Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[testallthings]

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Regarding, “He says one thing and produces another.” Do you refer to Lee? The Lord Jesus said (for example), love your enemy, do not love mammon, etc.. If we fail in obeying His word, should someone be entitled to blame the Lord for the bad result? About Nee's sins, I have not yet investigated or read about it. But if, every time there is an issue about what Nee taught, and the only way to win the argument is always to refer to his sins,(or to what Lee did) then there isn't anything to discuss, we just condemn in toto what he said and that is the end of the story. On the other end, if we are interested in proving from the Bible if what he said is right or wrong, well then let's do it.

Now to your points:

“First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?” In another post you said, “These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things.” I guess you are the one who should answer your question.

“Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.”


Here you have proved that David (a Jew) ruled as king of Israel. (Are we talking about Christians or not?)

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

Joh 18:37 Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. I was born for this, and I came into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to my voice." Here the Lord Jesus continues to show Pilate the kind of king He was (at His first coming). His job was to testify to the truth. Should this be our job, too?
So, the Lord Jesus was a king, but did He really reigned as such? Where was His throne?

Joh_6:15 Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the hillside by himself.
What should be our reaction in a similar situation? Shall we accept what the Lord refused?

The Lord is surely the King, and at His second coming He will rule forever and ever.



You have proved that the Lord “Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.”


Here is the verse, “Mat_19:28 Jesus told them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel.”
This was a promise that will be fulfilled at the Lord second coming when He will sit on His glorious throne. Could the disciples sit on thrones before He sits on His? Did the disciples reign as kings in the Acts period? When they were persecuted did they proclaim to be kings and so be the only one entitled to rule and judge? Does anyone have in his Bible the Gospel according to King Matthew? Or the 1 & 2 King Peter? Or the 1, 2, & 3 King John?

“Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.”

Good for you. You “proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.” Did you?

“Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.”

Yes, but this should not be a pretext to use the teaching of one to condemn what the other didn't say. Here again I quote the 2 verses:
1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


In conclusion, I tried to answer your disprove. I hope in doing so I didn't hit anyone, in that case I ask your forgiveness.

________________
Notes:
today I am quoting from the ISV (no particular reason). If you have something against this version let me know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee. Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?

Nee states "A government officer is one who executes the law. The laws in the world are based on justice, and all transgressors have to be punished. However, the principle of conduct of Christians today is mercy (Matt. 5:38-48). Can world politics act according to the teaching on the Mount? The words "do not judge, that you be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) have forever disqualified believers from interfering with politics or being executors of law."

If mercy is the principle that Jesus taught us to practice, then why not practice it in every sphere of life including government? Didn't Jesus expect his followers to bring the practice of the Kingdom of God to the world? Wouldn't practicing mercy in government be doing exactly that?

According to Nee's teaching, since Jesus' principle is mercy we should avoid situations where think mercy is inappropriate. According to Nee then, should we just avoid people and situations where we don't wish to show mercy? So, if I don't like you, I should just stay away from you because if I'm around you, I might have to show mercy toward you. Avoidance including avoidance of political office seems to be a poor standard of practice for Christian life that would lead to social isolation rather then bringing the Kingdom of God into the world like Jesus did.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your statement reinforces what I already proposed below, i.e. that we judge Nee's propositions not Nee. Now if Jesus or the authors of the Bible thought it was wrong for Christians to hold political office, why didn't they just say so directly? Why beat around the bush?

Nee was gifted at waxing flamboyant with scripture. Not just with this minor concern, of Christians and government, but with his flagship doctrine ; that of the ground of the church. Nowhere in the New Testament is the doctrine or principle of one church one city explicitly developed. Nee embellished it into an extra-Biblical doctrine and dogma, and made it the bases of his movement.

Same with the MOTA ... that we've yet to discuss.

[awareness]

To TAT,

You say:

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

But then, if historically factual, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey:

Joh 12:15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"
.
Publicly displaying that he's the king of the Jews. His kingdom then would be of this world, and a government figure, by more than implication.

It's interesting that both not of this world, and king of the jews appear in the gospel of john:

Joh 12:15 "Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"

Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?"
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."


So we're back to Nee being Biblically wrong. To bad he's not here to admit to it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

Joh 18:23 Jesus answered him, "If I have said anything wrong, tell me what it was. But if I have told the truth, why do you hit me?"

