submitted it the site had logged me out. I live in Cincinnati and have stopped meeting with the LC here for about a year. I’m a lot happier...

Welcome! As you may know, there is a ton of info on here. Most posters have left the LC, but there are at least a couple who have not. I've been around the LC since the 1970s off and on, and I still find many of the threads on here a bit over my head or beyond my capacity to take in (some are very, very long discussions).

Hopefully you will find some encouragement in it all, from the God of all encouragement!

You said you used to "struggle with depression when meeting" with the LC. Can you please tell us more about that?

[Truthseeker]

Amen, sister in Christ. I am also under pressure of joining full-time training with uniform and haircut l dislike and it has nothing to do with our spiritual growth in Christ. What a weird culture which is only promoted by Witness Lee.

Originally Posted by Cincy

Yeah he’s gone. Got kicked out about 4 years ago. He was only nice to me if he needed money or if a brother was interested in me. He was embezzling money and like you said manipulating believers. There were some other things he was doing too but I only heard it through gossip so not sure how true it is. I feel like he was a product or creation of LSM. Because sometimes I would hear and see similar things from the “leading” brothers from Anaheim that RR was doing.

Hi Cincy. Out of curiosity: where is the meeting place for the church in Cincinnati? And wouldn't that be a positive thing if a brother was being inappropriate but was excommunicated?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi Cincy. Out of curiosity: where is the meeting place for the church in Cincinnati? And wouldn't that be a positive thing if a brother was being inappropriate but was excommunicated?

Not at all. Absolutely not!

Thirty years ago this brother was disciplined by brothers in the Midwest LC's, but he was able to escape their discipline by claiming to be "one with WL, one with the ministry." So LSM gave him a green light to go on and hurt more people. Pretty pathetic. Nothing positive here.

Once again, the rivalries between factions in the LCM, which often were encouraged by Lee himself, led to further damage to the children of God, and more shame to His name.

It makes me sick.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Not at all. Absolutely not!

Thirty years ago this brother was disciplined by brothers in the Midwest LC's, but he was able to escape their discipline by claiming to be "one with WL, one with the ministry." So LSM gave him a green light to go on and hurt more people. Pretty pathetic. Nothing positive here.

Once again, the rivalries between factions in the LCM, which often were encouraged by Lee himself, led to further damage to the children of God, and more shame to His name.

It makes me sick.

I believe I know who you are talking about.....I recall seeing him in a meeting maybe 6-8 years ago walking around during a break greeting saints. I caught maybe a 6 second glimpse of him through the crowds walking no more than 20 feet before he stopped to greet someone, and just from his comportment that I saw in those 6 seconds I registered that there was something off about him. I did not know there were that many years of negative history behind him. Yikes.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I believe I know who you are talking about.....I recall seeing him in a meeting maybe 6-8 years ago walking around during a break greeting saints. I caught maybe a 6 second glimpse of him through the crowds walking no more than 20 feet before he stopped to greet someone, and just from his comportment that I saw in those 6 seconds I registered that there was something off about him. I did not know there were that many years of negative history behind him. Yikes.

I thought Jesus in the local church made them saints. There goes becoming God in life and nature.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by awareness

I thought Jesus in the local church made them saints. There goes becoming God in life and nature.

Isn't cross-pollination between threads against the forum by-laws?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Isn't cross-pollination between threads against the forum by-laws?

awareness is the MOTA (Moderator of the Age)

He makes up his own rules and by-laws.

[Sons to Glory!]

I was reminded by this thread that there is (I think) a LC in Cinci, where we are visiting nearby for a week. However, I was instead invited by relatives to go to their place of fellowship today (Sunday), and we took the table there - it was awesome! Another nice and refreshing experience of the one body.

Since in Scottsdale we've been going through looking at the significance of the table the last few weeks with a fresh approach, I then had a new appreciation for it while taking it with the saints in this place - He has precious family members EVERYWHERE! Truly a very good experience of the one loaf/one body! Makes me want to take the table, and experience the one loaf in more places! Hallelujah!

(BTW - the group here was a local United Methodist gathering, but nobody paid any attention to that . . .)

I thought it was a beautiful presentation and not overly formal or liturgical – just enjoyable!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I was reminded by this thread that there is (I think) a LC in Cinci, where we are visiting nearby for a week. However, I was instead invited by relatives to go to their place of fellowship today (Sunday), and we took the table there - it was awesome! Another nice and refreshing experience of the one body.

Since in Scottsdale we've been going through looking at the significance of the table the last few weeks with a fresh approach, I then had a new appreciation for it while taking it with the saints in this place - He has precious family members EVERYWHERE! Truly a very good experience of the one loaf/one body! Makes me want to take the table, and experience the one loaf in more places! Hallelujah!

(BTW - the group here was a local United Methodist gathering, but nobody paid any attention to that . . .)

I thought it was a beautiful presentation and not overly formal or liturgical – just enjoyable!

I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same.

Yep, as expected.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same ...

Evan ... why are you still living under the LAW, in the Old Covenant?

Division is not in the bread we eat, but in the heart. (Mark 7.18-23)

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same.

Is that what the Lord was thinking about them? I can just tell you there was a celebration going on in me brother !

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is that what the Lord was thinking about them? I can just tell you there was a celebration going on in me brother !

Do you not see the irony when you said "a very good experience of the one loaf/one body" yet I can count 9 different loaves of bread on the table and not all the same type either. So if someone partakes of the flat loaf on the far left, and someone else partakes of the leavened bread on the right, is this not eating from many loaves?

Christ is the unleavened bread of God, the manna, come down to earth from heaven. Unleavened bread signifies the sinless Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan ... why are you still living under the LAW, in the Old Covenant?

Division is not in the bread we eat, but in the heart. (Mark 7.18-23)

The use of an unleavened one loaf of bread in the Lords table is very much New Testament.

The presentation could be a stumbling block for some believers who find themselves having to choose between 9 different loaves of bread , some leavened and some flat. It's a good picture of denominationalism actually, with different loaves and types of loaves, however I have never seen communion bread displayed like that in any denomination I have attended, it is almost uniformly flat and broken from one piece.

But this is really not a serious matter, it is hardly worth mentioning.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The use of an unleavened one loaf of bread in the Lords table is very much New Testament.

The presentation could be a stumbling block for some believers who find themselves having to choose between 9 different loaves of bread , some leavened and some flat. It's a good picture of denominationalism actually, with different loaves and types of loaves, however I have never seen communion bread displayed like that in any denomination I have attended, it is almost uniformly flat and broken from one piece.

But this is really not a serious matter, it is hardly worth mentioning.

And where are these regulatory ordinances for unleavened, flat bread when the children of God remember the Lord?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The use of an unleavened one loaf of bread in the Lords table is very much New Testament.

The presentation could be a stumbling block for some believers who find themselves having to choose between 9 different loaves of bread , some leavened and some flat. It's a good picture of denominationalism actually, with different loaves and types of loaves, however I have never seen communion bread displayed like that in any denomination I have attended, it is almost uniformly flat and broken from one piece.

But this is really not a serious matter, it is hardly worth mentioning.

Don't feel too bad StG - As group of believers, from different denominations, we met last week and broke bread Brethren style. We used leavened bread and gluten free crackers because Jesse is celiac and a couple others are gluten intolerant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Don't feel too bad StG - As group of believers, from different denominations, we met last week and broke bread Brethren style. We used leavened bread and gluten free crackers because Jesse is celiac and a couple others are gluten intolerant.

