The Truth

[Dave]

I have an old paper which was circulated, undated, titled "The Response of Witness Lee & Local Churches To a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland"
The articles included are as follows with the authors:
1. The Truth Concerning Witness Lee by Max Rapoport
2. The Truth Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult by John Rapp (Student at Melodyland School of Theology)
3. The Truth Concerning the Church by John Ingalls
4. The Truth Concerning Denominations by John H. Smith
5. The Truth Concerning the Historic Christian Church by Gene Ford
6. The Truth Concerning the Trinity by Bill Freeman
7. The Truth Concerning the Mingling by Bill Freeman
8. The Truth Concerning the Nature of Man by Ron Kangas
9. The Truth Concerning God Coming into Man by Ron Kangas
10. The Truth Concerning God Manifest in the Flesh by John Ingalls
11. The Truth Concerning the Study of the Bible by Bill Duane (Dallas Theological Seminary)
12. The Truth Concerning Pray-reading by David Matteson (Dallas Theological Seminary)
13. The Truth Concerning the Release of the Spirit by James A. Barber

Eugene C. Gruhler wrote an Introduction stating, "The teaching and person of Witness Lee were attacked and misrepresented..."

Francis Ball wrote the Conclusion ending with the statement, "Where today can one find a life and ministry so fruitful as this?

Of this group of MEN only club--I guess women weren't smart enough or spiritual enough in their eyes---they listed all of their degrees or colleges they may have attended---only two have more than a Bachelor's degree (BTW zeek, as you may know, Ron was alumni of Wayne State), John Smith, M.A. Arizona State University and Bill Duane Th.M Dallas Theological Seminary. I am not trying to denigrate these individuals because all they had were BAs but John Ingall's claim to fame was Prairie Bible Institute (okay, he also has a B.S. from USC but a B.S. is a degree in a science field) Witness Lee eschewed advanced degrees from Theological Seminaries or Bible College studies for that matter. Maybe he did this because he didn't want his own theology to be threatened or challenged. What we didn't realize at the time---it went over most of our heads --- he was giving us a unique Christian theology and practices all the time he was sharing information.

My point of this thread is this: What is the Truth of the Bible? I don't mean just doctrinal (although some of this may need to be challenged if it doesn't hold up) because otherwise we just reiterate "The Bible is the Word of God, Jesus died on the cross for our sins, God is three in one, Father, Son and HS, Jesus was both 100% human and 100% God etc". My question is more pressing....What is the Truth of the Bible?

[Justin]

This is here is proff that weve benn misunderstood in the past , Prasie the LORD

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Justin

This is here is proff that weve benn misunderstood in the past , Prasie the LORD

Justin, that is certainly one way of looking at it!

[UntoHim]

Thanks for taking us down memory lane for a minute, Dave. If memory serves me right, these papers were actually published in some of the Southern California news papers over a period of several weeks. I still have the original handout which was given to the LC members.

Getting to your question, "What is the Truth of the Bible?", my first reaction would be a question back to you - What is the Bible to you? Please don't take me wrong here, but I would suggest that if you cannot answer this question with some clarity, then this thread will very possibly end up as a frustrating exercise in futility, because we are going to be shooting at a moving target.

I fear that every time someone proposes some "truth", then some of you will jump right in with "we don't have the original manuscripts so we really can't know if that's a truth or not", or "some modern scholars doubt that the apostle Paul really wrote that letter so it's probably something just made up by some dude a couple of hundred years later" or one of my favorites from your friend Bart Ehrman "because the gospels have two different accounts of how Judas Iscariot committed suicide we cannot trust anything else in the gospels" (this is a paraphrase but pretty close)

Anyway, Dave, I'm NOT trying to shoot this thing down before it even gets going, it's just that your question is far too important to not set some kind of ground rules. It's your thread and it's your question so you get to set the ground rules. But to use a baseball analogy (should be a great game tonight), we need to have some "boundaries" - a left foul line, a right foul, some fences, etc. Maybe you don't want to have boundaries, and that's your prerogative, but it's going to make answering your question pertnear impossible in my view.

Thanks for starting the thread, I think this forum needs people to step out on a limb and start threads like this.

[zeek]

Yeah Dave what is the Truth of the Bible? You told me what you thought it was back in 1972. Do you think you've found it again? Or are you just waiting for some poor slob to come out with his or her set of beliefs so that you can rip it to shreds, Bart Ehrman style?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Justin

This is here is proff that weve benn misunderstood in the past , Prasie the LORD

Misunderstood how? And who was misunderstood? I misunderstand.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah Dave what is the Truth of the Bible? You told me what you thought it was back in 1972. Do you think you've found it again? Or are you just waiting for some poor slob to come out with his or her set of beliefs so that you can rip it to shreds, Bart Ehrman style?

You are a bad man zeek, a bad man. But I LOVE IT!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I fear that every time someone proposes some "truth", then some of you will jump right in with "we don't have the original manuscripts so we really can't know if that's a truth or not",

Let's be truthful. We don't have the original manuscripts so this is not made up. It is truth. What we do with that information is another story.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

... we need to have some "boundaries" - a left foul line, a right foul, some fences, etc. Maybe you don't want to have boundaries, and that's your prerogative, but it's going to make answering your question pertnear impossible in my view.

Thanks for starting the thread, I think this forum needs people to step out on a limb and start threads like this.

UntoHim
I’m glad you shed some additional light on this paper I presented and thanks for providing some interesting questions for clarification. Certainly, “my buddy”, Bart Ehrman in some sense is at the base of my question but even he is difficult to use as a baseline for a discussion of “the truth”. On the other hand, maybe we should let the camel’s nose in the tent. We all are looking for “the truth” or we think we have found it.

It all seemed so easy when we were younger. Even the majority of Jesus’ followers were young people who didn’t see much future in the occupied world they lived in. I can’t imagine a world where beheadings and killing people unnecessarily or haphazardly without a fair trial was a routine way of life…oh, maybe I’m talking about 2014. The more things change the more they stay the same. People are still looking for a savior or the truth. The world is cold and heartless in many respects and hope is at a premium. What is truth?

I used the paper’s articles as a springboard because it covered the gamut of areas surrounding all of the LC as well as Christianity from studying the Bible, pray-reading, Trinity, Church, Denominations etc. and it was written by individuals who so fervently believed in WL and the LC only to have many of them kicked out or leaving the LC. I am sure they all wrote the articles in that paper fully believing everything they wrote but for many of them, “the truth” changed.

