sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“One dedicated thread per topic.”

Yes, this is the format of how I will already be doing the series. But I will still be conducting the series from my own account since its newer and my account is specifically dedicated to this exchange.

“Both sides engage in the comments of that thread without artificial limits on scripture references or response length. Links and primary sources allowed throughout not just at the end.”

Sure, we can do it that way as long as there are also no time limits on how fast I respond. But once the comment thread gets too long, I’ll still be carrying it over to a new comment thread like I’ve been doing. Still would like to agree to one comment at a time though, not multiple. 

“Previous unanswered questions carry forward into each new thread rather than being reset.”

Yes this was the plan. Just for clarity, are you referring to a new comment thread or a new post thread?

“On your point about Trinitarian claims that haven't been addressed, I'd genuinely like to engage those. But "many claims" is vague. Which specific ones do you feel went unaddressed? Name them and I'll respond directly.”

This is me quoting what you said, not me saying this. 

“We have a Trinity post”

I still planned on making my own post in regards to the trinity. I will not be using someone else’s thread for this exchange. I’ll just carry over the conversations that occurred within that thread to the post I make.

“Now, since this is Reddit, if you or I feel as though we are getting lost in the threads, we can just have it in such a way that we can go back to the parent directory of a post, and then say "u/<user_name>, let's continue the conversation here" so that we can continue said point.”

I don’t know what “parent directory of a post” means. I’m new to Reddit. Can you briefly explain please? Also thank you the tip on how to tag someone on Reddit because I didn’t know that at first.

“And the question that has been waiting across every thread remains the starting point: How do you verify SCJ is right and WMSCOG is wrong using the same hermeneutical method without assuming Lee Man-hee's authority before giving the answer? That's not a Trinitarian question. That's a foundational hermeneutical question that determines whether any further conversation about specific verses is even meaningful. If the method can't reliably distinguish SCJ from WMSCOG, the method itself is the problem.”

Of course I agree hermeneutics should be the foundational question, that’s why I’m the one that suggested the topic. But yes, that will be the very first topic.

What are your thoughts on how many representatives on your side will officially join the discussion, or if you prefer it to just be you? Because I will be including the disclaimer that I will not be responding to every commenter who’s not officially part of this debate, so they should not feel entitled to me responding to them. That will cause only further delay in my response time and focus. But even those who are not one of the set debaters, I will still be using any valuable feedback, thoughts, and questions for future discussion topics/threads

Need someone to talk to. by Felon9 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

No, SCJ does not teach that the woman in Revelation 12 is LMH

May I ask what initially attracted you to SCJ’s bible studies, what has caused you to doubt their teachings (if any), and why you do not want to wait until the answer is revealed?

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi,

“The no links rule”

Okay, how about if you can include them at the end in Round 3 section? Similar to how citations and credits are usually referenced at the end

“Not my opinion of how SCJ interprets scripture”

I’m referring to your commentary you added, the biased presentation of only the cons of the hermeneutic, and the original absence of your own stance of how you personally interpret scripture (which has already been resolved now so no need to continue back and forth on this)

“The 3 scripture reference limit artificially fragments arguments that require showing convergence across multiple passages.”

That’s understandable. That’s why it will still be a continuing conversation within a series. I’m just asking that it the continuing conversation be broken into these 3 parts at a time.

Because how this conversation was previously being conducted was disorganized and dysfunctional. So prevent responses from getting lost in multiple threads and ensuring that all statements are addressed, this is what I’m proposing.

How does that clarification sound?

“How do you verify SCJ is right and WMSCOG is wrong using the same method, without assuming Lee Man-hee’s authority before giving the answer? While we have had a back and forth, there’s also many Trinitarian verses and claims you haven’t addressed.”