Was there any "stumbling blocks" for the children of God as Evan has warned us?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Was there any "stumbling blocks" for the children of God as Evan has warned us?

I would hope we would try to avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law. Don’t we know they are unprofitable and worthless?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And where are these regulatory ordinances for unleavened, flat bread when the children of God remember the Lord?

It sounds like you've never heard of Passover.

It is all contained in the words "do this in remembrance of Me".

Christ used unleavened bread - please show me from Scripture where he said we could do otherwise.

[Ohio]

Sure I have heard of the Passover -- "Christ our Passover who was sacrificed for us." (I Cor 5.7)

Here is an historical fact little known inside the LC movement: For their Lord's Table bread they demand white flour, yet this type of flour was not invented until the late 19th century. Thus, for 1900 years, according to their regulations, all communion services throughout the world supposedly were illegitimate because they used whole wheat flour. Thank God we finally got it right! Shame on those cultures that broke bread with corn flour!

Getting back to the Apostles fellowship, I Cor 5.8 goes on to say, "Let us keep the feast, not with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

Once again we notice that LC theology totally misses the mark. By focusing on the physical bread, they miss the spiritual reality. Didn't Jesus tell us that, "the Father seeks those who worship in spirit and reality." (John 4.23-24) Our New Covenant remembrance of the Lord has little to do with leaven in the bread, and everything to do with putting "malice and evil" out of our hearts. Thus, as happened all over the Midwest LC's, operatives from LSM introduced "malice and evil" into every Lord's Table gathering, dividing these churches asunder, yet sat there with their special "bread" all happy and proud singing W. Lee's songs.

Quite a real life picture of modern day Pharisees.

[Evangelical]

Corn bread? Unlikely - Jews prohibit the consumption of corn, rice etc during Passover. Approved grains are wheat, rye and some others (I forget).

So you know about the Passover, you know that Christ is our unleavened bread.

So why use leavened bread when unleavened is available? Leavened bread is not a symbol of Christ, it's a symbol of a dinner roll or a bowl of soup. To be honest when I see the leavened bread on the table I'm thinking about pumpkin soup, not Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Corn bread? Unlikely - Jews prohibit the consumption of corn, rice etc during Passover. Approved grains are wheat, rye and some others (I forget).

Evan, you got things mixed up here. I am not talking about Jewish Seder celebrations, I am talking about the church, breaking bread to remember the Lord. Where is the New Testament command "Thou shalt get your bread right."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So you know about the Passover, you know that Christ is our unleavened bread.

So why use leavened bread when unleavened is available? Leavened bread is not a symbol of Christ, it's a symbol of a dinner roll or a bowl of soup. To be honest when I see the leavened bread on the table I'm thinking about pumpkin soup, not Christ.

Is Christ our unleavened bread?

Have you not read the scriptures?

I Cor 5.7 says that we are unleavened. We are unleavened because Christ our Passover has died for us. I Cor 5.8 speaks of the "leaven of malice and evil." Paul here is referring to the hearts of those in Corinth. We must "purge out this old leaven of malice and evil" from our hearts so that we can "keep the feast with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

When you see the bread on the Table, you should be examining your own heart and thinking about the other members of the body of Christ you are with. We are the one loaf, many members but one body.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To be honest when I see the leavened bread on the table I'm thinking about pumpkin soup, not Christ.

A little Witness Lee + unleavened bread = Christ

Witness Lee + leavened bread = ?

No Witness Lee + unleavened bread = poor poor Christianity

No Witness Lee + leavened bread = outer darkness

Am I getting my math right? I think I missed #2.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

A little Witness Lee + unleavened bread = Christ

Witness Lee + leavened bread = ?

No Witness Lee + unleavened bread = poor poor Christianity

No Witness Lee + leavened bread = outer darkness

Am I getting my math right? I think I missed #2.

What a mocking and derisive attitude.

Can’t have a discussion about the type of bread to be used without launching into an attack on a brother?

Consider your post next time you break bread.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

What a mocking and derisive attitude.

Can’t have a discussion about the type of bread to be used without launching into an attack on a brother?

Consider your post next time you break bread.

Drake

Drake, Drake, Drake sounds like you got a chicken bone stuck in your throat.

Don't you remember lecturing us the other day how WL's constant condemnations on "poor, poor, Christianity" are just "chicken bones" not to be eaten?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

Consider your post next time you break bread.

Well, he'll have to consider without Local Churchers breaking bread with him...Followers of Witness Lee are taught to refuse to break bread with any other Christians. Why? Because their sinful? Because they are teaching heretical things? NO. Local Churchers refuse because one must be under the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, and at a meeting hall of the Local Church before any other Christians are allowed the privilege of breaking bread with them.

Of course we can't really blame them for this absurd and divisive attitude. After all, who wants to share the table with those little daughters of the Great Whore? Who wants to have intimate fellowship with Christians who are not in the process of sanctification?
-

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Well, he'll have to consider without Local Churchers breaking bread with him...Followers of Witness Lee are taught to refuse to break bread with any other Christians. Why? Because their sinful? Because they are teaching heretical things? NO. Local Churchers refuse because one must be under the teachings and practices established by Witness Lee, and at a meeting hall of the Local Church before any other Christians are allowed the privilege of breaking bread with them.

Of course we can't really blame them for this absurd and divisive attitude. After all, who wants to share the table with those little daughters of the Great Whore? Who wants to have intimate fellowship with Christians who are not in the process of sanctification?
-

Well dang, I was making a joke - I thought it was pretty funny. Guess not - sorry everyone! Sometimes you have to laugh at the absurdity of the whole thing...

[Evangelical]

As people may or may not be aware, there is no rule that says we must use unleavened bread or leavened bread in the Lord's Table. It does not matter what type of bread is eaten.

However I disagreed that the table as pictured represents the one loaf and Christ who is our unleavened bread - unleavened bread is a better symbol than a leavened one, and a single loaf on the table is a better symbol of the one Body than many loaves.

I am talking about the symbolism of what it represents, not the correctness of the type of bread eaten.

I did not raise the matter of the Law or state that we must use unleavened bread in the Lord's Table. Others misinterpreted what I was talking about symbolism and made this a matter of good versus evil, laws and regulations. In other words, they were swinging from the branches of the tree of knowledge while I was eating from the tree of life.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

As people may or may not be aware, there is no rule that says we must use unleavened bread or leavened bread in the Lord's Table. It does not matter what type of bread is eaten.

However I disagreed that the table as pictured represents the one loaf and Christ who is our unleavened bread - unleavened bread is a better symbol than a leavened one, and a single loaf on the table is a better symbol of the one Body than many loaves.

I am talking about the symbolism of what it represents, not the correctness of the type of bread eaten.

I did not raise the matter of the Law or state that we must use unleavened bread in the Lord's Table. Others misinterpreted what I was talking about symbolism and made this a matter of good versus evil. In other words, they were swinging from the branches of the tree of knowledge while I was eating from the tree of life.

If you were really eating from the tree of life, you would not be using every little, meany item to condemn the rest of the body of Christ -- as you regularly do. How did you become such a "communion cop," where only you know who is eating from the tree of life?

