Various by YP0534

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I used to think so but I'm not so sure any more.

There is a great deal of neglect of Lee's earliest writings and Nee's ministry and a verystrong focus on the later teachings, even the latest teachings.

When older material is referenced at all, it is very selectively cited.

Lee himself is most likely the root of this problem. By introduction of something called "new" ("The New Way") to some small minds he thereby implicitly designated everything else as "old" - including his own prior ministry.

I know someone will take this the wrong way, but when I read your analysis of the transition in Lee's ministry, it reminds me of the "progression" of the Koran. It came in stages and says contradictory things with the proviso that the last one is always the right one.

Don't over-analyze it. Just a comment. Probably says more about the BBs than about Lee anyway.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know someone will take this the wrong way, but when I read your analysis of the transition in Lee's ministry, it reminds me of the "progression" of the Koran. It came in stages and says contradictory things with the proviso that the last one is always the right one.

Don't over-analyze it. Just a comment. Probably says more about the BBs than about Lee anyway.

Not familiar with the origin story of that tome but it resembles a lot of things.

There's a reason I translate y'all's shorthand of "BB" into "Big Brothers" rather than the intended abbreviation.
I assume you've read 1984?