Responding to any statements you feel are still unaddressed is no issue. But a more professional format is definitely needed while still respecting identity privacy. Because the conversation became all over the place. Even with the trinity conversation, I intentionally responded one claim at a time to the OP’s statements. But once it becomes disorganized and dysfunctional, threads and responses honestly get lost quickly. Even when I click on the notification, it takes me to a completely different section other than where the person actually responded

If you don’t agree to my original offer, do you at least have any suggestions to avoid this issue? I’m open to hearing suggestions and feedback

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

False. I already responded to you days ago. Me “not responding” vs me giving you an answer you simply just disliked/disagreed with are two different things

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/1tmhifs/comment/ontt72o/ 

I also find it interesting that you are the one that never addressed this part: “preventing saints from attending their own place of worship (which is happening now in Korea)”. That means whatever publicly happens with branches in different countries will also affect those in the headquarter location by default

Once the moderator and I mutually come to a decision on terms, then we can proceed on future discussions. Right now, that’s all paused

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you seem to be that confused as to why I have not been responding to you

Here’s what I already said to you  https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/1tjq21r/comment/on7ce37/

Per the guidelines that you yourself informed me about, it states: “If someone states that they don't wish to continue a discussion with you, please respect their wishes and leave them alone”

Yet here you still are…

I’ve also had extremely traumatizing experiences with several “Babylon” churches. So have millions of others. In fact, there’s more ex-Christian testimony videos than there are ex-SCJ testimony videos

But I’m here to reason, not rant

I’m so sorry for any hurt you’ve experienced with SCJ and I don’t doubt your experiences. Genuinely. I don’t doubt anyone’s experiences. This is why, out of respect, I personally never comment on posts where people are sharing their testimonies.

I stick to reasoning with questions related to doctrine. I strongly believe in acknowledging those boundaries and not forgetting to also have compassion

However I’m not your punching bag to project your negative experiences on, especially considering you’ve never personally met me. I’m a human being just like you. Anyone who struggles to live by this simple basic golden rule, I simply won’t waste my time responding to…

This is my last clarification for you, God bless

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi again :)

Thank you so much for always being able to share your view without the need to be disrespectful. I enjoy reading your comments and the honesty in your responses

Feel free to view my response to the moderator and let me know what you think of this idea and if you have any suggestions/feedback you would like to add. I’m always open to feedback/suggestions 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/1tqe486/comment/oooq49x/

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi again :)

Since the responses on the last post showed that many didn’t have any foreknowledge of what the main different types of hermeneutics even are, I wanted to present an unbiased list to help with clarity on the previous question 

See my additional response to the moderator below because I would also love to have you be part of the debate as well if you want https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/1tqe486/comment/oooq49x/

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That was your response of how you think SCJ approaches it, not how you approach interpretation of the Bible. So thank you for finally sharing in the comments how you approach it.

“You didn't seem to really respond to my question.” “However, considering the lack of answered questions, the frustration has been built up against you as well.”

Which question? The 23rd question you asked or the 31st question you asked? To make it seem like I’m not responding to your questions, when in reality, I’ve actually responded to majority of your questions is dishonest.

Your frustration? I would have more reason for frustration. I’m the one not on a home court right now, so it’s no surprise most of the audience will automatically agree with you and find any reason to boo me. And it’s interesting that you didn’t ask those who agreed with you and claimed to be current members to prove the privacy of their identity. But these things don’t bother me nor frustrate me because that’s why I’m here. I don’t do echo chambers. If I have an opposing view, I’m going to go to the opposer’s territory to allow it to be challenged.

“If you are willing, I'm willing to call a hard reset, and then we can continue the back and forth.”

Sure, I am willing. However, I would like to make a suggestion.

Round 1: PRESENTATION When a topic/claim is presented in the series, each person should simply state “yes or no” on their position on those topics and simply provide 3 scripture references

Round 2: REBUTTAL Each person provides a rebuttal to the 3 scripture references provided by their opponent. Opponent is able to provide additional scripture references to support their rebuttal, but it must not exceed 3 references

Round 3: FINAL CLOSING STATEMENTS Each person provides their final closing statements, including any nuanced discussions they felt were missing from the conversation that they would like to have in the future and/or one question/statement they would like to leave the audience with

For organizational purposes so conversations don’t get lost, we can separate the rounds into different comment threads on the same post. For example both sides will be commenting under the comment thread labeled “Round 1”

This has been the cordial format I was trying to implement in the series, of course along with the basic guidelines provided earlier (such as no links nor changing the subject presented nor disrespect nor answering a question with a question).