Bart Ehrman recently (10/6/14) wrote, “I have to admit, I sometimes get a bit tired of being the whipping boy for fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christian apologists. If they would deal with my views head on and actually get the facts of my life right, it would be one thing. But when they … accuse me of holding, or having held, positions that I never did – when they are flat out wrong in what they say about me — it gets under my skin.” He goes on to say, “When I gave up my view of inerrancy, it did not *cause* me to abandon my beliefs about Christ. Instead, it opened up to me the possibility of establishing *other* grounds for what to believe – not simply what I had been raised on and not simply what the Bible taught. I came to think that any belief had to be subject to critical scrutiny.”

WL I am sure authorized the paper that went out supporting his views. Authors such as Ron Kangas, John Ingalls, James Barber, Max Rapoport etc wrote a critical albeit short response to the arguments they believed were being tested. Thus, WL was not opposed to critical reviews but only if he had control of them. From my standpoint I wonder why we have to hold fast that the Bible is inerrant. Would we have fewer denominations, less arguments, less faith, more uncertainty etc. When you believe, really believe you have the truth as those who wrote those articles did, where does it take you?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yeah Dave what is the Truth of the Bible? You told me what you thought it was back in 1972. Do you think you've found it again? Or are you just waiting for some poor slob to come out with his or her set of beliefs so that you can rip it to shreds, Bart Ehrman style?

You know as well as I that you can't "rip someone to shreds" on this forum without "pushback" from someone as UntoHim likes to say.
"Bart Ehrman style?"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

From my standpoint I wonder why we have to hold fast that the Bible is inerrant. Would we have fewer denominations, less arguments, less faith, more uncertainty etc. When you believe, really believe you have the truth as those who wrote those articles did, where does it take you?

Dave,

Despite having a different opinion about the meaning of a lot of this than you seem to, you are digging in the right places from what I can see.

Now I have remained a pretty good evangelical, being in a couple of different Bible churches for the past 27 years, both of which are pastored by DTS graduates and including several of the DTS professors.


But while it would not be my first choice, I could do OK in a Lutheran church, or back at the Assemblies of God (my childhood and youth). Maybe even down the street at teh Episcopal or RCC, although I might need it to be really, really too far to travel to any other.

I am probably one of the trouble-makers because I will ask the questions that the dreaded "emerging" people ask. Not the way they ask them, but still ask them. Do you need to have any understanding of substitutionary atonement to be saved? Or even have any idea that it exists (assuming it actually does)?

And what is inerrant? If it merely means that it is telling us what God wants to tell us, then I am OK with it. But if it means that the sentence structure and every particular word is seriously important to it, and I have to buy into your (a generic "your") version of what it means, I have no use for it. I am convinced that we are too engrossed in getting all the doctrines right and almost ignoring getting the life right. Too much Orthodoxy at the expense of Orthopraxy. Surely we have to believe. But I thought the idea was to believe in Jesus, not 5-point Calvinism, believer baptism, pre-tribulation rapture (whatever that means), etc. Just suggest that you don't really care about one of those and you risk excommunication.

Too many hoops. Nothing that would commend it to the faith of "little children."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

You know as well as I that you can't "rip someone to shreds" on this forum without "pushback" from someone as UntoHim likes to say.
"Bart Ehrman style?"

OK then, have at it. Take a shot at answering your own question. What is the Truth of the Bible in your opinion? I'm pretty sure once you jump in the pool other will follow.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

OK then, have at it. Take a shot at answering your own question. What is the Truth of the Bible in your opinion? I'm pretty sure once you jump in the pool other will follow.

Truth
There is a parable from the Indian subcontinent that might be relevant to where we are going -- blind men and the elephant --- In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side, tusk, trunk, foot, or tail. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. This tends to imply that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. Thus, if we each share our truth we begin to paint the picture of “the truth”. Thus, if your experience leads you to believe a certain way and others have had the same experience maybe all of you touched the “trunk” and have a common experience but you are still limited in understanding the overall truth of what you are experiencing.

Joseph Campbell interprets Matt. 17:1-9 Jesus the guide, the way, the vision, and the companion of the return. The disciples are his initiates, not themselves masters of the mystery, yet introduced to the full experience of the paradox of the two worlds in one. (Hero with a Thousand Faces pp. 229-230)

Bart Ehrman writes, "For Nearly two thousand years there have been Christians who have thought that the world was going to end in their own lifetimes...this belief is as ancient as the Christian religion is itself, that it can be traced all the way back to the beginning, to the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Jesus thought that the history of the world would come to a screeching halt, that God would intervene in the affairs of this planet, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment, and establish his utopian Kingdom here on earth. And this was to happen in Jesus' own generation. (Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium p. 3)

Friedrick Schleiermacher writes, "Here it must be premised, that even supposing the originality of our doctrine were not proved, it still would not follow that it is false or arbitrarily invented, providing only that those original testimonies are not demonstrably at variance with it...But anyone who in the interpretation of particular passages is not content merely with a sense in harmony with his own theory, but keeps an open mind for a true impression of the whole, will scarcely be able to ascribe to the sayings of Christ about His relation to men and to His Father. (The Christian Faith, 1830-- p. 421-422)

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Dave

I have an old paper which was circulated, undated, titled "The Response of Witness Lee & Local Churches To a Recent Meeting Held at Melodyland"

Is this paper posted online anywhere and if so does anyone have a link?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

Truth
There is a parable from the Indian subcontinent that might be relevant to where we are going -- blind men and the elephant --- In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side, tusk, trunk, foot, or tail. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. This tends to imply that one's subjective experience can be true, but that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for other truths or a totality of truth. Thus, if we each share our truth we begin to paint the picture of “the truth”. Thus, if your experience leads you to believe a certain way and others have had the same experience maybe all of you touched the “trunk” and have a common experience but you are still limited in understanding the overall truth of what you are experiencing.

Joseph Campbell interprets Matt. 17:1-9 Jesus the guide, the way, the vision, and the companion of the return. The disciples are his initiates, not themselves masters of the mystery, yet introduced to the full experience of the paradox of the two worlds in one. (Hero with a Thousand Faces pp. 229-230)

Bart Ehrman writes, "For Nearly two thousand years there have been Christians who have thought that the world was going to end in their own lifetimes...this belief is as ancient as the Christian religion is itself, that it can be traced all the way back to the beginning, to the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth. Jesus thought that the history of the world would come to a screeching halt, that God would intervene in the affairs of this planet, overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment, and establish his utopian Kingdom here on earth. And this was to happen in Jesus' own generation. (Jesus - Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium p. 3)

Friedrick Schleiermacher writes, "Here it must be premised, that even supposing the originality of our doctrine were not proved, it still would not follow that it is false or arbitrarily invented, providing only that those original testimonies are not demonstrably at variance with it...But anyone who in the interpretation of particular passages is not content merely with a sense in harmony with his own theory, but keeps an open mind for a true impression of the whole, will scarcely be able to ascribe to the sayings of Christ about His relation to men and to His Father. (The Christian Faith, 1830-- p. 421-422)

So, Dave, what conclusion(s) do you draw from the Indian parable and the three quotations with respect to the truth of the Bible?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, Dave, what conclusion(s) do you draw from the Indian parable and the three quotations with respect to the truth of the Bible?

