Followers of Witness Lee...

Ghost please show the Forum how you can take the book of Ephesians, Paul's letter and morph it into "the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee"

Include these so called "ravings".

"Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith, and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, " (4:13)

Morph that into "the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee" for the Forum.

Ghost will now show us all how he can morph Ephesians a New Testament book into "the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee"

Ghost show how these are Witness Lee's blasphemous ravings.

In whom all the building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; In whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit." (Eph. 2:21,22)

Demonstrate for us how this is Witness Lee's "blasphemous ravings" that Paul described the church as the habitation and dwelling place of God being builded up.

Show us how all of chapter two of this epistle are Witness Lee's "blasphemous ravings".

Ghost of a Duke will show us how John 17 is the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee here too:

"And the glory which You [Father] have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one. I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have loved Me." (John 17:22,23)

Please show us all that these are merely "the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee"

Put away that Athiest cap saying "Well I really don't care because (trumpets!!) I AM AN ATHEIST " . . . pat, pat on the back!

Put that escape hatch out of reach long enough to demonstrate that John 17 is Witness Lee's "blasphemous ravings."

@sonship said
Ghost of a Duke will show us how John 17 is the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee here too:

"And the glory which You [Father] have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one. I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have love ...[text shortened]... reach long enough to demonstrate that [b]John 17 is Witness Lee's "blasphemous ravings."

@sonship said
Ghost of a Duke will show us how John 17 is the blasphemous ravings of Witness Lee here too:

"And the glory which You [Father] have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, even as We are one. I in them, and You in Me, that they may be perfected into one, that the world may know that You have sent Me and have loved them even as You have love ...[text shortened]... reach long enough to demonstrate that [b]John 17 is Witness Lee's "blasphemous ravings."

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You've called on me 3 times in a row. Does that mean you now believe in me?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you confuse atheists with Satanists.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You've called on me 3 times in a row. Does that mean you now believe in me?

Lee's Senior co-worker Watchman Nee had something to say about a cry from the heart leading to salvation.

copied from Contending For the Faith
https://contendingforthefaith.org/en/the-truth-concerning-salvation/

A Cry to God from the Heart

Watchman Nee has pointed out that “a cry to God from the heart is sufficient” for one to touch the Lord and be saved. In What Shall This Man Do? (p.45) he says concerning this:

In the words of Joel, quoted by Peter: “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” How is this possible? Because God has fulfilled the other promise (quoted by Peter from the same prophecy) that: “I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17, 21). Because the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon all mankind, a cry is enough.

Then he goes on to refer to Romans 10 and to point out that

The Holy Spirit is like the light. Open the window-shutters even a little, and it will flood in and illumine the interior. Let there be but a cry from the heart to God, and at that moment the Spirit will enter and begin His transforming work of conviction and repentance and faith-the miracle of new birth.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You've called on me 3 times in a row. Does that mean you now believe in me?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think you confuse atheists with Satanists. We don't sit around all day plotting the destruction of God. We don't believe in God. How can something we don't believe in be our enemy?

The issue here is you telling another Christian they are the enemy of Christ due to not subscribing to the view of Christ you hold (while simultaneously being influenced and led astray ...[text shortened]... g to a past of superstition rather than embracing a future of scientific progress and understanding.

I embrace science.

But the theory of evolution is not science.

It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method because one species turning into another species was neither observed nor demonstrated by an experiment. And there have been attempts at the latter with bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans.

As far as I know, the only “evidence” for macroevolution is a few questionable transitional fossils.

You need a lot more evidence than that if you’re going to make the claim that the complexity of life we see today is the result of blind chance - random mutations and natural selection - when nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral to an organism.

The theory is an absolute joke.

I realize your post wasn’t addressed to me, but any time I hear someone refer to the theory of evolution as “science,” I feel the need to respond.

It’s clearly not science and those who don’t believe it are not against science. We’re for science.

@suzianne said
I agree that those who defy science are holding society back. Do you acknowledge that there are Christians who walk with Christ while also embracing science?

@pb1022 said
I embrace science.

But the theory of evolution is not science.

It doesn’t follow the Scientific Method because one species turning into another species was neither observed nor demonstrated by an experiment. And there have been attempts at the latter with bacteria and fruit flies, which have very short generational spans.

As far as I know, the only “evidence” for macr ...[text shortened]...
It’s clearly not science and those who don’t believe it are not against science. We’re for science.

@avalanchethecat said
Still waiting to hear your alternative theory which better explains the fossil record.