But thanks for finally admitting to the truths I was relating from scripture -- and somewhat refreshing I should add.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you were really eating from the tree of life, you would not be using every little, meany item to condemn the rest of the body of Christ -- as you regularly do. How did you become such a "communion cop," where only you know who is eating from the tree of life?

But thanks for finally admitting to the truths I was relating from scripture -- and somewhat refreshing I should add.

You were talking about something different -whether or not we should use leavened or unleavened bread.

You raised the matter of "regulatory ordinances", not I, because you eat from the tree of knowledge.

That is, the first thing that came to your mind was about the Law and regulations and you turned the discussion around to this matter. You were thinking about the Law, not Christ.

I on the other hand was thinking about how the symbol as pictured did not really represent Christ because leaven represents sin and Christ was unleavened. I read StG's words about the one loaf. I saw that the table does not really show this.

You will be unable to quote one word from me where I condemned the Body of Christ for using leavened bread, and why would I? - using the correct type of bread in communion does not turn a sect/denomination into a local church and so why would I care about what type of bread is used in them?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You were talking about something different -whether or not we should use leavened or unleavened bread.

You raised the matter of "regulatory ordinances", not I, because you eat from the tree of knowledge.

That is, the first thing that came to your mind was about the Law and regulations and you turned the discussion around to this matter. You were thinking about the Law, not Christ.

I on the other hand was thinking about how the symbol as pictured did not really represent Christ because leaven represents sin and Christ was unleavened. I read StG's words about the one loaf. I saw that the table does not really show this.

You will be unable to quote one word from me where I condemned the Body of Christ for using leavened bread, and why would I? - using the correct type of bread in communion does not turn a sect/denomination into a local church and so why would I care about what type of bread is used in them?

Evan, but you condemned the picture of the Lord's Table bread by SonsToGlory in post #16 saying "some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same" thus condemning the body of Christ for using leavened bread.

Thus it was you you raised the matter of "regulatory ordinances", proving, according to your assessment, that you eat from the tree of knowledge.

Read your posts again, bro. You condemn me for what you actually did. Shame on you. (Rom 2.1)

I simply pointed you to the scriptures which unveil the truths. I do understand though, having listened to Lee for years, that the scriptures frighten you, and it is far safer for you to stick to Lee's teachings, your HWFMR, and Life-Studies.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan, but you condemned the picture of the Lord's Table bread by SonsToGlory in post #16 saying "some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same" thus condemning the body of Christ for using leavened bread.

Thus it was you you raised the matter of "regulatory ordinances", proving, according to your assessment, that you eat from the tree of knowledge.

Read your posts again, bro. You condemn me for what you actually did. Shame on you. (Rom 2.1)

I simply pointed you to the scriptures which unveil the truths. I do understand though, having listened to Lee for years, that the scriptures frighten you, and it is far safer for you to stick to Lee's teachings, your HWFMR, and Life-Studies.

There's a big difference between condemning a denomination for using leavened bread, and pointing out a deficiency in a symbol.

If you review the history of this thread, the first and only person in this thread who raised the matter of regulatory ordinances concerning the Lord's Table was yourself in post #20. You changed the topic from the accuracy of a symbol to one of a regulatory/legal matter.

Rather, I pointed out deficiencies in the symbol, similar to if a person pointed out a missing star on the American flag.

I also highlighted that Catholics and Lutherans use the correct symbols - this was something positive I had to say about these denominations.

Thus, my post was not a condemnation of the Body of Christ for using leavened bread, and, why would I criticize denominational tables for the type of bread they use when it is well known that local church members believe all denominational tables to be invalid, regardless of the type of bread used.

And why would you continue to insist that I condemned the Body of Christ regarding regulatory ordinances when you have discovered that we agree that the type of bread used does not matter? You said that I was "finally admitting to the truths I was relating from scripture".

Actually I did not admit to anything, I have always known that it does not matter what kind of bread is used in the Lord's Table, and was clarifying that. However, I disagreed with the statement that it symbolized the one Body.

From your point of view it seemed as though I was admitting to the scriptural truths you presented, but from my point of view you were talking to a different topic altogether, and when I wrote "there is no rule", this was me showing you that I am not talking about the same thing that you are.

The only circumstance in which I would have raised the matter of ordinances is if StG posted a picture of a roasted pig on the table and declared it to be the Lord's Body. Then I might have said something about using bread in communion and not meat, recognizing that the use of bread over meat would not have validated the table if the table represents division.

There is no rule about the type of bread used in communion or even adding some side salad to accompany it, but if someone pointed to the bread and said it represented the body of Elvis or posted a piece of chicken and said it represented the body of Christ well that is something I would disagree about the symbols.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

Well dang, I was making a joke - I thought it was pretty funny. Guess not - sorry everyone! Sometimes you have to laugh at the absurdity of the whole thing...

I laughed. Out loud.

[byHismercy]

, why would I criticize denominational tables for the type of bread they use when it is well known that local church members believe all denominational tables to be invalid, regardless of the type of bread used.

[/QUOTE]

Evan, can you expound, using scripture, can you show why your statement is true regarding all 'denominational' tables are invalid...why is other christians' symbolic rememberance of Jesus work on the cross invalid? Can you help me understand? Did the Lord shine on this matter in your heart? I am missing it...that is, I can't see it. If you could lead me to scripture, maybe, but please, show us!

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

, why would I criticize denominational tables for the type of bread they use when it is well known that local church members believe all denominational tables to be invalid, regardless of the type of bread used.

Evan, can you expound, using scripture, can you show why your statement is true regarding all 'denominational' tables are invalid...why is other christians' symbolic rememberance of Jesus work on the cross invalid? Can you help me understand? Did the Lord shine on this matter in your heart? I am missing it...that is, I can't see it. If you could lead me to scripture, maybe, but please, show us!

Could we also take a step back and confirm that is that is what the local church members believe? Does Evan have a false premise on this one?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same.

Yes, please explain to all of us how the Table in STG's post is a "SYMBOL OF DIVISION?"

[Sons to Glory!]

Hello brothers and greetings from Cape Cod where my wife and I are celebrating our 20th wedding anniversary! I have been able to follow this along with some interest of course. Let me share a little of my experience these past few years as we've traveled around, which I have also spoken about in other threads.

I too would look critically at what other groups were doing when I would join them, usually for Sunday worship. This is as we have traveled around the country and I desired Fellowship wherever we were at the time.

I started out with a critical spirit as I saw many different Little Things that were done not as I thought they should be. The anointing began to show me that when I held these thoughts the Fellowship pretty much went in the toilet. So slowly I was taught to put this kind of thinking aside in order to maintain the fellowship in Oneness.

It still is an exercise but a commendable one I think, as I have now been able to enjoy some amazing and wonderful Experiences of Fellowship in the one spirit in many places!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, please explain to all of us how the Table in STG's post is a "SYMBOL OF DIVISION?"

Concerning the symbol itself, two reasons really:

1) Different types of bread
2) Multiple whole loaves

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evan, can you expound, using scripture, can you show why your statement is true regarding all 'denominational' tables are invalid...why is other christians' symbolic rememberance of Jesus work on the cross invalid? Can you help me understand? Did the Lord shine on this matter in your heart? I am missing it...that is, I can't see it. If you could lead me to scripture, maybe, but please, show us!

It is more common sense than scripture although we cannot find a denominational communion anywhere in the bible.