This thread started by listing all of the written defenses of so many Christian men who were true believers in the way of WL with each presentations titled “the truth…”. We can now look back and see that some of them would probably not support what they saw as “the truth” at that time. We can also see more clearly that many of those expressions of “the truth” were not “the truth” at all.

Max Rapoport writes, “…The speaker used sarcastic and caustic remarks about his (i.e. WL) education and his knowledge of the Scriptures. The speaker insults Witness Lee by saying, ‘He is venerated as an authority, yet the man has no theological training to justify it whatsoever. He uses Greek terms in his writings and he can’t read the Greek alphabet.” Max goes on to state, “The speaker also maligns Witness Lee as a self-styled recovery agent, implying that we, the people in the local church are just following Witness Lee and not submitting ourselves to the Holy Spirit.” (The Truth Concerning Witness Lee 1977)

The Indian parable that I noted in a subsequent thread was tied in with the quotes from three different perspectives: a mythologist; a NT historical/textual scholar and a theologian. In general terms truth for each of us depends on our perspective including our upbringing, education, field of study, where we have lived, worked and visited etc. From my perspective Jesus cared about the downtrodden, the disheartened, the poor, the hopeless, the sick and the weak. Our experience of Jesus should result in good deeds reflective of his message of hope and peace.

One of my cousins who is a Messianic Jewish Christian told me that Jesus wants us to try to make as much money as we can (she quotes scripture for this) and not to worry about the poor since Jesus said, “…the poor you will have with you always.” I just wonder what kind of Christian "truth" we have today.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Is this paper posted online anywhere and if so does anyone have a link?

If you google the title you will find a considerable amount of info related to it. I have it but it is newspaper size and not easily copied. If I get a chance I'll copy it and make it available.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Dave,

And what is inerrant? If it merely means that it is telling us what God wants to tell us, then I am OK with it. But if it means that the sentence structure and every particular word is seriously important to it, and I have to buy into your (a generic "your") version of what it means, I have no use for it. I am convinced that we are too engrossed in getting all the doctrines right and almost ignoring getting the life right. Too much Orthodoxy at the expense of Orthopraxy. Surely we have to believe. But I thought the idea was to believe in Jesus, not 5-point Calvinism, believer baptism, pre-tribulation rapture (whatever that means), etc. Just suggest that you don't really care about one of those and you risk excommunication.

Too many hoops. Nothing that would commend it to the faith of "little children."

The Bible's Inerrancy refers to those who hold that the Bible (66 books) is the Word of God and every Word was written under the inspiration of God but there are different views of this. Since we know that NT scholars are not using the original manuscripts of the NT since they no longer exist there is some disagreement as to what was written and who wrote what. Most scholars agree that 1 John 5:7-8 was inserted by scribes to prove the Trinity but whether it would be difficult for that doctrine to be proved without those scriptures is another matter. In any case, some of the newer versions of the Bible don't include those verses (e.g. NSRV). Of course, the "inspired word of God" was written in Greek in the NT and Hebrew in the OT and I guess some people believe that as these Greek books are translated into English etc the translators are inspired so their translations are accurate when we read them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

The Bible's Inerrancy refers to those who hold that the Bible (66 books) is the Word of God and every Word was written under the inspiration of God but there are different views of this. Since we know that NT scholars are not using the original manuscripts of the NT since they no longer exist there is some disagreement as to what was written and who wrote what. Most scholars agree that 1 John 5:7-8 was inserted by scribes to prove the Trinity but whether it would be difficult for that doctrine to be proved without those scriptures is another matter. In any case, some of the newer versions of the Bible don't include those verses (e.g. NSRV). Of course, the "inspired word of God" was written in Greek in the NT and Hebrew in the OT and I guess some people believe that as these Greek books are translated into English etc the translators are inspired so their translations are accurate when we read them.

Seems that the famous statement on inerrancy is much more detailed than that (and it sort of makes me want to puke).

We had a real John Bircher, er, I mean KJV only nut among us many years ago. She also claimed to have seen Witness Lee's "mantle" rise off of him and descend onto her. Let's just say that the number of tacos short of the metaphorical combination plate would leave you seriously hungry.

This whole "inspired" down to the precise word used thing is so insane. It is part of the source of the decoder-ring analysis of context-less fortune cookies rather than sound review of the narrative of a whole passage, which in some cases could be an entire epistle.

The argument over what is "inspired" is really nonsensical. With the exception of the letters that were written from one place to another, almost exclusively post-Christ, little of it was written down, but was spoken. And a lot of that was not spoken in the language in which it was ultimately written. So to declare that what is written down is what is inspired is to accept that some alteration from the original is what is actually inspired, as if God was using the oral tradition as a means of editing it until it is perfect.

The thing that bothers me is that since I can read five different translations (in English) and consistently see the same thing (reading as passages and not fortune cookies), it seems to be trite to be concerned with so many of the manuscript variations that underpin that since they are almost entirely benign to that quest. Only where we are trying to make scripture into a large collection of isolated sayings and incantations that just happen to also tell a story to hide the "truth" do we start to have problems with most of the variations. In those cases, the precise word, or the precise translation suddenly becomes important. And in the case of someone like Lee, finding new and novel ways of translating words, as was discussed in Nigel's latest offering on this forum, becomes the tools of the trade. And it works because they are not focused on the Bible, but on minutia.

Unfortunately, even a lot of the grand themes of theology are partly derived in this manner. Truth is described in detailed doctrines that require a series of books to lay out in the whole (for one doctrine, not the sum of them).

It makes some feel good, and even superior, to derive a doctrine of the trinity. Yet no one really knows what it means. I am not saying I don't like that particular doctrine. I actually do. I think it works well. But I also think it is relatively unimportant since it was not articulated in such a comprehensive and coherent way within the text of scripture, with or without the passage in John. The statements that are supplied are true. The "glue" that holds them together sounds good, but is supplied from outside of scripture.

And recently I was impressed that a somewhat common thought that the God that is three persons yet is one God, and thought of at some level as if one person, is not consistent with Jesus prayer that we would be one as they are one. For me, this does not answer anything, but leaves it somewhat of a mystery. And I am OK with that. Logic and reasoning can be applied to a lot of it. But at some level it is just not spelled out for us. And that may be because it really is not what is intended to be conveyed.

