|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions of Reliability and/or Authorship | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Anglagaard,
Thanks for providing this link with the other links you referenced from the Apologetics Index: The Testimony of the Local Churches and Living Stream Ministry
Dialogue with Fuller Theological Seminary “During the last two years, representatives of the local churches (sometimes called by others ”The Local Church’) and of our publishing service, Living Stream Ministry, have been privileged to meet and have dialogue with some of the leading members of Fuller Theological Seminary’s academic community....We hope that we can help alleviate the concern over Fuller’s proper Christian act of receiving us by offering to this larger audience an explanation of our views on Christian truth and practice, which in many ways will be similar to what we offered our brothers at Fuller during the last two years.” [Read more on this topic here] Good work Anglagaard! Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jaywill writes: Could you please provide me the location of the quotation you referenced so that I may view it in its entire context? Thirty years of devotion, and you need to ask an infidel to show you where to find the words of your prophet! Fortunately for you, this infidel is a saint.
quote: Witness Lee, The Practical Points Concerning Blending, fifth printing, 2001 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1994), p. 46.
Read your prophet here! (First paragraph)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Thirty years of devotion, and you need to ask an infidel to show you where to find the words of your prophet! Fortunately for you, this infidel is a saint. Yep. Thirty years and thousands of thousands of pages, hundreds of messages, lots of repetitions. Do you mind if I get the reference?
Sooner or later, you have to be made God, either in the church age or in the coming kingdom age. All of God’s redeemed people will eventually become gods as the very God in life, in nature, and in appearance but not in the Godhead. The New Jerusalem is the God-men who have been transformed, glorified, and mingled with the processed and consummated Triune God. Witness Lee, The Practical Points Concerning Blending, fifth printing, 2001 (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 1994), p. 46.
Oh! I see. Lee said "All of God's redeemed people". I thought Alnglagaard was insituating that only an elite few at Living Stream Ministry were to participate in this. You know, only those under a Right Wing authoritarian conspiracy? Oh! I see. Lee said " BUT .... not in the Godhead". I thought Anglagaard was insinuating that some people at Living Stream Ministry were going to somehow put God out of business or something, replacing God. Oh, I see. He is talking about a collective and corporate city - New Jerusalem as God's goal rather than a million individual new Gods replacing the one God. Well, the New Jerusalem is called the Bride and the Wife of the Lamb in the Bible. That must mean that the New Jerusalem must MATCH Christ in some way. And we believe that the Bible says that Christ is God-man. So if the God-man is going to marry a Wife and Bride she must be LIKE HIM in some profound way. Is that LSM's concoction or is that what the Bible says? See Revelation 21 and 22 please. Processed and consummated Triune God? Yes I understand that. I have heard that the Word Who was God became flesh (John 1:14). I have heard that the last Adam became a life giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45) Do you have a problem with any of this? Lee is just elaborating on what is right there in the Bible. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Instead of tossing links back and forth why not discuss with me what you want to talk about?
This is a Discussion Forum and a Bible Study. What in the first paragraph has you troubled? I looked at the outline of the first chapter. I am not sure what you meant by "first paragraph". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Jaywill it seems that you have been having a very interesting discussion here I am not familiar with the group to which you are asscociated. Do you have a specific website that will set out its exact beliefs and positions?
As I am a member of the Church of Christ, you know that other cult, ha ha. i would be interested in what you believe the bible states about how one enters the Kingdom of Christ. I have challenged Phat and Anglangaard to state what it is that they expect an "Spirit Filled" person to or act like and they have moved away from thier assertion. I have also, challenged them to state in no uncertain terms thier positions on these matters, but they seem to not want to debate but quibble. Anywho, Ihpoe you dont mind me asking these questions. D Bertot I
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Jaywill it seems that you have been having a very interesting discussion here I am not familiar with the group to which you are asscociated. Do you have a specific website that will set out its exact beliefs and positions?