Notice how denominational people refer to these tables as the "Catholic mass" and the "the Baptist communion" and "the Lutheran communion".... they are talking about a communion in a particular division of Christianity. It does not represent what Christ died for - Catholicism, Baptist, Lutheranism etc.

A table which represents a particular denomination e.g. Catholic, baptist etc, is therefore not a table which represents the whole body of Christ. A Catholic does not participate of a baptist communion and a baptist does not participate in Catholic. So... to say these tables are all valid is to say that it is okay to consider the Body and Blood of Christ as belonging to the Catholics or Baptists only. The first Lord's Table was a simple gathering to remember Christ without any reference to denominations. Subsequent tables by early Christians were also simple gatherings. The notion of Catholic mass versus Lutheran communion did not occur until the reformation and denominations came into existence.

[Ohio]

Your Table Meeting is not this simple Table as you assert to remember Christ. Yours is the Table of Lee. The Midwest churches found this out when they were expelled for not being "Lee" enough.

[A little brother]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Concerning the symbol itself, two reasons really:

1) Different types of bread
2) Multiple whole loaves

What is your view on this single loaf of unleavened bread?



To me, it is more like a mustard seed growing into an abnormal tree.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by A little brother

What is your view on this single loaf of unleavened bread?

Attachment 214

To me, it is more like a mustard seed growing into an abnormal tree.

It's a better symbol, surely.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your Table Meeting is not this simple Table as you assert to remember Christ. Yours is the Table of Lee. The Midwest churches found this out when they were expelled for not being "Lee" enough.

We don't remember Lee at the table.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is more common sense than scripture although we cannot find a denominational communion anywhere in the bible.

Notice how denominational people refer to these tables as the "Catholic mass" and the "the Baptist communion" and "the Lutheran communion".... they are talking about a communion in a particular division of Christianity. It does not represent what Christ died for - Catholicism, Baptist, Lutheranism etc.

A table which represents a particular denomination e.g. Catholic, baptist etc, is therefore not a table which represents the whole body of Christ. A Catholic does not participate of a baptist communion and a baptist does not participate in Catholic. So... to say these tables are all valid is to say that it is okay to consider the Body and Blood of Christ as belonging to the Catholics or Baptists only. The first Lord's Table was a simple gathering to remember Christ without any reference to denominations. Subsequent tables by early Christians were also simple gatherings. The notion of Catholic mass versus Lutheran communion did not occur until the reformation and denominations came into existence.

Member Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire? That's me, except my line is ''SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE'' at the top of my lungs, and I am not being coerced to shout it out. I am jumping up and down, screaming this....not just to this concept (or hook) that Lee cast and you swallowed, but all of them. And not just garbage from Lee, but any doctrine that comes from human wisdom, standing independently from Gods' word. Show me the scripture. You cannot find it because He didn't care to teach us this, because it is a fallacy. You are in prison, brother. But the good news is, the bars are imaginary. In reality, Christ died that you might be free. And we are all set free, those of us trusting in Jesus finished work on the cross. He came, He fulfilled the requirements of the law, the old covenant, He satisfied it! What's amazing is that, now you are inventing new 'old laws' we all must obey, or be what....found lacking? Found wanting before the Lord? It is too late for that. Christ is the Fathers satisfaction, brother. He is all we need to look at when we meet. Forget the concept of denominations, brother. Look away from the ''names''....just look at Jesus' name. God bless you, E

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Member Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire? That's me, except my line is ''SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE'' at the top of my lungs, and I am not being coerced to shout it out. I am jumping up and down, screaming this....not just to this concept (or hook) that Lee cast and you swallowed, but all of them. And not just garbage from Lee, but any doctrine that comes from human wisdom, standing independently from Gods' word. Show me the scripture. You cannot find it because He didn't care to teach us this, because it is a fallacy. You are in prison, brother. But the good news is, the bars are imaginary. In reality, Christ died that you might be free. And we are all set free, those of us trusting in Jesus finished work on the cross. He came, He fulfilled the requirements of the law, the old covenant, He satisfied it! What's amazing is that, now you are inventing new 'old laws' we all must obey, or be what....found lacking? Found wanting before the Lord? It is too late for that. Christ is the Fathers satisfaction, brother. He is all we need to look at when we meet. Forget the concept of denominations, brother. Look away from the ''names''....just look at Jesus' name. God bless you, E

I consider the doctrine that any denominational Lord's table is a valid gathering to be "unbiblical human wisdom" for the following reasons:

a) no denominational Lord's Tables mentioned in the bible. Their absence points to their invalidity.
b) the symbolism of the table ,bread and wine as One Body, precludes the existence of divisions aka a Lutheran table over there and a Baptist table over here.

The Jewish Passover, which is what the Lord's Table mirrors, essentially, symbolized the unity of the nation of Israel under God. In Judaism the Passover is the time when everyone forgets their differences and comes together. I do not see this reflected in denominational gatherings, every Sunday in a religion which supposedly is united "in spirit" despite choosing to meet separately in practice.

Finally, it is well known that denominations themselves invalidate each other's Lord's Tables. Protestant tables are deemed invalid to the Catholic, and vice versa in many cases. So, to say that all denominational table are invalid is really no different to the denominational attitudes already existing in Christianity.

But if we think this is all pleasing to the Lord to have different tables under different names, then by all means, support it, declare them all valid and acceptable to the Lord. And don't forget to include the Tables of the LGBT churches as well. We have to draw the line somewhere about what is valid and what is invalid. In today's day and age, it is becoming all too common to be served communion by a female priest with rainbow hair and a Buddhist tattoo, or in Beyonce worship or otherwise, as Drake pointed out a while ago. In what should be a blatantly obvious matter, that the table is not Christ's table, I cannot see that any amount of scripture could justify participating in such a thing.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I consider the doctrine that any denominational Lord's table is a valid gathering to be "unbiblical human wisdom" for the following reasons:

a) no denominational Lord's Tables mentioned in the bible. Their absence points to their invalidity.
b) the symbolism of the table ,bread and wine as One Body, precludes the existence of divisions aka a Lutheran table over there and a Baptist table over here.

The Jewish Passover, which is what the Lord's Table mirrors, essentially, symbolized the unity of the nation of Israel under God. In Judaism the Passover is the time when everyone forgets their differences and comes together. I do not see this reflected in denominational gatherings, every Sunday in a religion which supposedly is united "in spirit" despite choosing to meet separately in practice.

Finally, it is well known that denominations themselves invalidate each other's Lord's Tables. Protestant tables are deemed invalid to the Catholic, and vice versa in many cases. So, to say that all denominational table are invalid is really no different to the denominational attitudes already existing in Christianity.

But if we think this is all pleasing to the Lord to have different tables under different names, then by all means, support it, declare them all valid and acceptable to the Lord. And don't forget to include the Tables of the LGBT churches as well. We have to draw the line somewhere about what is valid and what is invalid. In today's day and age, it is becoming all too common to be served communion by a female priest with rainbow hair and a Buddhist tattoo, or in Beyonce worship or otherwise, as Drake pointed out a while ago. In what should be a blatantly obvious matter, that the table is not Christ's table, I cannot see that any amount of scripture could justify participating in such a thing.