I'm still interested in your take on what is the truth of the Bible. Seems that you have danced around it with isolated sayings and quotes by others who are not really answering that question. For me, the truth of the Bible is not so difficult. Neither is it a comprehensive answer to everything. It doesn't answer the age of the earth, or the number of generations of mankind on it. Neither does it describe scientific things in a manner that is satisfactory in the age of science and reason. But that is OK since that is not the purpose that I find in it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Seems that the famous statement on inerrancy is much more detailed than that (and it sort of makes me want to puke).

We had a real John Bircher, er, I mean KJV only nut among us many years ago. She also claimed to have seen Witness Lee's "mantle" rise off of him and descend onto her. Let's just say that the number of tacos short of the metaphorical combination plate would leave you seriously hungry.

That is rather humorous.

Originally Posted by OBW

This whole "inspired" down to the precise word used thing is so insane. It is part of the source of the decoder-ring analysis of context-less fortune cookies rather than sound review of the narrative of a whole passage, which in some cases could be an entire epistle.

Unfortunately, even a lot of the grand themes of theology are partly derived in this manner. Truth is described in detailed doctrines that require a series of books to lay out in the whole (for one doctrine, not the sum of them).

I'm still interested in your take on what is the truth of the Bible. Seems that you have danced around it with isolated sayings and quotes by others who are not really answering that question. For me, the truth of the Bible is not so difficult. Neither is it a comprehensive answer to everything. It doesn't answer the age of the earth, or the number of generations of mankind on it. Neither does it describe scientific things in a manner that is satisfactory in the age of science and reason. But that is OK since that is not the purpose that I find in it.

Interestingly enough, Greek manuscripts from the NT don’t have punctuation nor spaces so words are all run together such as: Iamnowhere This could be “I am no where” or “I am now here”. Even though educated Greeks wrote the NT manuscripts, people in that day spoke Aramaic so some words in Greek don’t work in Aramaic. Thus, you’re left wondering if maybe what they originally said was different. Of course, most of that doesn’t matter for the average person since we have as you noted a variety of translations to include the Greek interlinear. Thus, some textual scholars have gotten together and made a decision about the wording.

It may seem like I am dancing around as to “what do I believe” but some of it is intentional. When I started out this thread I noted an old paper (1977) where there were numerous articles starting with “The Truth Concerning….” so I titled this thread “The Truth” because of the irony of the articles which were written by many individuals many of us knew but were later kicked out e.g. James Ingalls etc. Max Rapoport wrote a glowing report, “The Truth about WL”, but he was later kicked out by WL.

We put so much into “what do you believe” and leave out the most important part---what are you doing about it? I only want to believe what I am acting on or only act on what I believe. Gandhi carried around his entire life the Sermon on the Mount but it was a living reality for him. From my perspective Jesus believed in the worth and dignity of every person as was demonstrated by his actions as well as justice, equity and compassion.

This is interesting but not necessarily relevant is that Jesus seems to have been educated in Greek although he spoke Aramaic. Why didn’t he write down his thoughts for the ages so there wouldn’t be this wrangling about who wrote what etc? It appears that Jesus thought he was bringing the Kingdom of God to the earth in his generation and the disciples and he would be ruling the kingdom. This is consistent with the idea of the Messiah in the Jewish writings. Thus, Jesus may not have seen the necessity. Paul seems to have thought the same thing about the kingdom based on his writings and actions but at least he left some writings.

[awareness]

Dave,

Yer OP has 13 "The Truth Concerning's." And we still don't know what an elephant looks like.

And are you saying if we want the whole elephant we have to go to many descriptions, many thinkers, writers, sources, and hero's? For example, are you saying we need to listen to Jesus' and also Buddha's description of the elephant, plus Joseph Campbell, and Bart Ehrman?

Who delivers the accurate whole description of the elephant?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Who delivers the accurate whole description of the elephant?

You have to look at the whole of church history. Actually only God Himself sees it all. No one minister describes the whole, regardless of what Lee told us. Remember there were 12 apostles besides Paul.

Back in the early '00s I met a couple of dear brothers from India at the campus gatherings who were studying at the university. I used to spend time just chatting with them about their country, peoples, and history. I learned that "doubting" Thomas came to India and became the apostle to their country. All my attitudes about dear brother Tom just vanished while listening to the stories I heard. Here was an untold story of the "elephant" that most of us never heard.

Another time I with a brother from Armenia who told me the story of his country being converted to Christianity and becoming the first ever Christian country. I heard the ancient stories of Thaddeus and Bartholomew coming to their land bringing good news of the Savior Jesus. These are the stories which only our heavenly father knows in full. The bible is mostly silent about the apostles, instead focusing on Paul, but he was only a part of the entire "elephant" of the church.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have to look at the whole of church history. Actually only God Himself sees it all. No one minister describes the whole, regardless of what Lee told us. Remember there were 12 apostles besides Paul.

Back in the early '00s I met a couple of dear brothers from India at the campus gatherings who were studying at the university. I used to spend time just chatting with them about their country, peoples, and history. I learned that "doubting" Thomas came to India and became the apostle to their country. All my attitudes about dear brother Tom just vanished while listening to the stories I heard. Here was an untold story of the "elephant" that most of us never heard.

Another time I with a brother from Armenia who told me the story of his country being converted to Christianity and becoming the first ever Christian country. I heard the ancient stories of Thaddeus and Bartholomew coming to their land bringing good news of the Savior Jesus. These are the stories which only our heavenly father knows in full. The bible is mostly silent about the apostles, instead focusing on Paul, but he was only a part of the entire "elephant" of the church.

Great stories and an excellent point----only God sees it all....maybe God is the elephant...we each see and experience God in a different way but we are only seeing that part of Him which we have touched which in turn affects our outlook, perspective, what we believe in, what we aspire for, etc. e.g. touched the face of God, the hand of God, the big toe on the right foot of God? We're just feeling our way. No man can see God but it doesn't say we can't touch Him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You have to look at the whole of church history. Actually only God Himself sees it all. No one minister describes the whole, regardless of what Lee told us. Remember there were 12 apostles besides Paul.

Back in the early '00s I met a couple of dear brothers from India at the campus gatherings who were studying at the university. I used to spend time just chatting with them about their country, peoples, and history. I learned that "doubting" Thomas came to India and became the apostle to their country. All my attitudes about dear brother Tom just vanished while listening to the stories I heard. Here was an untold story of the "elephant" that most of us never heard.