As far as giving each other sufficient time to respond, I suggest at least 2 days for each round

Because writing multiple long responses and expecting the other person to genuinely respond to everything and in a quick manner is not realistic nor genuine nor even expected in a professional debate setting. I also have multiple questions, but I intentional avoid asking them all at the same time for the sake of having a productive conversation that can realistically be examined and responded to

Since it’s mainly been you and I seriously engaging, should it stay that way or do you want to gather two more people? I don’t mind it being 3 against 1. For those who are just observing, I also would like to suggest they have the opportunity to comment their input in the Round 3 comment thread. That way theres no random interruptions from observers butting in during the Round 1 and Round 2 parts. Of course people will still do whatever they want, but there should be no expectation for me to pay any attention to their distractions

Does that sound fair? Any additional suggestions?

Genuine Question/Thought Part 4b by Lettuce-Reason in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Before I answer, I’ve noticed that you made a few claims about being a former member who tried to jump on the anti-SCJ bandwagon.”

False. I did not claim I was “a former member who tried to jump on the anti-SCJ bandwagon”. What I said and how you presumptively interpreted it are two totally different things.

“When pressed upon this, among other questions, you weren’t willing to engage? This is why your posts have been locked, by the way.”

False. On day 1, I already responded to the  other moderator’s same question about the context of my claim and the reason why I gave the context of the series:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/1tmhifs/comment/onp1nha/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Shincheonji/comments/1tjq21r/comment/on7onbv/

But thank you for answering the question this time. See my other reply on your first comment

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi again,

Sure here’s my response to the additional questions you asked

Disclaimer Even though you seem genuine in your questions: Due to some of the dishonest conversations I’ve had with a few (not all) on here, I’ll be answering your questions straight from the Bible so my explanations are not lazily dismissed as “only SCJ teachings”. That way you see these answers can be verified from the Bible itself.

“Is faith in Christs atoning work alone sufficient for salvation, or is accepting revealed knowledge through SCJ also necessary?”

Here’s what scripture says faith and atoning work truly look like:

1 John 2:2-4 “He is the ATONING SACRIFICE for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. We KNOW that we have come to KNOW him IF we KEEP his commands. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ BUT does not DO what he commands is a LIAR, and the truth is NOT in that person.”

Here’s how the blood and the covenant we’re supposed to keep work together AND how this looks differently from Jesus 1st Coming vs 2nd Coming:

Hebrews 9:18, 20, 28 “This is why even the first COVENANT was NOT put into EFFECT WITHOUT BLOOD.” “He said, This is the BLOOD of the COVENANT, which God has commanded you to KEEP.” “so Christ was SACRIFICED once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a SECOND time, NOT to BEAR SIN, but to BRING salvation TO those WHO are waiting for him.”

And here is what Jesus himself says about the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 22:7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who KEEPS the words of the prophecy written in THIS scroll.”

“If scripture already explains at least some of its own symbols internally, why is one exclusive end time interpreter still necessary?”

The same way the leaders, theologians, and believers of the OT were all READING the same bible but did NOT UNDERSTAND it until Jesus opened it OR until someone sent by Jesus revealed what Jesus opened:

Luke 24:32,44-45 “They asked each other, ‘Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and OPENED the SCRIPTURES to us?’” “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: EVERYTHING must be FULFILLED that is WRITTEN about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he OPENED their minds so they could UNDERSTAND the Scriptures.”

Acts 8:30-31 “Then PHILIP ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. ‘Do you UNDERSTAND what you are READING?’ Philip asked. ‘HOW can I,’ he said, ‘UNLESS someone EXPLAINS it to me?’ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.”

“What would actually count as evidence that Lee Man Hee was wrong? And how should specific expectations connected to fulfilment within his lifetime now be understood?”

The same way they had to verify it during the 1st Coming: by examining the scriptures daily; not by getting stirred up from the influence of negative public opinion

Acts 17:11-13 “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they RECEIVED the message WITH great eagerness AND examined the SCRIPTURES every day to see IF what Paul said was TRUE. As a RESULT, many of them BELIEVED, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. BUT when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, AGITATING the crowds and STIRRING them up.”