Evan, your straw man argument is what is truly invalid. I am not speaking for any of these things you mention. Thank you for aquainting me with this form of deception, but I'll pass on participating in it with you. I know you have stated that this is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate form of argument....but kindly refrain for the sake of pursuing peace and holiness with the members of the body, which is of Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your Table Meeting is not this simple Table as you assert to remember Christ. Yours is the Table of Lee. The Midwest churches found this out when they were expelled for not being "Lee" enough.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We don't remember Lee at the table.

Neither were you in the Midwest to *remember* the carnage of LSM's fleshly divisions.

You sit there on your keyboard literally on the other side of the world with your sanitized revisionist views of recent LC history, where the whole world is wrong, and only your Lee is right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evan, your straw man argument is what is truly invalid. I am not speaking for any of these things you mention. Thank you for aquainting me with this form of deception, but I'll pass on participating in it with you. I know you have stated that this is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate form of argument....but kindly refrain for the sake of pursuing peace and holiness with the members of the body, which is of Christ.

The straw man was really when the topic of law and regulation was introduced which Ohio started and missed the topic about symbolism. I was talking about symbolism, Ohio introduced the topic of law/regulation, accused me of being a Pharisee, and then claimed that I "admitted scriptural truths". This whole line of argument from Ohio is a straw-man by definition.

I have not condemned anyone for their opinion, I have not condemned any denomination, there is no sentence I have written that anyone can quote to support such allegations. I have not even condemned StG's church for using wrong symbols and made no reference to any law or regulation that I know of regarding what symbols should be used.

To be clear, to take a legal approach would be to say "the scripture says we must use unleavened bread", when there is no such rule to my knowledge. This is the line of approach Ohio took, and misunderstood me. Rather, I am saying that "unleavened bread better represents Christ rather than leavened bread".

There is no scripture as you said, so it is really a matter of conscience and spiritual discernment. I believe it is acceptable to have differences of opinion on this matter. However, such symbols used might offend my or someone else's conscience, and the scripture says something about that.

Romans 14:15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Neither were you in the Midwest to *remember* the carnage of LSM's fleshly divisions.

You sit there on your keyboard literally on the other side of the world with your sanitized revisionist views of recent LC history, where the whole world is wrong, and only your Lee is right.

You are stuck in the past, literally, circa 1985 or whenever you were last in the recovery. Only one of us has an up to date view of the recovery, and you are fooling yourself if you think it is you. Every church, movement or whatever will go through changes and transitions. For example, any denomination I was part of 20 years ago have changed considerably since that time. I expect no different with the recovery. So, if Lee was remembered at the Lord's table many years ago, it does not matter, because Lee is not remembered at the table today.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are stuck in the past, literally, circa 1985 or whenever you were last in the recovery. Only one of us has an up to date view of the recovery, and you are fooling yourself if you think it is you. Every church, movement or whatever will go through changes and transitions. For example, any denomination I was part of 20 years ago have changed considerably since that time. I expect no different with the recovery. So, if Lee was remembered at the Lord's table many years ago, it does not matter, because Lee is not remembered at the table today.

It is you who has an out-of-date view of the Recovery. LSM came to divide and destroy the Midwest LC's 10 years ago. You remind me of those who say the Holocaust never happened.

Besides ... you live in Australia, and you never lived in the US. How do you expect any reader to believe your revisionist history? LC "historians" are the most biased on the planet.

[Sons to Glory!]

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father... that He would grant you... be full of strength to apprehend with all the saints... to know the knowledge surpassing love of Christ, that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The straw man was really when the topic of law and regulation was introduced which Ohio started and missed the topic about symbolism. I was talking about symbolism, Ohio introduced the topic of law/regulation, accused me of being a Pharisee, and then claimed that I "admitted scriptural truths". This whole line of argument from Ohio is a straw-man by definition.

I have not condemned anyone for their opinion, I have not condemned any denomination, there is no sentence I have written that anyone can quote to support such allegations. I have not even condemned StG's church for using wrong symbols and made no reference to any law or regulation that I know of regarding what symbols should be used.

Ohio only exposed LSM hypocrisy as evidenced by your posts condemning all of Christianity for doing their Table Bread wrong. I only pointed out the extreme legalism by which you judge the body of Christ for laws and regulations surrounding the breaking of bread while remembering the Lord.

Read the posts on this thread. You said "leavened" bread was indicative of "divided" Christianity when it is only you who condemns other churches for doing their Table Bread "wrong." Then I went to the Scripture to point out how LEAVEN in the bread pointed to malice and evil in the hearts of the participants towards other members of the body of Christ. This was evident in Corinth and more than evident in those LSMers who divided all the Ohio churches.

Go back to Post #16. Apparently you are just numb as to your own judgments of other Christian churches. I am just pointing it out, and taking the time to steer you to the truth. Obviously you don't read what I write, so I write for others. Did you not say, "Some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened, so this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same?" How in the world can physical leaven be a symbol of division?

These symbols on the Table are just that. We should never use them to condemn others, as LSM is want to do. The remembrance of the Lord is everything, the style of bread insignificant, the actual contents of the cup inconsequential. LSM pays great attention to these symbols, yet neglects weightier matters like examining our hearts, brotherly love, and true oneness.

For a ministry like LSM, which devotes so much attention to the detailed significance of typology, they sure missed the boat with the Lord's Table. These are just symbols. The Bible has no commands regarding them. The only command is to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." There are no two churches in history which did this identically. If the Lord or the Apostles had demanded an exact prescription for these symbols, they would have provided us with detailed specifications.

Witness Lee himself, when questioned on this topic, said specifically, "the better the picture, the better the reality." I could not disagree more! The age of "pictures" is over. Types, figures, shadows, symbols, etc. are all characteristic of the Old Covenant. Christ has come! He is the fulfillment of all these pictures. Today we need only Him. Today we worship in spirit and reality.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is you who has an out-of-date view of the Recovery. LSM came to divide and destroy the Midwest LC's 10 years ago. You remind me of those who say the Holocaust never happened.

Besides ... you live in Australia, and you never lived in the US. How do you expect any reader to believe your revisionist history? LC "historians" are the most biased on the planet.

Comparing the recovery to the Holocaust is only proof that you are a deluded sad man living in the past. You cannot possibly know the recovery today from "behind your keyboard" when you have never set foot in one for a decade.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Comparing the recovery to the Holocaust is only proof that you are a deluded sad man living in the past.

The comparison was to you and those who are holocaust deniers. Not comparing Witness Lee’s movement to the holocaust. But you knew that...

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ohio only exposed LSM hypocrisy as evidenced by your posts condemning all of Christianity for doing their Table Bread wrong. I only pointed out the extreme legalism by which you judge the body of Christ for laws and regulations surrounding the breaking of bread while remembering the Lord.

Read the posts on this thread. You said "leavened" bread was indicative of "divided" Christianity when it is only you who condemns other churches for doing their Table Bread "wrong." Then I went to the Scripture to point out how LEAVEN in the bread pointed to malice and evil in the hearts of the participants towards other members of the body of Christ. This was evident in Corinth and more than evident in those LSMers who divided all the Ohio churches.

Go back to Post #16. Apparently you are just numb as to your own judgments of other Christian churches. I am just pointing it out, and taking the time to steer you to the truth. Obviously you don't read what I write, so I write for others. Did you not say, "Some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened, so this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same?" How in the world can physical leaven be a symbol of division?

These symbols on the Table are just that. We should never use them to condemn others, as LSM is want to do. The remembrance of the Lord is everything, the style of bread insignificant, the actual contents of the cup inconsequential. LSM pays great attention to these symbols, yet neglects weightier matters like examining our hearts, brotherly love, and true oneness.

