Life Study of Revelation Misses Mark RE: "First Love"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I note that the origins of the Moravian Brethren actually dates to roughly 70 years before Martin Luther nailed his 96 these to the door, therefore predates the Protestantism attributed to Sardis in the "history sequence" analysis of the 7 letters. So what would Lee do? (WWWLD)

I guess he would exclude the portion of the Moravian Brethren's history that predates Luther so it would stay in order.

Your study of church history is wanting at best.

The early Moravian (Today's Czech Republic) church was there with John Huss (Jan Hus) in the 15th Century prior to Martin Luther in the early 16th Century. In fact Luther had an incredible epiphany concerning Huss. While he was searching for salvation in the scriptures, Luther as a Catholic priest was well aware of Huss's heresy and martyrdom years prior in Moravia. Following his salvation, Luther then realized that he too "was a Hussite," and assumed that he too would be martyred for his new faith.

Then two centuries later, long after the Protestants began to fight one another over doctrines, Count Zinzendorff used his land and wealth to create Hernhut, a community for persecuted Christians throughout N.E. Europe. Under his leadership these diverse Christians, with different backgrounds, cultures, languages, and teachings, set them all aside in order to love, as Christ loved them.

This was an incredible example of "Philadelphia." They became the first modern church to establish missionaries. They also held a 100 year long prayer meeting.

[Sons to Glory!]

I love reading about Huss, the Moravian saints, and that period before Luther! There are some ties between them and the ancient Christian groups, which lived in the mountains, that Broadbent presents in his awesome book, The Pilgrim Church. We could have some wonderful discussions around that period of time in the church!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I love reading about Huss, the Moravian saints, and that period before Luther! There are some ties between them and the ancient Christian groups, which lived in the mountains, that Broadbent presents in his awesome book, The Pilgrim Church. We could have some wonderful discussions around that period of time in the church!

The "ties" with the Waldensians, Albigensians, and others were entirely of the Spirit. Broadbent researched many of these. Their stories were often "reverse-engineered" historically, in other words the records of the oppressive Catholics were re-written to reflect the truth. For example, those whom the Catholic Church would label as "obstinate heretics disrespecting the virgin" were simply genuine believers who refused to worship marble Mary.

Many of these believing communities were hidden in the mountain enclaves, whether the Pyrenees or the Alps, for centuries until the Popes gathered armies to attack them, forcing compliance. Some took King David as their pattern and some took Jesus Himself. The former would form trained militias to resist papal mercenaries, protecting their woman and children. Some, however, refused to resist, as the Lamb of God before them, and knowing the inevitable, chose corporate suicide rather than being forced to watch their wives and daughters brutally raped before all were slaughtered.

In this regard Hitler's goons or ISIS soldiers were no worse than the Pope's. So how can we really think that the prophetic "Smyrrna" was ended with Constantine in 325AD?

[JJ]

Thanks Ohio and STG for pointing out groups that contradict Lee’s version of church history.

I did some more “fact checking” on another statement Lee made in Chapter 7, Section 3 of Life Study of Revelation:

What is “The Testimony of Jesus”?

Witness Lee: “The churches, signified by the golden lamp stands are “the testimony of Jesus (1:2, 9) in the divine nature, shining in the dark night locally, yet collectively”

verses related to “the testimony of Jesus”

Rev 1:1-3 and 9 https://biblehub.com/blb/revelation/1.htm

Rev 6:9 https://biblehub.com/bsb/revelation/6.htm

Rev 12:11,17 https://biblehub.com/blb/revelation/12.htm

Rev 19:9-10 https://biblehub.com/blb/revelation/19.htm

Rev 20:4 https://biblehub.com/blb/revelation/20.htm

Rev 23:16 https://biblehub.com/blb/revelation/22.htm

Other references:
1 John 4:14 https://biblehub.com/1_john/4-14.htm (see cross references too)

https://biblehub.com/acts/4-33.htm


Based on these verses I would say John’s definition of the testimony of Jesus was:

the word of God that God had given Jesus to show him and his brothers concerning His son (Jesus, the resurrected one). They were to speak (and did) the word of God as His witnesses to men everywhere at whatever cost, even imprisonment and death.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

What is “The Testimony of Jesus”?