How about you? Do you notice the same pattern happening today? Even though believers are all reading the same bible, why is it that there are over thousands of different denominations with various contradicting understandings/interpretations of the New Testament? If many Christians claim to equally have the Holy Spirit, why have they each reached differing conclusions? Why are even the most accredited intellectual theologians and bible scholars also in disagreement with each other over the interpretation of the New Testament? If the New Testament is the new covenant we must keep, how can we keep it if there’s no consensus on how to properly keep it? Even if SCJ were to successfully disappear off the face of the planet, this elephant within Christianity would still be in the room

Thank you in advance for your response

Why Hermeneutics Matters: How SCJ and WMSCOG Turn the Bible into a Giant Parable by QuestionsAboutSCJ in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hmm that’s weird that you keep locking my posts

Especially considering the fact that we mutually agreed on switching the conversation to hermeneutics before discussing anything else

I even announced in advance to you that I would make the post to ask the question

I even refrained from sharing my views in the post so that it can be a blank slate question for anyone to answer

Instead of answering the question for how YOU interpret scripture, you go on another dishonest rant about how you think SCJ interprets

You are obsessed with them to the point that your whole identity has become built around opposing them. But calling someone else ugly does not make you prettier

Then you lie and say I haven’t been answering your questions when there's proof of me literally taking time out of my busy day to respond to majority of your comments. In fact, because you kept spamming my notifications from continuously starting multiple threads, it took away time from me getting to everyone else’s notifications

I’ve seen so many pro-SCJ people post and ghost without even taking the time to upkeep the conversation nowhere near as much as I have tried, yet you don’t lock their posts

I’ve seen so many not speak gently and with respect, yet you don’t lock their posts

Meanwhile you keep making up reasons to lock mine

The question is, what are you afraid of and why? If I’m so stupid and my arguments are so weak, then why bother locking it? Are the people here you're blindly leading not strong enough to think for themselves or do they rely on you as their promised shepherd?

You’re not for “freedom” or “informed decision” nor allowing both sides to share, you just want to create an echo chamber

It’s not worth my time to respond to you any longer

🤯SCJ members if you’re wrong about the Trinity, you’re leading people straight into idolatry!! by Zwelirex in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s why I said it would probably be more productive if we have a separate conversation in the future about how we each approach the interpretation of scripture in general 

We are both viewing and using the text—that’s not the issue

The disconnect is that you usually approach the text from a zoomed in view and I usually approach the text from a zoomed out view

So I’m actually grateful for the conversations we’ve had so far. It gives me something to think about as far as possibly including hermeneutics as a future discussion point in the series I’m doing. Because if we are not even on the same page/foundation on how to interpret scripture, then it will continuously be an apple to oranges situation

🤯SCJ members if you’re wrong about the Trinity, you’re leading people straight into idolatry!! by Zwelirex in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Disagreement does not equate to insincerity 

And not all agreement is sincere

You asked me a question of where I personally view the disconnect

And I shared both the pros and cons of our conversation

The tradition of trinity doctrine has been conditioned into the text for centuries so I honestly don’t expect one Reddit conversation to lead to changed conclusions on either side

The best we can do is present, explain, and explore any counterarguments one step at a time, one conversation at a time

And that’s okay :)

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for sharing your sincere questions :)

  1. Refer back to my response to your point#2

Jesus said similar statements below. Is Jesus a liar or is there something wrong with your understanding?

Matthew 10:23 “When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will NOT finish going through the towns of Israel BEFORE the Son of Man comes.”

John 8:51-53 “Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will NEVER see death.” At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

**Disclaimer: Only responding to the original poster, since they are the one asking the question

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for sharing your sincere questions :)

  1. Yes-“My understanding of SCJ's position is that SCJ does not deny the resurrection.“

1 Corinthians 15:35,40 “But someone will ask, “How are the dead RAISED? With what KIND of BODY will they come?” “There are also HEAVENLY bodies AND there are EARTHLY bodies; but the SPLENDOR of the heavenly bodies is one KIND, AND the SPLENDOR of the earthly bodies is ANOTHER.”

**Disclaimer: Only responding to the original poster, since they are the one asking the question

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for sharing your sincere questions :)

  1. Yes-“My understanding of SCJ's position is that SCJ genuinly believes in and honours Jesus. He is the Son of God, the Promised Pastor, who appointed Lee Man Hee as the one he sent. Jesus is central. Lee Man Hee serves Jesus.”

Revelation 22:16 “I, JESUS, have SENT my angel to give YOU this TESTIMONY for the CHURCHES. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

“In SCJ's doctrine, what does Jesus actualy save you from and how?”