Another time I with a brother from Armenia who told me the story of his country being converted to Christianity and becoming the first ever Christian country. I heard the ancient stories of Thaddeus and Bartholomew coming to their land bringing good news of the Savior Jesus. These are the stories which only our heavenly father knows in full. The bible is mostly silent about the apostles, instead focusing on Paul, but he was only a part of the entire "elephant" of the church.

Good post bro. Valid insights too.

[zeek]

Dave---You said;

This thread started by listing all of the written defenses of so many Christian men who were true believers in the way of WL with each presentations titled “the truth…”. We can now look back and see that some of them would probably not support what they saw as “the truth” at that time. We can also see more clearly that many of those expressions of “the truth” were not “the truth” at all.

There was probably some truth in the tracts. The writers were touching different parts of the elephant. Ironically, their claims would have been closer to the truth if they had born titles like "My Point of View Concerning Witness Lee" by Max Rapoport or how about "My Opinion Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult" by John Rapp and so forth? Then, provided they were not lying about what they stated being their actual points of view and opinions, the titles would have been accurate.

Max Rapoport writes, “…The speaker used sarcastic and caustic remarks about his (i.e. WL) education and his knowledge of the Scriptures. The speaker insults Witness Lee by saying, ‘He is venerated as an authority, yet the man has no theological training to justify it whatsoever. He uses Greek terms in his writings and he can’t read the Greek alphabet.” Max goes on to state, “The speaker also maligns Witness Lee as a self-styled recovery agent, implying that we, the people in the local church are just following Witness Lee and not submitting ourselves to the Holy Spirit.” (The Truth Concerning Witness Lee 1977)

I was thought I was submitting myself to the Holy Spirit every time I called "O Lord Jesus" and I think others probably did too. Of course, by turning from our mind to our spirit we may have abandoned common sense in the bargain. We will never know if Max was right about what the speaker was implying anyway.

The Indian parable that I noted in a subsequent thread was tied in with the quotes from three different perspectives: a mythologist; a NT historical/textual scholar and a theologian. In general terms truth for each of us depends on our perspective including our upbringing, education, field of study, where we have lived, worked and visited etc. From my perspective Jesus cared about the downtrodden, the disheartened, the poor, the hopeless, the sick and the weak. Our experience of Jesus should result in good deeds reflective of his message of hope and peace.

The question then becomes: How far do we take perspectivalism? In the story, the elephant represents the real world beyond our limited perspective. Perhaps if the blind men compare their limited experiences they would arrive at a fuller picture of what the elephant is than if they stay in the silos of their own perceptions. That's where open communication and dialogue comes in.

The devil is in the details. Take just one word in your statement above i.e. "good". That reality is wonderfully ambiguous is illustrated by the parable. If we each act out of our limited perception of what's good, we may inadvertently kill or be killed by the elephant. One person's good is another's evil. The deadlocked United States Congress illustrates what can happen when people have different perspectives about what is good. How do you determine what is good about the deeds you do? What do you do about people who have different conceptions of of what is good.

One of my cousins who is a Messianic Jewish Christian told me that Jesus wants us to try to make as much money as we can (she quotes scripture for this) and not to worry about the poor since Jesus said, “…the poor you will have with you always.” I just wonder what kind of Christian "truth" we have today.

According to the parable, your cousin is touching a different part of the elephant. So are the local churchers. How do we deal with that? On this forum we have an opportunity to enlarge our vision of reality by conversing with people who have different approaches to reality. I'm glad that UntoHim has opened up the possibility for open discussion from different perspectives here in "Alternative Views" so that, instead of suppressing or attacking another's view of the elephant we can perhaps enlarge our views by taking alternative views into consideration. Will we find a way to an enlarged vision or deadlock like Congress? Stay tuned.

[OBW]

What's funny about some of this, especially the parts concerning the response to Walter Martin, is that I recall listening to Martin's meeting within recent years and considered that while he may have seemed a little strong on some points, he was really pretty right. Of course it would have been impossible for an outsider to get everything spot-on because the whole truth is so nuanced. But based on what he could have had access to, he kind of nailed it.

And these probably honest people who wrote the responses did it from what they honestly believed to be true. And Max was right. Martin did seem sarcastic and caustic. I think it was sort of his style. Lee's style was different. He very politely said that only the local churches were the testimony of Christ. And he had a smile on his face as he called Christianity degraded and referred to it as Babylon.

So maybe the personal attacks on style are just ad hominems to divert attention from the real issue. Bad ole Martin said bad things about Lee and the LRC, so his message is to be dismissed. But sweet little Chinaman Lee was nice as he declared all of Christianity outside of his sect to be Babylon and degraded. So it must be true.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave---You said;
There was probably some truth in the tracts. The writers were touching different parts of the elephant. Ironically, their claims would have been closer to the truth if they had born titles like "My Point of View Concerning Witness Lee" by Max Rapoport or how about "My Opinion Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult" by John Rapp and so forth? Then, provided they were not lying about what they stated being their actual points of view and opinions, the titles would have been accurate.

I agree, if only they stated "my opinion, my point of view..." rather than "The Truth...." The Truth as though they had the inside track on "The Truth"

Originally Posted by zeek

I was thought I was submitting myself to the Holy Spirit every time I called "O Lord Jesus" and I think others probably did too. Of course, by turning from our mind to our spirit we may have abandoned common sense in the bargain. We will never know if Max was right about what the speaker was implying anyway.

Do you remember that time in Detroit when Ron K had us say "O Lord Jesus" over and over for about 30 minutes ---downstairs in the basement we were meeting in? ...I was getting dizzy after awhile ---but maybe in his mind he believed if we just did that for hours on end it would result in growth of our spiritual life.

Originally Posted by zeek

The question then becomes: How far do we take perspectivalism? In the story, the elephant represents the real world beyond our limited perspective. Perhaps if the blind men compare their limited experiences they would arrive at a fuller picture of what the elephant is than if they stay in the silos of their own perceptions. That's where open communication and dialogue comes in.

Unfortunately it appears that they were all touching the same spot e.g. ear ...or if they weren't they were trying to convince others that they were really touching the ear and not the trunk...because it didn't fit into what they had touched... WL maybe was touching the ear and he wanted everyone else to believe that touching the ear was their only hope and forget about the rest of the elephant.

Originally Posted by zeek

The devil is in the details. Take just one word in your statement above i.e. "good". That reality is wonderfully ambiguous is illustrated by the parable. If we each act out of our limited perception of what's good, we may inadvertently kill or be killed by the elephant. One person's good is another's evil. The deadlocked United States Congress illustrates what can happen when people have different perspectives about what is good. How do you determine what is good about the deeds you do? What do you do about people who have different conceptions of of what is good.