For a ministry like LSM, which devotes so much attention to the detailed significance of typology, they sure missed the boat with the Lord's Table. These are just symbols. The Bible has no commands regarding them. The only command is to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." There are no two churches in history which did this identically. If the Lord or the Apostles had demanded an exact prescription for these symbols, they would have provided us with detailed specifications.

Witness Lee himself, when questioned on this topic, said specifically, "the better the picture, the better the reality." I could not disagree more! The age of "pictures" is over. Types, figures, shadows, symbols, etc. are all characteristic of the Old Covenant. Christ has come! He is the fulfillment of all these pictures. Today we need only Him. Today we worship in spirit and reality.

The facts speak for themselves really. Post #22 is the first post in this thread that raised the matter of regulations and ordinances and that post was from yourself, when I never raised the matter or stated that there was any scripture that says we must do this or do that. This is only a sign of your legalistic mind and eating from the tree of knowledge.

You are only embarrassing yourself further to continue your line of argument that I condemned the whole body of Christ and raised the matter of regulations, when you have already acknowledged that we agree on the matter of regulations and ordinances (that there is none to speak of).

On the matter of symbols - it is a bit hard to remember Christ if the symbols do not represent him. Imagine remembering a person at a funeral with a picture of another person than the one who died, or remembering a country by using the wrong flag - it simply does not happen. Yet it seems that people are comfortable with symbols that do not represent Christ as well as they could.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by leastofthese

The comparison was to you and those who are holocaust deniers. Not comparing Witness Lee’s movement to the holocaust. But you knew that...

He made remarks about LC historians and revisionism. He is declaring LC historians to be like holocaust deniers.

Everyone can see how deluded this fellow is. He thinks the recovery was or is as bad as the holocaust. It would be considered an insult to holocaust survivors to make such a comparison.

[leastofthese]

So he isn’t comparing the recovery to the holocaust? Is that what you’re saying?

Holocaust survivors should be upset that Ohio makes a comparison between Holocaust deniers and LC historians?

[Evangelical]

I think a holocaust survivor would be upset with drawing such a comparison between their experience and Ohio's experience. I understand the point made about revisionism but I would not invoke the Holocaust to make that point.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think a holocaust survivor would be upset with drawing such a comparison between their experience and Ohio's experience. I understand the point made about revisionism but I would not invoke the Holocaust to make that point.

Unbelievable.

Now the Holocaust is the comparison?

That is reallly pathetic... but it is the pattern now in this forum. Pick the worst things in humanity like sexual abuse and the Holocaust and leverage the emotion of them to bolster a weak or nonexistent argument.

Who thinks like that?

[Ohio]

The same people who accuse and slander men of God of being conspiratorial lepers simply for attempting to protect innocent sisters from sexual abusers like LSM's Manager Philip Lee.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Who thinks like that?

A person with a base mind thinks like that. Someone who needs to repent for insulting the Lord's Table by saying we remember Lee at the table and is the Table of Lee.

[Evangelical]

Letusreason ministries agrees with my view that unleavened bread best shows Christ:

http://www.letusreason.org/biblexp184.htm

When something is used consistently and almost unanimously in Scripture the same way we must conclude , unless there is some obvious deviation of its consistent use that it is the same. This is true for symbols, which leaven is. In the Old Testament leaven is consistently used to represent sin, what is false and evil…In the New Testament, leaven was used to represent Pharisees false teaching, of the unbelief of the Sadducees by Christ (Mt 16:6-12; Mk 8:14-21).

We proclaim Christ was sinless by the elements we take that represent Him. Paul describes the unleavened bread as fulfilled in Christ 1 Cor. 5:7-8. The fact that Jesus held up matzah (unleavened bread) at the last Passover supper, saying “take and eat this is my body,” this bread was required to have no leaven in it, explaining he was without sin. The wafer was made with no leaven in it, because leaven is a symbol of sin.


If we are to take Jesus's words literally then to "take and eat this is my body" refers to unleavened bread. The disciples knew what this unleavened bread symbol meant - His body was sinless. Unfortunately, some people on this forum do not know what it means. Christ chose the type of bread to represent His body for a reason.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person with a base mind thinks like that. Someone who needs to repent for insulting the Lord's Table by saying we remember Lee at the table and is the Table of Lee.

Wow.

Insulting the Lords table in that manner.... would be blasphemy.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A person with a base mind thinks like that. Someone who needs to repent for insulting the Lord's Table by saying we remember Lee at the table and is the Table of Lee.

Have you not read about what LSMers did in the Midwest local churches because their beloved Lee was not used in the Lord's Table meetings?

As a result, operatives from LSM moved in to file lawsuits against these churches, evicting the saints, and stealing their meeting hall.

The Blendeds at LSM also used one of their ITERO gatherings, supposedly a "feast," to hold a mock Kangaroo Court of regional minister Titus Chu.

Pretty shameful, not to mention heretical, divisions of the body of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you not read about what LSMers did in the Midwest local churches because their beloved Lee was not used in the Lord's Table meetings?

Pretty terrible.
I would hope it does not happen very often.

[Sons to Glory!]

Perhaps this is just one of those things that we should put into the "don't stumble your brother" category. In other words if Evangelical is stumbled by going to places he sees as divisive maybe we should just honor that. And inversely, Evengelical, perhaps you should just honor that we feel we have the freedom of the Lord to meet with others in Oneness and leave it at that...

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Unbelievable.

Now the Holocaust is the comparison?

That is reallly pathetic... but it is the pattern now in this forum. Pick the worst things in humanity like sexual abuse and the Holocaust and leverage the emotion of them to bolster a weak or nonexistent argument.

Who thinks like that?

I think through basic logic and human intelligence anyone can see that Ohio is not comparing the recovery to the Holocaust. Come on people.

He is comparing people who say that serious things that happened in the Recovery didn't happen or "do not matter" to people who say that the Holocaust never happened. Both are serious events (yes, of course on vastly different scales), both HAPPENED, both MATTER particularly to the people involved, and the comparison is that both have people who deny its existence or importance.

As usual, we have to resort to "shocking" comparisons just to try to get the freaking point across.

The comparison Ohio drew is simply of people who deny that the undeniable happened or deny that they matter. There is no disrespect to Holocaust perishers or survivors in the comparison. They were not even invoked. Sheesh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think through basic logic and human intelligence anyone can see that Ohio is not comparing the recovery to the Holocaust. Come on people.

He is comparing people who say that serious things that happened in the Recovery didn't happen or "do not matter" to people who say that the Holocaust never happened. Both are serious events (yes, of course on vastly different scales), both HAPPENED, both MATTER particularly to the people involved, and the comparison is that both have people who deny its existence or importance.

As usual, we have to resort to "shocking" comparisons just to try to get the freaking point across.

The comparison Ohio drew is simply of people who deny that the undeniable happened or deny that they matter. There is no disrespect to Holocaust perishers or survivors in the comparison. They were not even invoked. Sheesh.

Thanks Trapped.

Make no mistake, they understood what I was saying, but they are trying to score points against me.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Thanks Trapped.

Make no mistake, they understood what I was saying, but they are trying to score points against me.

Or maybe we were astonished that you would draw comparisons with the Holocaust, and raise the matter of sexual abuse, both of which have nothing to do with the topic.