I'd be honored. I have enjoyed your solid articles very much. Since the opposition arose many articles have a polemic flavor to them. I will try to include links which do not have that understandably defensive posture. Here is something on Christian Websites set up by the workers Christian Web Site The Scriptures - The Scriptures - Source & History: refs. include Witness Lee, Watchman Nee God's Economy - God‘s Economy: recovered by Witness Lee, enjoyed by local churches Christ's Incarnation - http://www.christincarnation.org Regeneration - Witness Lee & Watchman Nee teach regeneration Pray Reading the Word - Pray-reading: refs. include Witness Lee, Watchman Nee Witness Lee - Witness Lee A Bondslave of Jesus Christ Watchman Nee - Watchman Nee A Seer of the Divine Revelation
As I am a member of the Church of Christ, you know that other cult, ha ha. i would be interested in what you believe the bible states about how one enters the Kingdom of Christ. LOL! I am somewhat familiar with the Princetom NJ Church of Christ. And I have been to Bible Talks at the Boston Church of Christ. A long time ago I was immersed by some brothers from the Church of Christ in Princeton NJ. That was around 71 or 72.
I have challenged Phat and Anglangaard to state what it is that they expect an "Spirit Filled" person to or act like and they have moved away from thier assertion. I have also, challenged them to state in no uncertain terms thier positions on these matters, but they seem to not want to debate but quibble. This is a problem. We can learn from one another if we are honest and up front and willing to learn. I have learned some things from people with whom I did not agree on this Forum. That is some things.
Anywho, Ihpoe you dont mind me asking these questions.
I don't mind. Browse around on those websites. I highly recommend that you search for a theological publication from LSM called Affirmation and Critique. That magazine is specifically tailored for those a little more versed in theology education or church history. Affirmation & Critique - A Journal of Christian Thought You can ask me about my own experience or anything else if I can be of help. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
jaywill writes: Instead of tossing links back and forth why not discuss with me what you want to talk about? You asked for the reference, nitwit, so I gave it. I have no wish to discuss your idiotic superstitions, and my original post was a joke at your expense.
jaywill writes: What in the first paragraph has you troubled? I looked at the outline of the first chapter. I am not sure what you meant by "first paragraph". It doesn't trouble me any more than the ramblings of any other self-appointed holy man. It's mumbo jumbo, but no worse than St. Paul or Mohamed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Bertot writes: I have challenged Phat and Anglangaard to state what it is that they expect an "Spirit Filled" person to or act like and they have moved away from thier assertion. I have also, challenged them to state in no uncertain terms thier positions on these matters, but they seem to not want to debate but quibble. A "Spirit Filled" person would heal the sick, feed the poor, and bring peace, as stated here in Matthew 25:31-46:
quote: Now I'm sure like all good judges, you can quote mine other parts of the Bible that support a faith-only, behavior don't count, version. Of course by doing so, you will not only show how the Bible contradicts itself, but also show how one will censor the Bible to support the cheap grace position. Want Biblical justification? Try Matthew 7, as in all of it.
quote: As for any matter you choose to debate, just ask. If you want to call everything I state a quibble to make yourself feel better, feel free. Also, I work for a living. Don't expect me to always be there every waking moment simply waiting to respond to your posts as your seemingly inflated ego appears to demand. I have other, more important issues that come first. Edited by anglagard, : Include Matthew 25, for those who won't follow links. Edited by anglagard, : discovered a to in place of the. 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 Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill writes: Becomming God in our understanding does not mean these few things: 1.) Becomming omnipotent2.) 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. We believe that Jesus is God/Man. And the Apostle John says that "we shall be like Him" (1 John 3:2. Witness Lee didn't put that in the Bible. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle John did. Then why use the same word "God" to confer two different concepts? Isn't the English language confusing enough without adding to the problem? Besides, even should one insist on using the term "God" in this context, couldn't one use a qualifier, such as becoming a servant of God, or becoming what God intends us to be, instead of just saying "becoming God," that brings up some serious questions concerning one's humility in defining their role in the universe? Also, how is claiming to be "God" or "as God" something less than declaring oneself 'saved' and therefore above any and all rules of conduct as the cheap grace crowd would have it?