That's the problem with democracy...different perspectives...trampling on other points of view is the elephant killing others....but democracy is messy...

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the parable, your cousin is touching a different part of the elephant. So are the local churchers. How do we deal with that? On this forum we have an opportunity to enlarge our vision of reality by conversing with people who have different approaches to reality. I'm glad that UntoHim has opened up the possibility for open discussion from different perspectives here in "Alternative Views" so that, instead of suppressing or attacking another's view of the elephant we can perhaps enlarge our views by taking alternative views into consideration. Will we find a way to an enlarged vision or deadlock like Congress? Stay tuned.

Well, she is definitely touching a different part of the elephant and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you what part of the elephant she is touching. Alternative views are very important whether we agree or not.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

What's funny about some of this, especially the parts concerning the response to Walter Martin, is that I recall listening to Martin's meeting within recent years and considered that while he may have seemed a little strong on some points, he was really pretty right. Of course it would have been impossible for an outsider to get everything spot-on because the whole truth is so nuanced. But based on what he could have had access to, he kind of nailed it.

And these probably honest people who wrote the responses did it from what they honestly believed to be true. And Max was right. Martin did seem sarcastic and caustic. I think it was sort of his style. Lee's style was different. He very politely said that only the local churches were the testimony of Christ. And he had a smile on his face as he called Christianity degraded and referred to it as Babylon.

So maybe the personal attacks on style are just ad hominems to divert attention from the real issue. Bad ole Martin said bad things about Lee and the LRC, so his message is to be dismissed. But sweet little Chinaman Lee was nice as he declared all of Christianity outside of his sect to be Babylon and degraded. So it must be true.

It would be interesting to note what year you are referencing because I was out in 1978. I am sure that Martin came across like a know it all because he did know a lot about various religious perspectives. Anyway, I don't know if it was a diversion...Lee just wanted to keep everything under control within the flock and it continues with the blended brothers. Because of the nature of the way the LC is run they have no choice but to be controlling. No one is voting for anything. It seems like it is being run like the papacy. Who are the cardinals who make all the choices etc?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

It would be interesting to note what year you are referencing because I was out in 1978. I am sure that Martin came across like a know it all because he did know a lot about various religious perspectives. Anyway, I don't know if it was a diversion...Lee just wanted to keep everything under control within the flock and it continues with the blended brothers. Because of the nature of the way the LC is run they have no choice but to be controlling. No one is voting for anything. It seems like it is being run like the papacy. Who are the cardinals who make all the choices etc?

I was referring to listening to a recording of the meeting that I believe all those LRC guys responded to. My hearing of it was recent, but the recording is from back in the mid to late 70s.

I do not recall where I found it and would have to dig around to see if I have a copy of it.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I was referring to listening to a recording of the meeting that I believe all those LRC guys responded to. My hearing of it was recent, but the recording is from back in the mid to late 70s.

I do not recall where I found it and would have to dig around to see if I have a copy of it.

That would be interesting if you stumbled upon it.

[Dave]

Watchman Nee writes, “Christ is the key to all truths….Without Him we would never understand the Scriptures” (The Mystery of Creation, Watchman Nee, 1981, CFP). What we came to believe was that without WN or WL we would never understand the scriptures. We believed that they were our insight to the “truth”. We gave our all---our time, our devotion, our efforts to carrying out what we thought was the “truth” as proposed by WN and WL. What we discovered was that they interpreted/twisted the scriptures to fit their own perspective of the “truth”. If only they were the only ones who took this approach. Unfortunately they were not alone in this perspective. It is rampant in Christianity today and throughout its history.

What I am writing is not a novel approach. What has troubled me is not only that there are so many divisions in Christian thought and practice but that it has been 2000 years and we don’t seem to be changing. We keep hearing the latest theory about Christ coming or the latest idea about some scriptures in the OT and NT telling us of some damnable catastrophe coming to the Earth. Will we ever get off this drumbeat and come to some kind of reality.

Reading the NT it is rather obvious that Jesus believed that he was going to be the leader of the Kingdom of God during his generation and the disciples would be under Him ruling this kingdom. The entire time Jesus was on the earth he was speaking only to Jews. Jesus never spoke to Gentiles.

Jesus’ message appealing to Gentiles was a Paul idea because the Jews rejected Paul’s message about Jesus. Paul went to synagogues every time he went to a city and tried to convert the Jews to accept his message about Jesus. The Jews rejected the message of Jesus because Jesus did NOT fulfill the OT’s message regarding the Messiah. Jesus being crucified on a cross is not in the OT. They were expecting a savior who would rule them and get them out from under the Roman domination. In any case, Paul also believed that Jesus’ coming was nigh in his generation. As time wore on Christians began to realize that it wasn’t happening and the gospels were written in this light—after Paul.

Jesus’ message was to the downtrodden, the poor, the sick, the weak etc. Why? Because he believed that the Kingdom of God was coming in his generation and would make those he was speaking to i.e. the poor, rich and the sick, well and everyone would be happy whereas the Kingdom of God would reject the haughty, rich and powerful. Read the sermon on the Mount in this light and you can see He was preaching to people telling them that the Kingdom is here, now and coming during their lifetime and it will change their fortunes. We can read this 2000 years later and believe He is talking to us but it is not a message to us although we can use it in our practice in life. However, it was a message to the people in His day. It was a message to His fellow Jews in Palestine. The Kingdom was coming and it will bring them out from under these horrible conditions and situations with the Romans ruling their lives.

I said that my approach to Jesus was not a novel idea. Albert Schweitzer in his “Quest of the Historical Jesus” showed that every generation of scholars that attempted to write a life of Jesus in fact portrayed Jesus in its own image as well as the scholar’s image. “He passes by our time and returns to His own”, page 399. Schweitzer did not think that the historical Jesus shared the problems or perspectives of the twentieth century. Instead, for Schweitzer, Jesus never expected that there would be a twentieth century. He thought the end of the world was coming in his own lifetime. Also, note that Schweitzer spent his life curing the sick in the jungle clinic far removed from the ivy towers of the European intellectual scene even though most of his writings were devoted to the NT.

I understand one day is as a thousand years. Well then, I guess we can keep waiting another 2000 years. However, our planet earth won’t keep waiting. We are plundering this earth and headed for making it uninhabitable. Of course, for the true believers this is God’s justice. I am troubled that most Christians are sitting back on their laurels and truly believe that how we treat this earth and its inhabitants and the way we live doesn’t matter because Jesus will return any minute now. So why should we care? What is the Bible’s message, really? I thought that this earth was God's creation as well as us and all the animals. Even during the days of Noah God wanted the animals he created to survive....