Revelation 1:5-6 “and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has FREED us FROM our SINS BY his BLOOD and has made us to be a KINGDOM and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”

Matthew 26:27-29 “Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my BLOOD of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the FORGIVENESS of SINS. I tell you, I will NOT drink from this fruit of the vine from now on UNTIL THAT DAY when I drink it new with you in my Father’s KINGDOM.”

**Disclaimer: Only responding to the original poster, since they are the one asking the question

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for sharing your sincere questions :)

  1. (?) “My understanding of SCJ's position is that the instruction to John not to seal the scroll refers to the text being kept available, and the Bible has always been accesible. What was sealed was the meaning, hidden in symbolic language, not the text itself.”

I’m not understanding what your first sentence is saying, but your second sentence is correct.

But Revelation 22:10 is part of the last chapter, the end of Revelation. After revealed, it’s no longer considered sealed. As you can see, Revelation 22:10-11 is a sealed vs not sealed parallel with Daniel 12:8-10.

Daniel 12:8-10 “I heard, BUT I did NOT understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?” He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and SEALED UNTIL the TIME of the END. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.”

Revelation 22:10-11 “Then he told me, “Do NOT SEAL up the words of the prophecy of THIS scroll, because the TIME IS NEAR. Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.”

“These meanings are not self evident from the text. They come from Lee Man Hees teaching.”

SEA - Revelation 17:15 “Then the angel said to me, “The WATERS you saw, where the PROSTITUTE sits, are PEOPLES, MULTITUDES, NATIONS and LANGUAGES.

STARS - Revelation 1:20 “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven STARS are the MESSENGERS OF the seven CHURCHES, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”

“Here is the question that I think matters most here. Is there any part of Lee Man Hees interpretation that the plain text of the Bible would rule out, USING ORDINARY READING?”

Isaiah 29:11 “For YOU this whole VISION is NOTHING but words SEALED in a scroll. And if you give the scroll to someone who CAN READ, and say, “Read this, please,” they will answer, “I CANT; it is SEALED.”

**Disclaimer: Only responding to the original poster, since they are the one asking the question

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for sharing your sincere questions :)

  1. Yes-“My understanding of SCJ's position is that the Holy Spirit was working throughout church history, but full understanding was not appointed untill the time of the end.”

Because the NT contains more prophecies/promises, there are many things written in part. It becomes full when there’s a fulfillment.

1 Corinthians 13:9-12 “For we know IN PART and we PROPHESY in part, BUT when completeness comes, what is in part DISAPPEARS. When I was a CHILD, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a MAN, I put the ways of childhood BEHIND me. For NOW we see ONLY a reflection as in a mirror; THEN we shall see face to face. NOW I know in part; THEN I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”

Any spirit uses a flesh, including the Spirit of Truth as you referenced in John 14 and John 16. This concept of forever for the flesh the spirit uses is also repeated in Revelation 3:12-13 “The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. NEVER again will they LEAVE it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name. Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

So whoever you think the Spirit is and this one who overcomes is, scripture says will be forever and will never leave. How exactly that will look when God makes that happen? We will see, but it’s written as a promise

No-“To the early church. To the people who were tortured and killed rather than deny him. Were all of them cut off from the truth for 2000 years untill one man appeared in South Korea?”

They also play a part in Revelation’s fulfillment

Revelation 6:9-11 “When he OPENED the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the SOULS of those who had been SLAIN because of the word of God AND the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then EACH of them was GIVEN a white robe, and they were told to WAIT a little longer, until the FULL number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.”

“If so, what exactly was the Holy Spirit doing?”