Will you resort to "guilt by association" and tie John in with Mary Baker Eddy also Angelgard? Well, one would have to ask a Christian Scientist about what they consider their relative roles, not me. As for either Mary Baker Eddy or John, neither are Christ, a point apparently easily missed.
Sons of God are in the same family as God and share the life and nature of God. They just do not share the Headship of God. The Apostle Peter said that the disciples (not just those in Living Stream Ministry or who meet with local churches reciptive to Witness Lee) are "partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)". So if we proclaim to our Christian brothers and sisters throughout the world wherever they meet, that we Christians are "partakers of the divine nature{" (2 Pet .1:4), how does that make us superior to others? That is part of the Gospel. Am I right? Peter's phrase "partakers of the divine nature" does not simply observers or spectators. Partakers are participants. So it is the common portion of all Christians that have received Christ into them that they are participants and "partakers of the divine nature." Where is the sense of superiority in proclaiming what is the biblical birthright of all believers in Christ? If you were to take out the independent and near-co-equal aspects of this teaching and instead state one is or becomes a part of God, you would be accused of pantheism. Please feel free to elaborate further as I am unfamiliar with this, to me, strange and unusual doctrine. 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 Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill writes: I am a registered Democrat in my state, if you must know about my politics. Is that Okay with you or does your paranoia insist that I must be a registered Republican so I can subscribe to "Right Wing Authorianism?" Had you actually read the link I provided to Altemeyer's research, you would realize his term 'right-wing authoritarianism' has little or nothing to do with the terms 'right wing,' republicans, or conservatives in general except where they have authoritarian leanings and instead has everything to do with authoritarianism in general, whatever its source. I would provide a direct quote but the files are in pdf and I am presently too tired and lazy to see if I can convert them to something I can quote directly. Maybe later. It was not only a debate point but also a test to see if you would read any links I may put up. Sorry, you flunked. 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 Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Anglagard writes: I think one could learn a lot more from Phat about Christianity than anyone possibly can from your own self-righteousness. Bertot writes: Notice how your sentence starts, "I think", but its me that is self-righteous, Hmmmm? You problem is with God and Christ my simple little friend. See Message 308 Bertot writes: Well Ive been studying these "simple verses" some thirty five years now and I thought I had a general understanding of what thier very simple implication or understanding was, but apparently I dont. so if you could enlighten me through your vast wisdom, (possibly Gnostic in nature) without simply "asserting" that I dont understand them, maybe this will help me. lets see if you can make more than baseless assertions. Perhaps you should include Matthew 7 and 25 in your 35 years of study.
Anglagard writes: Anyone can quote this or that Bible, the real question is can one live the essential teachings common to all Bibles. Bertot writes: What is the essential teachings common to all Bibles and how did you decide what they should be? Did you get this from God through inspiration or are you using your own "self-righteouness" to decide? Actually I made a mistake by stating this as not all versions of the Bible actually even include the New Testament nor am I able to reference more than 20 versions. What I should have said was all New Testaments of which I am familiar. As for essential teachings, I would include the golden rule or even that part about "judge not lest ye be judged." Now supporting this point will involve an unusually long post. Is that what you demand? As to self-righteousness, I just admitted I made a mistake. Time will tell if you can do the same. Also, it would help move the debate process along if you can tell me which translation of the Bible is the one you consider infallible and 'inspired by God' as there are several different versions, as I have pointed out. And a minor point, could you and jaywill please learn how to use the spell checker in Firefox or at least Google. Your posts with all those misspellings make you two look as if you lack a proper grasp of the English language. 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 Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Had you actually read the link I provided to Altemeyer's research, you would realize his term 'right-wing authoritarianism' has little or nothing to do with the terms 'right wing,' republicans, or conservatives in general except where they have authoritarian leanings and instead has everything to do with authoritarianism in general, whatever its source. I would provide a direct quote but the files are in pdf and I am presently too tired and lazy to see if I can convert them to something I can quote directly. Maybe later. Hey, you get tired too? So likewise I didn't stop and read through every article in your link when I'd rather discuss our topics here. And if YOU had read your link to Apologetics Index you might have realized that it included a thorough defense and confirmation from Fuller Theological Seminary saying that the local churches were in fact, NOT a cult. F to you too.