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Dave

That would be interesting if you stumbled upon it.

I think this might be the Walter Martin speech about Witness Lee and the Local Church you guys are talking about.

Here is a thread we have the forum about this speech:
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...ead.php?t=5140
Except from this thread:

"This book is the republication of a series of articles first published in The Orange County Register on October 8 and 15, 1977. They were answers to an attack made by Walter Martin, who called himself “the Bible Answer Man.” Martin made this attack against Witness Lee and “the Local Church” in a lecture given at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim, California on October 2, 1977. The tape of that lecture, entitled Witness Lee and the Local Church, is still in circulation today. This book again publishes the answers to that tape."

If my memory serves me right, quite a number of Local Church members attended this speech.

You may have to scroll down a bit to get to this particular speech.

http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2...er-martin-mp3/

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I think this might be the Walter Martin speech about Witness Lee and the Local Church you guys are talking about.

Thanks for the link but here is a direct link to the talk which I was able to pull off your link: http://server.firefighters.org/18000/18110.mp3 So if you wish to save it on your computer you can do so by right clicking on it. "save audio as"

Yes, it is an amazing speech and probably why there was such a response from Lee. This is the first time I have listened to it and am amazed at its clarity of what we were involved in. He mentions the Mind Benders which was pulled from the shelves but the overall idea of "we have the truth" and no one else does is clear. Now, why CRI later wrote the article they did regarding the fact the LC was scriptural is mind boggling. Anyway, thanks.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am troubled that most Christians are sitting back on their laurels and truly believe that how we treat this earth and its inhabitants and the way we live doesn’t matter because Jesus will return any minute now

"We don't have to protect the environment - the Second Coming is at hand."
-James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

I'm trouble as well ... seems we won't wake up until catastrophe happens. Then we'll call it God's judgment. When God didn't have anything to do with it. We're doing it to ourselves.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

"We don't have to protect the environment - the Second Coming is at hand."
-James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

I'm trouble as well ... seems we won't wake up until catastrophe happens. Then we'll call it God's judgment. When God didn't have anything to do with it. We're doing it to ourselves.

Great quote from Watt whether or not he really said it, I am sure he believed it. That is the problem. As Christians we won't take responsibility for what we are doing to this earth and one thing we know for sure---we are living on ONE earth and we don't have another earth to go to once we have depleted and polluted the one we have. We are leaving this earth worse than how we found it for our children and grandchildren unless we do something about it. Truth---we can see that we are depleting the Amazon but heaven's reality has been elusive for thousands of years. Believing in the Bible is great but don't forget about how we are affecting the environment, God's creations or the world we live in.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

"We don't have to protect the environment - the Second Coming is at hand." --James Watt, Interior Secretary under Ronald Reagan

I'm trouble as well ... seems we won't wake up until catastrophe happens. Then we'll call it God's judgment. When God didn't have anything to do with it. We're doing it to ourselves.

That's why we need a President who will stop the rising water of the oceans.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why we need a President who will stop the rising water of the oceans.

If you are hoping in a president we're all doomed.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Thanks for the link but here is a direct link to the talk which I was able to pull off your link: http://server.firefighters.org/18000/18110.mp3 So if you wish to save it on your computer you can do so by right clicking on it. "save audio as"

Yes, it is an amazing speech and probably why there was such a response from Lee. This is the first time I have listened to it and am amazed at its clarity of what we were involved in. He mentions the Mind Benders which was pulled from the shelves but the overall idea of "we have the truth" and no one else does is clear. Now, why CRI later wrote the article they did regarding the fact the LC was scriptural is mind boggling. Anyway, thanks.

I think that the problem with CRI is that Walter Martin is no longer around. It might be likened to a family business that gets left to the son who never had any real understanding of the business, or busness in general, but intends to run it himself.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why we need a President who will stop the rising water of the oceans.

Of course you are being facetious. But as long as we actually believe we can't make a change, we won't. I live just 5 blocks from the Atlantic Ocean and every 3-4 years they have to "renourish" the beach by pulling in sand from a mile out. It costs the feds/state millions of dollars. Houses on the ocean not far from us have lost their frontage.

We would rather believe that the 2nd coming is near and we don't have any responsibility to the environment. Let's just go pray-read, shout "Oh Lord Jesus", study a few more verses and bring down the Kingdom of God. God's judgment is nigh. I am not just talking about the environment but also the way we treat each other in this world or animals. We have killed off elephants, for example, at an alarming rate. Jesus in the NT dealt with the issues of his day whether it was the poor, sick or confused. The environment or population problems were not an issue. What are the issues of our day that you think Jesus would deal with today?

Just to be clear, I am not interested in the New Age Movement (NAM) which may have some similar ideas but are problematic. I am interested in real issues of our day.

The bottom line which I presented earlier is the issue that Jesus cared about the issues of His day and thought that the Kingdom of God would come during his generation with the disciples and He ruling the Kingdom of God making the sick well, the poor rich etc.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think that the problem with CRI is that Walter Martin is no longer around. It might be likened to a family business that gets left to the son who never had any real understanding of the business, or busness in general, but intends to run it himself.

I agree with you. If you read Martin's books it is hard to believe after he died that "the business" would denigrate to the state it is in without real research.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

I live just 5 blocks from the Atlantic Ocean and every 3-4 years they have to "renourish" the beach by pulling in sand from a mile out. It costs the feds/state millions of dollars. Houses on the ocean not far from us have lost their frontage.

Do you know what specifically is happening to the beaches near your house? Is the water level rising or the same? Is there a change in currents along the shore that is washing away the sand? Are their piers and such or a reduction in natural barriors offshore? It is odd how man-made things can cause both build-up of sand and/or silt in some places and wash-out in others. Also there are changes that are of unknown source.

I do not propose that man does not have a part in the changes you are observing. But are we sure what it is? If it is the result of climate change, do we know why it is changing? Do we relly have more than correlation? It does appear that the climate has been both warmer and cooler over long periods of time.

And you are correct that this "the earth ends tomorrow" mentality of a lot of Christians surely does not help to the extent that man is responsible for the way things are going.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Do you know what specifically is happening to the beaches near your house? Is the water level rising or the same? Is there a change in currents along the shore that is washing away the sand? Are their piers and such or a reduction in natural barriors offshore? It is odd how man-made things can cause both build-up of sand and/or silt in some places and wash-out in others. Also there are changes that are of unknown source.

I do not propose that man does not have a part in the changes you are observing. But are we sure what it is? If it is the result of climate change, do we know why it is changing? Do we relly have more than correlation? It does appear that the climate has been both warmer and cooler over long periods of time.