But since this has become a mini-topic, I will take advantage, and consider, that instead of a lump of leavened bread on the table which *can* represent a body of sin, there was a Nazi symbol on the bread - would we take issue with that? Or we shouldn't, because we have already declared that remembrance of the Lord is everything, and the symbols don't matter so much.

Probably, if Christ had not used "matzah" at the Last Supper, the disciples would have been shocked, even stumbled, as much as any Jew today might be stumbled to see a swastika symbol on their passover bread. Therefore, symbols can matter, and most major denominations take this thing more seriously than the recovery ever has, does or will, and have made it a church regulation.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I think through basic logic and human intelligence anyone can see that Ohio is not comparing the recovery to the Holocaust. Come on people.

He is comparing people who say that serious things that happened in the Recovery didn't happen or "do not matter" to people who say that the Holocaust never happened. Both are serious events (yes, of course on vastly different scales), both HAPPENED, both MATTER particularly to the people involved, and the comparison is that both have people who deny its existence or importance.

As usual, we have to resort to "shocking" comparisons just to try to get the freaking point across.

The comparison Ohio drew is simply of people who deny that the undeniable happened or deny that they matter. There is no disrespect to Holocaust perishers or survivors in the comparison. They were not even invoked. Sheesh.

Trapped,

Certain forum members are given to sensationalism because they have no or very weak evidence to support their basic argument. Wikipedia says it this way:

“Sensationalism is a type of editorial bias in mass media in which events and topics in news stories and pieces are overhyped to present biased impressions on events, which may cause a manipulation to the truth of a story”

It’s a type of falsehood.

So emotionally charged versions of topics are invoked to garner support for weak or non-existent ones... consensual sexual immorality becomes sexual abuse, people that hold the convictions of their beliefs become like holocaust deniers, spiritual authority becomes a Hitler or if of Chinese descent they become Mao-like. It’s not unlike what is happening in the secular world.,, Russians everywhere! Obstruction of justice, no wait it’s mental health invoke the 25th!

In the secular world such behavior is accepted... but why here still puzzles me frankly. Ours is a higher calling to the highest authority yet some brazenly disregard that as if He is not on the throne.

Some of it is done in ignorance because anyone who ever visited a holocaust camp would never draw such comparisons. Same for sexual abuse and other similar subjects... you respect the victims by not drawing unequal comparisons as is being done in this forum by some.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Perhaps this is just one of those things that we should put into the "don't stumble your brother" category. In other words if Evangelical is stumbled by going to places he sees as divisive maybe we should just honor that. And inversely, Evengelical, perhaps you should just honor that we feel we have the freedom of the Lord to meet with others in Oneness and leave it at that...

Agreed. As there is no rule about it, it falls under the topic of conscience and stumbling, at best. At worst, it falls under the topic of profanity and sacrilege (e.g. Catholic "unworthy communion"). Many Christians care too much about these details (water baptism etc too) instead of caring about Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Or maybe we were astonished that you would draw comparisons with the Holocaust, and raise the matter of sexual abuse, both of which have nothing to do with the topic.

But since this has become a mini-topic, I will take advantage, and consider, that instead of a lump of leavened bread on the table which *can* represent a body of sin, there was a Nazi symbol on the bread - would we take issue with that? Or we shouldn't, because we have already declared that remembrance of the Lord is everything, and the symbols don't matter so much.

Probably, if Christ had not used "matzah" at the Last Supper, the disciples would have been shocked, even stumbled, as much as any Jew today might be stumbled to see a swastika symbol on their passover bread. Therefore, symbols can matter, and most major denominations take this thing more seriously than the recovery ever has, does or will, and have made it a church regulation.

I never drew a comparison with the "holocaust", rather I compared you to a "holocaust denier." Big difference. Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps that was too hard for you to understand. My bad.

I also understand your need for diversionary tactics. Instead of addressing the scriptures I presented from Corinthians concerning unleavened bread, and having a discussion about the symbols of the Lord's Table, you launched into this nonsensical tangent about nazi swastikas. Your bad.

I disagree concerning who had made these symbols into regulations and ordinances. Only the LCM would use the symbols from another church (re: STG posted a pic from his vacation) to condemn all other denominations as you were so quick to do. But that is how Lee taught. His way was the best. Every other way was to be condemned. This practice of his should be considered the unleavened bread of malice and evil.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

So emotionally charged versions of topics are invoked to garner support for weak or non-existent ones... consensual sexual immorality becomes sexual abuse, people that hold the convictions of their beliefs become like holocaust deniers, spiritual authority becomes a Hitler or if of Chinese descent they become Mao-like.

You make some good points.

From now on I will compare the sexual abuses by Lee's boys to that of the Catholic Church. And like the Catholic Church, Witness Lee lied and attacked others to cover up the corruption in his ministry for his own personal gains.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I never drew a comparison with the "holocaust", rather I compared you to a "holocaust denier." Big difference. Maybe I was wrong. Perhaps that was too hard for you to understand. My bad.

I also understand your need for diversionary tactics. Instead of addressing the scriptures I presented from Corinthians concerning unleavened bread, and having a discussion about the symbols of the Lord's Table, you launched into this nonsensical tangent about nazi swastikas. Your bad.

I disagree concerning who had made these symbols into regulations and ordinances. Only the LCM would use the symbols from another church (re: STG posted a pic from his vacation) to condemn all other denominations as you were so quick to do. But that is how Lee taught. His way was the best. Every other way was to be condemned. This practice of his should be considered the unleavened bread of malice and evil.

We were already in agreement about those Scriptures so I am not sure what you are talking about "Instead of addressing the scriptures I presented from Corinthians".

Taking another look at 1 Cor 5:8 "Let us keep the feast, not with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

What type of bread is it talking about using in the feast? Leavened or unleavened? Clearly it is unleavened, so my point still stands about the symbols. "Let us not keep the feast with leaven" - literally, or metaphorically. This is obviously a symbolic instruction about malice and evil, but to symbolize this they would have used unleavened bread in the actual feasts. Paul would not have said, as you have, "it does not matter", when he draws such a comparison between feasting and the type of bread.

Lee never condemned anyone for using leavened bread and neither did I. I pointed out the significance of the symbols on the Table and that they are deficient and not representing the "one Body" it is claimed they are. I also pointed out that certain denominations ie Catholic, Lutheran, present the bread in a better way. So the statement "condemn all other denominations" is an exaggeration.

Finally, it does not make sense why I would condemn a denomination for their presentation, when their presentation is of no consequence to whether their Table is valid in my view. If it were my aim to condemn the denomination, I might have said that the table is invalid because it is a sectarian table, and the presentation is of no concern of mine. But that is not a statement I made in my remark about StG's Table presentation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We were already in agreement about those Scriptures so I am not sure what you are talking about "Instead of addressing the scriptures I presented from Corinthians".

Taking another look at 1 Cor 5:8 "Let us keep the feast, not with the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."

What type of bread is it talking about using in the feast? Leavened or unleavened? Clearly it is unleavened, so my point still stands about the symbols. "Let us not keep the feast with leaven" - literally, or metaphorically. This is obviously a symbolic instruction about malice and evil, but to symbolize this they would have used unleavened bread in the actual feasts. Paul would not have said, as you have, "it does not matter", when he draws such a comparison between feasting and the type of bread.