Could this verse be used in our discussion? Can we just tell what the wrong was without hitting the person who spoke (Nee in this case)? It seems to me, that the tendency is not to prove but just to hit.

Regarding, “He says one thing and produces another.” Do you refer to Lee? The Lord Jesus said (for example), love your enemy, do not love mammon, etc.. If we fail in obeying His word, should someone be entitled to blame the Lord for the bad result? About Nee's sins, I have not yet investigated or read about it. But if, every time there is an issue about what Nee taught, and the only way to win the argument is always to refer to his sins,(or to what Lee did) then there isn't anything to discuss, we just condemn in toto what he said and that is the end of the story. On the other end, if we are interested in proving from the Bible if what he said is right or wrong, well then let's do it.

Now to your points:

“First. Are you saying that the con of a preacher conman can be dismissed as long as he teaches the Bible?” In another post you said, “These are great words from Nee. Nee said a lot of great things.” I guess you are the one who should answer your question.

“Second. Zeek's quote of Nee, and his teaching that Christians should not be involved in government, can be Biblically disproven by the fact that there are many examples in the Bible of men of God who were involved in government. King David comes to mind. And even Jesus provides an example. He was executed because he was King of the Jews. Doesn't the position of king involve government? Plus, Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel. Again, isn't that government?

Then, according to the Bible, we've got both God and Jesus sitting on thrones.

So Nee was wrong, concerning Christians and government, according to the Bible.”


Here you have proved that David (a Jew) ruled as king of Israel. (Are we talking about Christians or not?)

You have proved that Jesus was the King of Israel. Yes, and this is what he told Pilate, “Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom does not belong to this world. If my kingdom belonged to this world, my servants would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But for now my kingdom is not from here." If His kingdom was not of this world, then should Christians rule as kings (or as presidents) in this world? Jesus answer seems to reject this thought.

Joh 18:37 Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. I was born for this, and I came into the world for this: to testify to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to my voice." Here the Lord Jesus continues to show Pilate the kind of king He was (at His first coming). His job was to testify to the truth. Should this be our job, too?
So, the Lord Jesus was a king, but did He really reigned as such? Where was His throne?

Joh_6:15 Then Jesus, realizing that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, withdrew again to the hillside by himself.
What should be our reaction in a similar situation? Shall we accept what the Lord refused?

The Lord is surely the King, and at His second coming He will rule forever and ever.



You have proved that the Lord “Jesus said the 12 disciples would rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.”


Here is the verse, “Mat_19:28 Jesus told them, "I tell you with certainty, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne in the renewed creation, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, governing the twelve tribes of Israel.”
This was a promise that will be fulfilled at the Lord second coming when He will sit on His glorious throne. Could the disciples sit on thrones before He sits on His? Did the disciples reign as kings in the Acts period? When they were persecuted did they proclaim to be kings and so be the only one entitled to rule and judge? Does anyone have in his Bible the Gospel according to King Matthew? Or the 1 & 2 King Peter? Or the 1, 2, & 3 King John?

“Third. I have no quibble with your quote:

WE WILL NEVER SAY THAT WE CAN NEVER BE WRONG! (WATCHMAN NEE)

In fact I proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.”

Good for you. You “proved with the Bible that Nee was wrong.” Did you?

“Fourth. We're getting our quotes from Living Stream Ministry. So Nee is too connected with Lee, and Lee to Nee.”

Yes, but this should not be a pretext to use the teaching of one to condemn what the other didn't say. Here again I quote the 2 verses:
1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


In conclusion, I tried to answer your disprove. I hope in doing so I didn't hit anyone, in that case I ask your forgiveness.

________________
Notes:
today I am quoting from the ISV (no particular reason). If you have something against this version let me know.

Well I feel good and beat up. And prolly deserve it. But actually, brother TAT has set me straight. And as Nee taught, we should admit it when we're wrong.

So, Nee is right, Christians should not be in government. That means, those running for office today, that claim to be Christian, are not living by Biblical teachings.

Good job TAT.

Okay, let's move on to a question that came up in our discussion. Did Watchman Nee claim to be the MOTA?

I know Lee did, cuz I was booted out over it. So from where did Lee get that notion? Did it come from Nee, or did Lee make it up?

If there's continuing interest in this, we can prolly get down to the truth of the matter.

More if interested.

Thanks TAT.