Based on these verses I would say John’s definition of the testimony of Jesus was: the word of God that God had given Jesus to show him and his brothers concerning His son (Jesus, the resurrected one). They were to speak (and did) the word of God as His witnesses to men everywhere at whatever cost, even imprisonment and death.

Agreed. We were seriously short of honest fellowship and study concerning many of Lee's assertions. Where is the verse that shows us that the testimony of Jesus is all the LC's in "proper" fellowship with a SoCal publishing house?

I remember in the aftermath of the "Max" chaos, during the Timothy Training, that WL also used 2 Tim 1.8 to convince us that the LC's were the testimony of Jesus and he was today's Paul, the prisoner of the Lord.

Because none of us knew the actual events surrounding Max, we believed his false narrative, and then WL's interpretation of scripture. That happened so often. Is that not always the case when forced to choose one man over another, when neither is Jesus our Lord?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Agreed. We were seriously short of honest fellowship and study concerning many of Lee's assertions. Where is the verse that shows us that the testimony of Jesus is all the LC's in "proper" fellowship with a SoCal publishing house?

I remember in the aftermath of the "Max" chaos, during the Timothy Training, that WL also used 2 Tim 1.8 to convince us that the LC's were the testimony of Jesus and he was today's Paul, the prisoner of the Lord.

Because none of us knew the actual events surrounding Max, we believed his false narrative, and then WL's interpretation of scripture. That happened so often. Is that not always the case when forced to choose one man over another, when neither is Jesus our Lord?

We were entrapped in an institutional system with one supreme human leader who was (and still is) considered infallible and unquestionable, where the systems’ goal and design was (and still is) to entrap more people into the system plus insure the leaders’ continuity and enrichment. Ultimately it (Witness Lee’s local churches) were similar to the Roman Catholic Church and denominations having the same sort of systems in spouting part truths/part falsehood that don’t stand up to critical examination versus scripture.

[JJ]

According to Witness Lee’s Life Study of Revelation commentary about the seven golden lampstands John saw (Revelation 1:12,20; 2:1) that were the seven churches: “not having any individual distinctions, differences are of a negative nature, not of a positive nature”.

I beg to differ (again). Here is a simple list of the positive differences between the seven churches according to the Lord’s own words about them (from Berean Literal Bible):

Ephesus: you are not able to tolerate evil ones. And you have tested those claiming to be apostles and are not, and you have found them false, and you have perseverance, and have endured for the sake of My name, and have not grown weary. But you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

Smyrna: I know your tribulation and poverty—but you are rich

Pergamos: I know where you dwell, where the throne of Satan is; and you hold fast to My name, and you have not denied My faith, even in the days of Antipas My witness, My faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

Thyatira: I know your works, and your love and faith and service and perseverance; and your latter works are greater than the first.

Sardis: But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with Me in white, because they are worthy.

Philadelphia: you have little power, and yet you have kept My word and have not denied My name. You have kept the word of My patient endurance.

Laodicea: nothing

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by JJ

We were entrapped in an institutional system with one supreme human leader who was (and still is) considered infallible and unquestionable, where the systems’ goal and design was (and still is) to entrap more people into the system plus insure the leaders’ continuity and enrichment. Ultimately it (Witness Lee’s local churches) were similar to the Roman Catholic Church and denominations having the same sort of systems in spouting part truths/part falsehood that don’t stand up to critical examination versus scripture.

This reminds me of a comment made about JNDarby, supposedly the MOTA preceding WN. It was said that Darby became a far worse pope than the one in Rome which he regularly condemned.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your study of church history is wanting at best.

The early Moravian (Today's Czech Republic) church was there with . . .

I do not recall my source at the moment, but it indcated that while the moniker "Moravian Brethren" came to be later, the origins of the group was in the vicinity of 1447. That doesn't make that source entirely accurate. And it doesn't declare that the features that could be argued as being "Philadelphia" we seen that far back.

But even if we are to accept a later date, it is so close to the time of the start of the Protestant reformation that it is almost simultaneous, not so much sequential

[OBW]

My point was not to be right, but to help us move beyond a layered-on (at best) view of the churches that would have been mostly meaningless until at least 1600 (when we could first begin to see it in hindsight). But the wealth of positives and negatives have been with us from the beginning. And they all remain today.

Nothing is new.

And when someone thinks they have found something truly new, it should be very suspect. (And tends to hurl javelins at much of the "new" revelation of the past few centuries.)