Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship

We don't denominate at all. Unless you want to call not receiving unbelievers into the church as members is denominational. The fact of the matter is that the local churches practice receiving all believers. That is why it is truly "local". Any believer particularly local to the assembly, living in that city, is to be receieved as a brother if they are Christians.So Corinth is the ground for the church in Corinth. And Ephesus is the ground for the church in Ephesus and Colossi is the ground for her church ,etc,etc,. We have returned to this vision and practice.That is not denominational. I am not sure what a cult is these days except that it is something which people are afraid of. I see. Okay. Maybe I saw red meat when I saw the word cult.Regardless, I don't go out of my way to digest attacks against the local churches. I know pretty well the standard and the shifting crriticisms - ie. authoritarianism.No one ever told me where to live, what to wear, who to marry, where to work, etc. Most of the time when I go for advice to the elders we end up praying and seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit. I don't out and out refuse. If you have something you want to say, you say it here in the discussion.Discussions which end up in linking to posts are really not dialogue anymore. Your perogative. I'll bear the responsibility before the Lord for that. And you will bear the responsibility for all the things which you have written in this Forum about God and His Bible.Sorry though, if I got too personal. I apologize. Please quote me where I proclaimed near perfection. This is the second time you have judged and made a claim about me that I have ASK YOU to provide quotes.The other time was my supposed claiming superiority over others. I don't think you ever followed through and provided a quotation.I get the impression that when I say that I believe the Bible to a certain extent that you regard this as my saying I am superior to others who have some other kinds of beliefs about the Bible.We'll it does not mean that I am superior to anyone. I just think they are wrong.Now you have TWO quotes I expect to verify YOUR judging of me. Here's your chance to shine. Which did I deny ? Enumerate which I denied.Oh, failing to portray the best spirit is not denial but a failure. I'm much worst than you could ever know. I am really bad.Don't expect me to say AMEN to all your ideas because I am accutely aware that the Holy Spirit still has a lot of work yet to do in me.
That tactic won't work. I'll still point out where you're wrong if I feel to.Have a blessed day.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Left out the word "not" Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I expect from Anglagaard.

​

1.) A quotation showing that I said I was superior to others on the Board

​

2.) A quotation saying I was near perfection.

​

3.) A quotation specifying which teachings of Jesus in Sermon on the Mount I denied.

​

Anglagaard is mad because s/he thinks a good Christian should just humbly take in hook, line and sinker all manner of modernistic and heretical thoughts for fear of appearing judgmental.Forget about it Anglagaard. I won't wait until I am perfectily matured to point out where you need to take your modernistic errors back to the skeptical website or handy dandy skeptic's book you got them from to try to pass them off on the rest of us unchallenged.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : "Crap" softened to "ideas"Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

From reading about your belief system, I know that members of your belief system hate the word denomination almost as much as they hate the word cult. I gather that this is because that while they consider any and all other manners of belief false, they do not consider the members of such supposedly 'false' beliefs irredeemable. This belief system is not unique to yours, and is actually quite common among the other 'denominations' of Christianity.Now I am uncomfortable with calling your religious movement 'the local church' as this term in the English Language normally indicates the neighborhood church around the corner from where they live.So I guess in order to not offend you I could use the clumsier terms, 'the small group of Christians that jaywill follows' which is not very descriptive, or the really clumsy term 'small group of Christians that believe in a modified form of Christianity that is promoted by believers in Watchman Lee and Witness Ne in their interpretation of the Bible.'Perhaps I should call it 'jaywill's Christianity.' Personally I would find the term egotistical, but you may not.At any rate, please tell the rest of the world, using the least amount of words possible, and the least potentially deceptive term possible, what we should call your belief system and I will use that term.One problem I am seeing in even conversing with you at all is that you insist on using non-standard definitions of such common words as 'God,' (in the case of becoming god as opposed to being God) 'local church,' 'denomination,' and so on. If you insist on conversing in a language other than English of which I and virtually all other members of this forum use, I see no point in continuing a discussion, as you can make any word mean what you may want it to mean regardless of the most basic rules of logic.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Anglagaard, Particularly, when you make charges which cannot be backed up with quotations from me - it is best to discontinue. You should produce my quotations or retract your charges. Then we could move on to another subject, ie. the local church.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well, maybe this one time but you have to remember, I am not your slave so I will not always accede to your demands. While you did not state the exact words "I am superior to others on this board," you most certainly used the equivalent words in the English Language.For example, from Message 166:

quote:

---

Disbelief of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disbelief is always "literary genre".
Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same.
I read your attempts to still salvage some grand artistic importance from what you read as perhaps just a way to bribe your conscience by getting something else, just not God's speaking.

---

You judged Archer as inferior to you due to your superior ”cult’ membership despite knowing virtually nothing concerning any relationship to any deity he may haveYou even conditionally apologized for your assertion here in message 178:

quote:

---

But you are right. My misread of the post in this particular discussion cannot prove s/he said the NT was fiction.
Sorry for that mistake.

