Witness Lee Theatrics

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes I remember that wild Lord's table.

Saints brought bongos and cymbals and Congo drums. The meetings were rockin.

This Lord's table started the normal way. With a table in the center of the meeting where bread and wine was placed.

Before it got started, a brother jumped up and said something like, "We're not religious," and went up and turned the table upside down, and put the bread and wine on it.

And songs were called, and with all the instruments the place started rockin.

I remember it got so carried away that we all formed a train line, and were praising the Lord in dance. I remember the bread and wine being passed around during the dance, down the train line. I remember seeing John Ingalls with a pitcher of wine, and because of the dancing the wine was sloshing around out of the pitcher. And saints were drinking right out of the pitcher.

It was a great time.

But when report went back to Witness Lee, he put the kibosh on it all, and ordered the bongos, cymbals, and Congo drums out of the meetings. It was such a letdown.

I remember after that, standing outside the meetings, on a balcony, with great disappointment thinking : why can't we enjoy the Lord in song and dance? What was so bad about it?

Witness Lee could be theatrical, but we couldn't....

As I recall everyone was chanting "Wecaneatcha yeah yeah wecaneatcha!"

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

As I recall everyone was chanting "Wecaneatcha yeah yeah wecaneatcha!"

And that's very funny. Eating the deity? That's certainly not a Jewish/Torah thing. But it does fit squarely into the pagan practices/ideology.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

And that's very funny. Eating the deity? That's certainly not a Jewish/Torah thing. But it does fit squarely into the pagan practices/ideology.

Oh puleeease, read John chapter 6.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh puleeease, read John chapter 6.

Oh puleeease yer self. The anonymous book attributed to John was written long after the apostle Paul had established his gentile deity eating churches, that had to influence/impress the gospels writers later, and shaped their opinion of deity eating. You can be sure, the Hebrews would have nothing to do with deity eating....they didn't even turn Moses into a deity. Deity eating did not come from Jewish heritage. It comes from the mystery religions ... it's pagan for sure....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh puleeease yer self. The anonymous book attributed to John was written long after the apostle Paul had established his gentile deity eating churches, that had to influence/impress the gospels writers later, and shaped their opinion of deity eating. You can be sure, the Hebrews would have nothing to do with deity eating....they didn't even turn Moses into a deity. Deity eating did not come from Jewish heritage. It comes from the mystery religions ... it's pagan for sure....

He was the bread that came down from heaven, in the OT God gave them manna, in the NT God sent his son as the bread of life.

The rock that followed them was Christ.

Within the ark of the covenant they stored some manna.

Their was a shewbread table in the temple.

I think the eating and drinking of Christ is firmly embedded in the OT stories. Perhaps allegorical, maybe not.

And it was in Matthew that Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

[UntoHim]

What we are dealing with is a metaphor. Jesus used them a lot. Metaphors should be taken as metaphors and not as "literals". Taking a metaphor as a literal can be dangerous. Take for example Martin Luther and his views regarding transubstantiation. "Take eat this is my body" was not meant to be taken literally anymore then "pluck out your eye and throw it from you". Yet we see a very wise and educated Luther siting before others repeating this metaphor over and over, as if this could prove that it was to be taken as a literal.

Witness Lee took this one step further and fell into another kind of error - he made a metaphor out of a metaphor. "Hallelujah eating Jesus is the way!". Jesus never said this and neither was this taught by the early apostles. Jesus said "I am the Way" - NOT "eating me is the way". So we all kind of bypassed "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and went straight to "We have found the way to live by Christ, pray his Word and call his Name!" Of course many of us now know that this is not the way to live by Christ at all. (but this is an argument for another day)

In my view, taking a metaphor literally (Luther and transubstantiation) can be dangerous and so can making a metaphor out of a metaphor (eating Jesus is the way).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

He was the bread that came down from heaven, in the OT God gave them manna, in the NT God sent his son as the bread of life.
The rock that followed them was Christ.
Within the ark of the covenant they stored some manna.
Their was a shewbread table in the temple.
I think the eating and drinking of Christ is firmly embedded in the OT stories. Perhaps allegorical, maybe not.
And it was in Matthew that Jesus said that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God.

This business of an alter with little pieces of bread and little cups of grape juice is one of the funniest things established in Christianity.

My reaction : 'You've got to be kidding me.'

Transubstantiation? You've got to me kidding me.

Not to mention the cannibalism and vampire implications.

Eating the deity? Only man could invent such a thing....and did ... long before Jesus.

Even the Aztecs, that had nothing to do with the Jews, the Bible, or Jesus believed in eating their deities.

It's called "Theophagy" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophagy

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh puleeease yer self. The anonymous book attributed to John was written long after the apostle Paul had established his gentile deity eating churches, that had to influence/impress the gospels writers later, and shaped their opinion of deity eating. You can be sure, the Hebrews would have nothing to do with deity eating....they didn't even turn Moses into a deity. Deity eating did not come from Jewish heritage. It comes from the mystery religions ... it's pagan for sure....

Dear brother awareness, I do believe you would be hard pressed to find a single evangelical Christian or Christian scholar who would deny the authenticity of the Gospel of John, its authorship, or its divine inspiration.

Brother awareness, I just don't see how all your extra-Biblical research after leaving the LC has helped your faith. I'm not just saying this to get on your case. Yes, I agree that LC craziness can be deceptive and has little value, but you follow these atheists, doubters, and skeptics way too far.

The Lord Jesus Himself told us, (6.57) "so he who eats Me shall also live because of Me." Sure, some disciples were stumbled by this phrase, and later the Lord said, "It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing, the words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Oh puleeease, read John chapter 6.

The book of John is part of the Torah? :huh:

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

The book of John is part of the Torah? :huh:

The Torah is the OT. The ark of the covenant is a type of Christ, and it contains the manna.

The shewbread and the offerings were performed by the priesthood. These offerings are also a type of Christ. Jesus is the Lamb of God, Jesus is a sin offering, a peace offering, etc.

So the idea that the concept of eating Christ was unique to the gospel of John and completely absent from the Jewish Torah is not accurate.

I find it very difficult to believe that any Christian would have an issue with referring to Jesus as our sin offering. The sin offering according to the Torah, was to be eaten.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The Torah is the OT. The ark of the covenant is a type of Christ, and it contains the manna.

The shewbread and the offerings were performed by the priesthood. These offerings are also a type of Christ. Jesus is the Lamb of God, Jesus is a sin offering, a peace offering, etc.

So the idea that the concept of eating Christ was unique to the gospel of John and completely absent from the Jewish Torah is not accurate.

I find it very difficult to believe that any Christian would have an issue with referring to Jesus as our sin offering. The sin offering according to the Torah, was to be eaten.

What's the Jews' attitude toward allegorizing?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

What's the Jews' attitude toward allegorizing?

The OT uses the allegory that God is a husband and his people are his bride. The Song of Songs is very allegorical. The OT is rich with figurative language and speech. Read the Talmud and you can see that Rabbinical teaching loves to use allegories to explain a concept. The expression "fiddler on a roof" is figurative language.

Surely you are not suggesting that figurative language is the domain of Christians! I am sure that the Jews would be highly offended at that suggestion.