It was not only a debate point but also a test to see if you would read any links I may put up.
You didn't read it yourself. You pointed me to some information. I pointed you to some likewise. No. I didn't spend the next half hour reading a bunch of things that I have pretty much heard elsewhere for some years now. It was like left over chop suey. Real big deal - "I'm in a cult." Sure.
Sorry, you flunked.
You too. And stop lying. You're not "sorry" at all. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Anglagaard,
Your reference to a Spirit filled person from Matthew 25 is in error. Actually those to whom Christ is speaking in Matthew 25:31-46 who represent the "sheep" are not Spirit filled and are probably not even Christians. There are three parties at that judgment scene: 1.) The sheep2.) The goats 3.) These the least of the brothers of Christ. The brothers of Christ, Who would be the ones Spirit filled, are the criteria against which the sheep and the goats are judged. If they are the criteria related to how the sheep and goats are to be judged then they cannot themselves be in either catagory. So the sheep are not the least of the Lord's brothers. But they are examined as to how they TREATED the least of the Lord's brothers. This is a judgment of the living nations who are on the earth at the time of the conclusion of the Great Tribulation and the commencement of the millennial kingdom. To have nations for the saints of God to rule over there must be some nations preserved from the church age and transfered into the age of the millennial kingdom - the kingdom prepared for the sheep from the foundation of the world. That is unless you think that for the saints to reign means that they reign over each other, which is not very logical. The sheep nations then are restored to a condition of Adam before the fall of man - innocent and with no particular reason to die. That is the kingdom prepared for the sheep "from the foundation of the world." We can discuss this further if you don't understand. Now you can kind of "borrow" the passage because so many things in it are commendable. But actually it does not refer to Christians. It refers to the Gentile nations which do not follow Antichrist as the goats did, in the end times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill writes: Hey, you get tired too? So likewise I didn't stop and read through every article in your link when I'd rather discuss our topics here. And if YOU had read your link you might have realized that a thorough defense and confirmation from Fuller Theological Seminary was there saying that the local churches were in fact, NOT a cult. F to you too. At least you haven't descended to the depths yet of that other evolving troll. I think he's soon to graduate to a level to be able to scribble some names on the boy's room bathroom wall. Discussion Forums are a little over his head obviously. I intentionally used semiquotes when using the term cult to indicate that I do not believe this moniker should be applied to your religious denomination. It is clear to me that with some 100,000 converts, a lack of desire to commit mass suicide, and no record in my research so far, that your denomination uses force to prevent converts from leaving 'the fold,' it does not meet the usual definitions of a cult. Evidently you are unused to how I use semiquotes to confer my use of non-standard definitions I do not agree with. The end deal is you have and still refuse to read what I link to while I am currently studying your take on Christianity and will shortly be perusing the links you yourself have provided. Of course posts such as this one will likely make me lose interest as "ye shall know them by their fruits."
You too. And stop lying. You're not "sorry" at all. Judging me as an unworthy liar is indeed easier than Matthew 7:1. Is this what we can expect from your self-proclaimed near-equality to God? A person unable to control their emotions despite a claim to near-perfection? I am indeed sorry for you that despite any claim to such massive scholarship involving Christianity, that once confronted with the actual words of the Sermon on the Mount, you still deny many fundamental lessons in the NT, IMHO. Edited by anglagard, : add IMHO as I do not declare myself the arbiter of truth. 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 Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 111 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Anglagard writes;
As for any matter you choose to debate, just ask. If you want to call everything I state a quibble to make yourself feel better, feel free. Also, I work for a living. Don't expect me to always be there every waking moment simply waiting to respond to your posts as your seemingly inflated ego appears to demand. I have other, more important issues that come first. I also work for a living. Also how do you debate with someone that makes two fatal mistakes, that of assertion and piety. You gave me nothing to respond to initially. Secondly, now you quote verses and assume I and others are not following those quotes. Again how do you decide or determine people are not doing this without knowing them? I believe your initial argument was that your secular firends act no different than christians so how do you tell the difference? Now you are chainging it to a question piety. So how do I proceed? D Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024