---

Have you forgotten your own posts?.

quote:

---

I think I am more bothered by the contradictions of your godlessness.

---

You judged me as inferior to you due to your superior ”cult’ membership despite knowing virtually nothing concerning any relationship to any deity I may have.A statement for which I seriously doubt you will ever apologize for under any conditions as I have questioned your on-again, off-again self proclaimed perfection.From message 182:

quote:

---

There is only one God, not my private custom made one in the contemptuous sense that you wrote.

---

But in Message 300 you stated:

quote:

---

Becomming God in our understanding does not mean these few things:
1.) Becomming omnipotent
2.) Becomming omnipresent
3.) Becomming omniscient
4.) Becomming an object of worship
5.) Becomming a Creator of universes
(There may be other aspects I could add to that list)
Greek Orthodoxy has taught a kind of Deification or Divinization for centries.
Athanasius refered to by some as "the father of orthodoxy" said that God became man so that man might become God.
In "becomming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" we do not mean that ALL attributes of God are communicable. But a son of a horse is a horse. The son of a cat is a cat. The son of a gerbil is a gerbil. The son of an eagle is an eagle. The son of a man is a man.
What then is the son of God? In a very real and biblical sense the son of God is God in life and nature but not in His Godhead.

---

You and the members of your ”cult’ are still either claiming to be, or on your way, to becoming ”god.’ Now once confronted with this weird theology, you decide to arbitrarily redefine the word ”god’ to include yourself but not everyone else’s definition (outside the ”cult’).Obviously if you claim to be a part of the ”cult’ that flatly states you and other members of this ”cult’ are becoming or are ”god’ while all others who do not worship Watchman Lee or Witness Ne as divine prophets are fated to oblivion unless they are converted, then you are most certainly claiming superiority over virtually all others on this board.Besides, if all the members of the ”cult’ become ”god,’ how can one then seriously claim there is but one God?

quote:

---

2.) A quotation saying I was near perfection.

---

See above. You are the one claiming to be in the process of becoming ”god.’

quote:

---

3.) A quotation specifying which teachings of Jesus in Sermon on the Mount I denied.

---

See above. Try “judge not lest ye be judged” or “beware of false prophets.”

quote:

---

You should produce my quotations or retract your charges. Then we could move on to another subject, ie. the local church.

---

Like Bluegenes, I have no desire to discuss your ”cult’ or the false prophecy of witness such-and-such who apparently thinks he is ”god.’Besides neither I nor anyone else can debate or discuss anything with someone who makes up definitions of common English words just to justify any absurd position they may hold. It is the Humpty-Dumpty defense.

quote:

---

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

---

There can be no discussion of what the Bible means if one can make any word mean anything they choose.Also, if cheap grace is declaring oneself saved, what does that make someone who declares oneself ”god’ or becoming ”god?’ super-saved?