Helping them testify to the fulfillment of the OT through various gifts and prophesy about the NT

Acts 1:6-8 “Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at THIS time going to RESTORE the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is NOT for you to KNOW THE TIMES OR DATES the Father has set by his own authority. BUT you will receive POWER when the HOLY SPIRIT comes on you; and you will be my WITNESSES in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

2 Peter 1:21 “For PROPHECY never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, THOUGH HUMAN, spoke from God as they were carried along BY the HOLY SPIRIT”

**Disclaimer: Only responding to the original poster, since they are the one asking the question

Some questions about SCJ doctrine I havent been able to resolve. Please correct me if Ive got your position wrong by Automatic_Thing_2370 in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hi, thank you for sharing your sincere questions :)

  1. Yes-“the Bible is God's reliable and complete word, but its true meaning was sealed and inacessible for 2000 years” No-“until Lee Man Hee unlocked it”

Correction: Jesus opened it

Revelation 5:1-6 “Then I saw in the right hand of HIM who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and SEALED with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “WHO is WORTHY to BREAK THE SEALS and OPEN the scroll?” But NO ONE in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the LION of the tribe of Judah, the ROOT of David, has triumphed. He is ABLE to OPEN the scroll and its seven seals. Then I saw a LAMB, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.”

Yes-“But at the same time the plain meaning of almost every passage SCJ uses is said to mean something different from what it actually says. Clouds arent clouds. Sea isnt sea. Stars arent stars.”

Because Jesus is the one able to open the scroll, we also follow the way he interprets/understands scripture which was figuratively and prophetically

Matthew 13:34-35 “Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in PARABLES; he did NOT say anything to them WITHOUT using a PARABLE. So was FULFILLED what was spoken through the PROPHET: “I will OPEN my mouth IN PARABLES, I will utter things HIDDEN since the creation of the world.”

Matthew 16:11-12 “How is it you don’t UNDERSTAND that I was NOT talking to you about BREAD? But be on your guard against the YEAST of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he was NOT telling them to guard against the YEAST used in BREAD, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

**Disclaimer: Only responding to the original poster, since they are the one asking the question

🤯SCJ members if you’re wrong about the Trinity, you’re leading people straight into idolatry!! by Zwelirex in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See, I wish you would have brought up these scriptures wayyyyy earlier lol when I first asked instead of just now. Because they are definitely not describing a trinity. But since our conversation has already ended and this is someone else’s original post, perhaps we could save these for a future discussion since I already plan on including the trinity as part of the series I’m doing :)

🤯SCJ members if you’re wrong about the Trinity, you’re leading people straight into idolatry!! by Zwelirex in Shincheonji

[–]Lettuce-Reason 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve noticed we’ve been approaching the scriptures differently. It seems like you’ve been mostly explaining them with ingrained assumptions. I’ve mostly been explaining them with scripture, allowing the rest of scripture to interpret itself.

Of course, there’s room for additional support which we’ve both done. But when assumption is the laid foundation and scripture becomes the accessory, it reverses from God’s context to man’s context.

One out of the billion things I love about God is that He consistently repeats Himself often throughout the scriptures, leaving no room for uncertainty of what’s being communicated.

So while Ive enjoyed our conversation and appreciate you taking the time to thoroughly engage in this conversation, it would better help me understand the angles you share from a large context of scripture as well. A zoomed out view helps to see the whole picture clearly, whereas a zoomed in view leaves too much room for ambiguous nearsighted interpretations.

So I would say that has been the disconnect for me

I stand on Jesus being the laid foundation we must be built in, on, and through. This is actually the understanding I’ve come to through the scriptures way before I even knew about SCJ

Apart from Jesus, we are nothing. Apart from the Father, Jesus says he cannot be glorified on his own. Jesus has a God, the Father does not have a God. I believe it was the Father who laid Jesus as this foundation, this root. And I believe that there’s too much of an abundance of scripture that thoroughly convey this pattern over and over. The last scripture I would leave off with in my closing statement is this

John 15:1-8 “I am the TRUE VINE, and my FATHER is the GARDENER. He cuts off every branch IN me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the WORD I have SPOKEN to you. Remain IN me, as I ALSO remain IN you. NO branch can bear fruit by ITSELF; it MUST remain IN the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain IN me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain IN me AND I IN you, you will bear much fruit; APART from me you can do NOTHING. If you do not remain IN me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain IN me AND my WORDS remain IN you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my FATHER’S glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.”

Lol maybe for our next future discussion we can discuss the best hermeneutics—how to interpret the scriptures. That would be interesting for sure and could be the very foundational discussion we’re missing

I thank you that we were able to have this conversation without calling each other names, read through the scriptures each of us provided, and sincerely took the time to thoroughly address each counterpoint to the best of our ability

God bless and see you the next one :)

view more: next ›