Lee never condemned anyone for using leavened bread and neither did I. I pointed out the significance of the symbols on the Table and that they are deficient and not representing the "one Body" it is claimed they are. I also pointed out that certain denominations ie Catholic, Lutheran, present the bread in a better way. So the statement "condemn all other denominations" is an exaggeration.

Finally, it does not make sense why I would condemn a denomination for their presentation, when their presentation is of no consequence to whether their Table is valid in my view. If it were my aim to condemn the denomination, I might have said that the table is invalid because it is a sectarian table, and the presentation is of no concern of mine. But that is not a statement I made in my remark about StG's Table presentation.

I am not a mind reader. Please show me a post where you expressed any kind of agreement with me on this topic.

You are focused on what type of bread. Apostle Paul is focused on removing malice and evil from their hearts. This is where LSM has totally misaimed. They came to all the Midwest LC's with bulldozers full of malice and evil, and then they sit down and sing W. Lee songs with their perfect bleached-white Table bread all smug and self-satisfied.

Yes indeed Apostle Paul would say that the type of bread does not matter. Where did he give detailed instructions on the type of bread in order to rescue the church in Corinth? I would say that their bread was "perfect" but their hearts were sick with malice and evil. Read the whole epistle. I served in the LC's for 30 years, and I Corinthians and James were the two books they needed the most.

W. Lee condemned Christianity for every imaginable thing known to man. Are you serious? Did you ever hear him speak? They were condemned for not drinking from one cup. They were condemned for wafers. They were condemned for having pre-broken bread. They were condemned for believing it was the actual body of Christ, etc. W. Lee made a career of condemning "poor, poor, Christianity."

Yes, you did not say "the table is invalid because it is a sectarian table," but what you did say is "I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same."

Pretty pathetic. Pretty judgmental.

Note to readers: Normally I would have walked away from this discussion already, but I decided to press this issue because it strikes at the heart of what makes W. Lee's teachings so errant, so exclusive, so divisive, and so destructive. I lived thru the destruction of numerous Midwest LC's 10 years ago by operatives from LSM indoctrinated with this kind of sick mindset. One such church was Columbus, OH where both SonsToGlory and I were once part of. The conflicts Columbus endured 10 years ago (certain zealous ones "of Lee," filing lawsuits, fighting in the Lord's Table meeting, etc.) were the exact same conflicts in Corinth 2 millennia ago.

[Sons to Glory!]

Until we all arrive Bros... until we all arrive! (We need every portion of the body of Christ.)

Won't that be the most glorious day!?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am not a mind reader. Please show me a post where you expressed any kind of agreement with me on this topic.

In post #36 you wrote:

But thanks for finally admitting to the truths I was relating from scripture -- and somewhat refreshing I should add.

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are focused on what type of bread. Apostle Paul is focused on removing malice and evil from their hearts. This is where LSM has totally misaimed. They came to all the Midwest LC's with bulldozers full of malice and evil, and then they sit down and sing W. Lee songs with their perfect bleached-white Table bread all smug and self-satisfied.

Yes indeed Apostle Paul would say that the type of bread does not matter. Where did he give detailed instructions on the type of bread in order to rescue the church in Corinth?

As a Christian why would you or anyone want symbols of malice/evil in the church? Would you not complain if a church was decorated with any other symbol of evil?

You are forgetting or deliberately ignoring that even though it makes no rule about the symbols on the Table, in the verse you quoted Paul uses leavened bread to symbolize malice/evil, and unleavened bread to symbolize sincerity/truth. So I can imagine Paul agreeing with me that we should not use symbols of malice/evil in the Lord's Table.

As an ex-Jew, I cannot imagine Paul approving the use of a symbol which represents malice/evil in the Lord's Table. As a Jew, I cannot imagine Paul approving the use of leavened bread at Passover either.

If any Jewish believers were present in Paul's' church, and if he himself saw no issue with using leavened bread (which I cannot imagine) - I can imagine him forbidding leavened bread so as not to stumble any Jewish believers, according to what he wrote about offending other's conscience.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yes, you did not say "the table is invalid because it is a sectarian table," but what you did say is "I can see that on the table some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened. So this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same - even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same."

Pretty pathetic. Pretty judgmental.

Put simply, I explained what the leavened bread on the table symbolized (division, also sin/malice/evil).

As you can read, I also commended Catholics and Lutherans for their symbols by saying "even Catholics and Lutherans ensure that the bread is the same". Even though Catholicism, as bad as it is, ensures that the symbols of the Lord's body and blood accurately represent the Lord. I note that you overlooked this positive remark about Catholics and Lutherans, and chose to accuse me of "condemning all Christianity" instead.

[JJ]

Interesting how this thread has gotten off on unleavened bread vs. leavened bread.

I agree with Evangelical's citation of 1 Cor 5:8 and the fact Jews served unleavened bread at "the feast" to support a position on this topic.

However, Ohio makes a great point of not missing the real point... not celebrating the Lord's table when our houses (and bread) have the leaven of malice and evil in them. Instead we are charged to purge out malice and evil in our houses and what is served up in the assembly when remembering the Lord.... just as carefully as the Jews were about not having leaven in their houses or bread during the Passover.

Thanks Sons to Glory for citing Ephesians 4:13. It will be a glorious day indeed. Here is the whole verse https://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-13.htm

OK, have we beaten this bread, er topic long enough?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

Interesting how this thread has gotten off on unleavened bread vs. leavened bread.

I agree with Evangelical's citation of 1 Cor 5:8 and the fact Jews served unleavened bread at "the feast" to support a position on this topic.

However, Ohio makes a great point of not missing the real point... not celebrating the Lord's table when our houses (and bread) have the leaven of malice and evil in them. Instead we are charged to purge out malice and evil in our houses and what is served up in the assembly when remembering the Lord.... just as carefully as the Jews were about not having leaven in their houses or bread during the Passover.

Thanks Sons to Glory for citing Ephesians 4:13. It will be a glorious day indeed. Here is the whole verse https://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-13.htm

OK, have we beaten this bread, er topic long enough?

This is LC "discussions" isn't it? Will you now move on to the Psalms thread? That one has gone on far longer.

Having grown up a serious Catholic altar boy and then later on spent too many years in the LCM, I saw folks who "done their communion all perfect" yet nurtured a massive garden of "malice and evil" towards their fellow man, their neighbor, whom they were instructed by God to "love." Should I not address or "release the burden" on my heart over this conflict?

Perhaps you are right though. Looking back, I don't remember ever discussing the unleavened bread of Communion on this forum. STG then posted a pic from his travels. Evangelical then commented about the divisions in the body of Christ, and I remember the words of our Lord, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Now them dumb disciples completely missed His point, thinking He was talking about bread. But Jesus had something important in mind, so I'm only picking up on that.

Then I remembered how I had spent my best 30 years in the LCM "doing church all perfect" only to realize that LSM was coming to Ohio to "tear down our leprous houses and replaster them" at which point I left the LCM. I went to Paul's actual teachings in Corinthians to confirm my suspicions. Apparently he cared little for doing the communion bread all perfect, and cared much about malice and evil. Go read what he said.

So I tried to convey my findings to my brother Evangelical, but with great difficulty, and had already given up on that endeavor when you stopped by. I suppose we could end all discussions with "till we all arrive." Evangelical would agree with you for sure. We can then shut down the forum, waiting until we all arrive?