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I criticize Archer handling of parts of the Bible. This criticism has nothing to do with my supposed superiority over Archer as a human being.No, no my criticism in that discussion was not an argument over some innate superiority as a human being I have over Archer. It is not the first time I apologized to someone for misunderstanding something.I don't see how you're drawing my attention to this means anything. Other than the fact that you can say "See, you apologized for something" ... so what?Neither before nor after the apology is there any argument from me about my innate superiority as a human over Archer. I can disagree with someone without using our differences to imply relative human worth of either party. I think the Bible is true when it says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."So any sense of superiority of one sinner over another is illusionary. I'm only a sinner saved by grace.We may have different views on what is taught in the Bible. That does not lead me to feel any innate human superiority over those who have contrary interpretations.In short, you can be wrong about something in the Bible without being inferior in any way as a human being to me.The issue is not who is a better person. There is none good, to my belief, but God only. I don't usually to apologize for people's misunderstandings of something I wrote. It sounds to me like you just misunderstand what I wrote.Christians are in the process of being perfected. It is not a matter of on again off again perfection. Salvation is a process of being perfected.Of course the perfect One is Christ Himself. And we stand upon His perfect merit to participate in the process. We claim that all Christians are underging the process of sanctification and deification. It is a common benefit of all believers whether they meet with us in the local churches or do not.All believers who are born again are destined to grow and mature in mature sons of God. That is what the New Testament teaches. That is not special dogma of the local churches.Your dsesignation of the local churches as a "cult" I am more likely to wear as a badge of honor. What "weird theology" is that. I haven't seen you point out any weird theology. I have seen you allude to some misunderstandings of Christian teachings in the New Testament.I haven't seen you point out any "weird theology" yet. And strawmen arguments I cannot claim as my "weird theology".What is weird? Is regeneration weird to you? Is santification weird to you? Is being conformed to the image of the firstborn Son of God weird to you? Is deification weird to you? Is glorification, transfiguration, transformation, resurrection, sonshiip, and marrying Christ as His Wife and Bride weird to you?Is so you should prayfully continue to read and study the New Testament.Is becomming the Body of Christ weird to you? Is matching Christ Who is God/man, in life and in nature and in expression weird to you?Is being given the authority to become children of God weird to you?I'm sorry that all these biblical teachings are weird to you. I would suggest that you continue to read prayerfully. These teachings are in the Bible and should be the to common understanding of all lovers of Jesus. I am not sure what you mean here. But again, deification is the common destiny of all who are regenerated and born of God. All who receive Christ are destined to be sons of God.Greek Orthodoxy has taught deification or theosis of the believers for centries. In the local churches we may be drawing more attention to an aspect of truth which is neglected by many Christian teachers.It is nothing new that we have invented. Where have any ministers of the local churches spoken that deification is only the expectation to those who recognize Nee and Lee as divine prophets?Could you please explicitly quote the message or book that stated the above concept. What book? What page? What paragraph? What message? Where was it said by any teacher connected with the local churches or whose words are published by Living Stream Ministry the above concept.If deification is the destination of all believers who do or do not even KNOW or agree with Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, than how can you justify your concept?Produce your quotation to justify the accusation made. I bet you cannot.I think your accusation is a lie at worst. At best, you are just paroting some accusation you read from some long ago discredited critic. This is a false accusation. It is Christ Himself who is the determining factor as to whether we will be saved or perish.The only superior one is Jesus Himself. The rest of us are sinners saved by grace or lost because of unbelief in Christ.Rejecting Nee's or Lee's ministry may slow one down as to being perfected. It certainly cannot stop Jesus from eventually obtaining the the will of God with any believer:We can say with the Apostle Paul concerning every born again Christian - "Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun in you a good work will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Phil. 1:6) Incedently, Paul wrote this passage over a thousand years before either Watchman Nee or Witness Lee was born. So obviously the Phillippians attitude towards the two men had no bearing on Paul's expectation that God would complete His work in them. There is one God. But the one God has a plan to dispense His life and nature into many sons of God.If the term "gods' bothers you then substitute "sons of God". That is saved people who have come into a life relationship with the Divine Father so as to extend the Divine Family. God is the Head and Father of this corporate entity and the saved sons of God are the Body or extension of this Divine / Human incoporation.Nothing is mentioned in Romans 8:28,29 about a believer's belief in Nee or Lee as divine prophets. It only says that the believers are to be conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God that He may be the First among many brothers.The many brothers corporately constititute the Bride and Wife of the Redeeming God - the Lamb. This is in Revelation. We are processed to match Him that we may marry Him.Read your Bible. That is right. I am in the process. And all believers in Jesus are also in the process with me. We may slow Him down b ut we cannot stop God from deifying us. We may cause Him some trouble because of dragging our feet. But eventually we who believe into Christ will all be made recipents of God's life and nature to express God as sons of God.He became like us so that we may become like Him.Have you not read?"Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not yet been manifested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is." (1 John 3:2)What do you think the Apostle John means when he teaches that we the born again Christians, shall be like Him? Do you think he means we shall be like him in that we will wear a first century robe and walk in sandals? Of course not.Within and without we shall be divinized to be like Him in life and nature and expression. He is God/man and we the born of God will be perfected to be like Him as Godmen.By the way, when John wrote that Nee and Lee had not even been born yet. So attitude towards them and their ministries had nothing to do with it. Nonsense. We should learn not only what the Bible says but what it ALSO says.Didn't Paul tell the church in Corinth that they had to judge one in their midst? So sometimes we Christians are called to judge (1 Cor. 5:12,13; 6:1,2).Besides, the passage refered to in Matthew simply says that if we as Christians DO judge we should expect to be judged.So it means that one must accept the responsibility that he will be examined in judgment by Jesus if he himself examines in judgment. I accept that responsibility in order to point out by judgment and examination, a false teaching.If someone comes into the Bible Study here saying, for example, "The New Testament does not teach us that Jesus is to be worshipped as God incarnate." I reserve every right to "judge" that person regardless of "Judge not the you be not judged." I think you are misapplying the passage to mean accept all manner of heretical ideas a true teachings of the Bible when they are NOT. I have little desire to try to straighten out the crooked and twisted ignorance of one who won't carefully examine the teachings of the New Testament. This amuses me a little. To be accused of Humpty Dumtyism.It is kind of cute, yet your twisted accusations are really not an amusing matter.Anyway, deification through the life and nature of God is a long held belief. If teachers neglected it that doesn't make it not appear in the Bible.Sons of God are God dispensed human beings who become "gods" of sort and collectively and corporately are constituted into Mrs. Jesus Christ - His Wife and Bride to one day match Him and marry Him.As Adam said of his wife ' "This time it is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh ..." so one day we also who have been regenerated with the divine life, will match Christ the Godman so as to be His perfect counterpart.This is the climax of the 66 books of the Bible. God finally obtains for Himself a match, a counterpart, a Spouse, a Bride and Wife.Be became like us so that through His extensive salvation we may become like Him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.