And you are correct that this "the earth ends tomorrow" mentality of a lot of Christians surely does not help to the extent that man is responsible for the way things are going.

I am not going to say that the renourishing of our beach is a result of climate change. My point is that I am close to seeing that things are changing and we know throughout history that climate does change without even considering the issue of climate change which is going on now.

However, many of the environmental changes we are observing are a result of the pollution we have been funneling into our atmosphere. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this is going on. If you were around when LA smog alerts were going on until they made efforts to clean up their pollution you would have a small sample of the reality of what we have been pouring into our atmosphere. Unfortunately, China's recent "industrial revolution" has only added to our planet's problem which we don't have any control over although apparently they are trying to clean up their act with improved coal facilities.

Do we know that man is part of what is going on? Of course we do. ONly a small minority of those who want to deny what most scientists agree is a result of what has been polluting our atmosphere would disagree.

How does this relate to anything related to WN/WL or Jesus? I call the WN/WL ministry the head in the sand ministry. If people pull their head out of the sand they can look around and actually see what is going on around them.

My questions is this: What would Jesus do or say if he was alive today? Would he stop by the local churches and say "Wow, you have kept the faith, you have fought the good fight?" Or, since he was a Jew, would he visit the nearest Synagogue and drive out the money changers? It's not just about climate change but a whole lot more.

Most of the Bible relates to the 1st Century Jews and Gentiles and it doesn't compute in today's world although we keep trying to make it fit. In fact this forum is a perfect example. We are trying to make this all relevant to today's world. It isn't easy because we are trying to make this broken world and the broken lives fit into a 1st Century world. Thus, we keep saying the 2nd coming is near which is probably the best we can do or apply the ethics of the NT as best we can. Much of it just doesn't fit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not propose that man does not have a part in the changes you are observing. But are we sure what it is? If it is the result of climate change, do we know why it is changing?

Global warming is caused by the heat of the loins.

In the beginning God said, "be fruitful and multiply" ...

... but now, if we only had a true prophet of God today (where have the prophets gone?) , speaking for God, God would be saying something on the order of: "stop that fruitfulness and multiplying. Why be so ignorant that you can't see the obvious without me telling you? I gave you a brain and didn't make you Bonobo monkeys. That, btw, your population explosion is extincting."

That's what God would say today. If we could only hear Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Of course you are being facetious. But as long as we actually believe we can't make a change, we won't. I live just 5 blocks from the Atlantic Ocean and every 3-4 years they have to "renourish" the beach by pulling in sand from a mile out. It costs the feds/state millions of dollars. Houses on the ocean not far from us have lost their frontage.
.

After Katrina they learned that NOLA was sinking 3 to 4 times faster than previously thought. So the "real issue" of the day is not the rising oceans, due to the heat from lions, but building on sinking sand, an issue which Jesus addressed in detail while He was on earth.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am not going to say that the renourishing of our beach is a result of climate change. My point is that I am close to seeing that things are changing and we know throughout history that climate does change without even considering the issue of climate change which is going on now.

However, many of the environmental changes we are observing are a result of the pollution we have been funneling into our atmosphere. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this is going on. If you were around when LA smog alerts were going on until they made efforts to clean up their pollution you would have a small sample of the reality of what we have been pouring into our atmosphere. Unfortunately, China's recent "industrial revolution" has only added to our planet's problem which we don't have any control over although apparently they are trying to clean up their act with improved coal facilities.

Do we know that man is part of what is going on? Of course we do. ONly a small minority of those who want to deny what most scientists agree is a result of what has been polluting our atmosphere would disagree.

How does this relate to anything related to WN/WL or Jesus? I call the WN/WL ministry the head in the sand ministry. If people pull their head out of the sand they can look around and actually see what is going on around them.

My questions is this: What would Jesus do or say if he was alive today? Would he stop by the local churches and say "Wow, you have kept the faith, you have fought the good fight?" Or, since he was a Jew, would he visit the nearest Synagogue and drive out the money changers? It's not just about climate change but a whole lot more.

Most of the Bible relates to the 1st Century Jews and Gentiles and it doesn't compute in today's world although we keep trying to make it fit. In fact this forum is a perfect example. We are trying to make this all relevant to today's world. It isn't easy because we are trying to make this broken world and the broken lives fit into a 1st Century world. Thus, we keep saying the 2nd coming is near which is probably the best we can do or apply the ethics of the NT as best we can. Much of it just doesn't fit.

The real source of the problem of replenishing our beaches lies with the Federal Flood Insurance act back in the 60's. Before that, mankind was smart enough to know that it was stupid to build houses on the beach in the hurricane prone South or elsewhere. This was evidenced by the inability to mortgage houses which could not be insured by private insurers. Super Storm Sandy proved that man is devolving from his prior state of intelligence. We now regularly build houses on the ocean beaches and sand bars because we all know that the Federal Govt has unlimited funds to insure all this expensive real estate.

If only we had listened to what the Lord Jesus had told us long ago about building on the rock.

[awareness]

When bro Ohio asked what is this about global warming is caused by the heat of the lions I cracked up. Boy a slip of the keybd can cause craziness.

I meant to say:

Global warming is caused by the heat of the loins ..

The loins, the loins ... not lions...

Ha ha ha ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

My questions is this: What would Jesus do or say if he was alive today?

Now that's a very funny question. Answer: We'd have to kill him again. We could put him in the electric chair. That way believers would go around with a little electric chair around their necks.

Originally Posted by Dave

Most of the Bible relates to the 1st Century Jews and Gentiles and it doesn't compute in today's world although we keep trying to make it fit. In fact this forum is a perfect example. We are trying to make this all relevant to today's world. It isn't easy because we are trying to make this broken world and the broken lives fit into a 1st Century world. Thus, we keep saying the 2nd coming is near which is probably the best we can do or apply the ethics of the NT as best we can. Much of it just doesn't fit.

This is a very deep and profound realization.

I know, and have known, Christians that do their best to make the Bible fit into their lives. And it just doesn't work. It makes them crazy, and do crazy things, and mess up their lives, as they try to role-play characters they see in the Bible, mixing them up from day to day, applying ancient times to modern times, as encountering situations to mimic. And they blame God for the outcome. Not linking, or perchance ignoring, a connection of failure to their premise of living by the Bible. Then they tend to long for the release from the crappy outcomes, the ever crappy world, and cry out for Jesus to come back ... to take them out of it.

Hey, I long for the Kingdom too. But as Thoreau said on his death bed, when asked if he was ready for the next world: "One world at a time."

When the great environmentalist was asked if he had made peace with God, he responded: "I don't know if we ever quarreled."