WordWolf

WTH:

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."

WordWolf:

"Got a source for this claim? Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.

It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.

They did not care at ALL what his background was like.

They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.

Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,

most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too."

WTH:

"If you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later."

Raf:

"Then we have that gem from WTH:

WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive:

Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian?

Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim. "

WordWolf:

"Let's see ONE, ONE quote from ONE Introduction to ONE of their books.

YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.

Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.

Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote

Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.

That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one

claiming the existence of something."

=============

For those with short attention spans, the claim that has been questioned has always been

WTH's claim that vpw's critics claimed vpw was always anti-Trinitarian.

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."

WTH claimed it, and his claim was challenged.

Let's continue.

============

WTH then went off for several paragraphs about his "Johnny-come-lately" claim,

ignoring his other claim that was actually being discussed.

He included some personal comments, & started some namecalling:

WTH:

"Sorry, but I haven't kept any of those early cult books to prove to you or anybody else exactly who wrote that in their Introduction. I never thought at the time I would have to keep those "early cult books" around just to prove that point to some **** replying to a post on the Internet in 2007 some 30+ years later."

Raf:

"Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling.

Very mature. "

WTH:

"Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"? Who started the name-calling anyway?"

Raf:

"I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest."

WTH attempted to make the discussion about his "Johnny-Come-Lately" assertion again.

Then Raf responded.

Raf:

"YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim."

"Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was."

==========

So,

will we see WTH actually address his claim anytime soon, that supposedly

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"?

Doubtful.

He seems unable to tell that's what's being asked of him. Either that, or-understanding that IS what's

being asked of him, and unable to support it, he'd rather do his best to change the subject and distract

from the question than admit he doesn't have documentation for his claim.

Usual responses at this point-based on his previous posts- tend to center around personal attacks

and more changes of subject. Most likely, that's what we'll see here.

But hey-he COULD surprise us all.

WordWolf, I think what we have here is a misunderstanding. If I understand correctly, Larry does not dispute the doctrine of a virgin conception; what he disagrees with is your contention that Mary stayed a virgin until the time of Jesus Christ's birth.

I saw that he ALSO contended that. However, his actual POSTS had him disputing a virgin conception

until he posted his own opinion. I can't read his mind- I have to go from his posts.

I doublechecked- it wasn't me who was reading wrong. If he doesn't want misunderstandings,

he should either read more carefully before posting, or post more carefully after reading.

He's an intelligent fellow, and is well able to do this without undue effort.

I think a case can be made for both positions and that there are some verses that are somewhat unclear. It depends at least in part on what is meant by the phrase 'knew her not until Christ was born'.

Thanks for your detailed explanation of marriage customs in New Testament.

correctly quoted. Perhaps they are, perhaps they are not, but without a source, they're opinion

and hearsay. Unsourced statements are how we got vpw playing for the Sheboygan Redskins,

according to one website.

The main case for Joseph and Mary doing the horizontal hucklebuck before Jesus' birth

seems-so far-to rest on unsourced statements from vpw and a few other people-

and I have no guarantee THEIR source was not vpw.

Is there a documentable source asserting this was a possibility?

If so, can you post it or something?

That is a puzzler Jeaniam. The word "knew" is the Greek word ginosko which is as I recall a experiential type of knowledge.

"Euphemism" is one of the 217 figures of speech Bullinger said is in the Bible.

The expression to "know" someone referring to carnal knowledge is not confined to the early chapters of the Gospels.

The expression (in Greek or Hebrew, depending) appears in other places as well.

Feel free to start off on looking at some examples. I'll get to it in turn otherwise.

What if sin nature isn’t something that was added, but the result of something subtracted, ie holiness/righteousness?

You win the white carnation!

If you feel like making a new thread on this at some point, there's something I taught on healing a long

time ago that I'll want to find again.

Are you saying that the critics didn't call VPW a "Johnny-Come-Lately"?

We certainly have no reason to believe they did.

You CLAIMED that a lot of them did, but have yet to provide even ONE instance where ANYONE did.

You made the claim, and you were asked to support it.

Unable to support it, instead of dropping it like some adults, you switched to name-calling.

Here's a recap of one part of this discussion, with some quotes from me and Larry:

WordWolf:

(after posting verses and a short explanation)

"Only if you discard both the Matthew and Luke accounts, both of which say Joseph and

Mary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born."

Larry:

"WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion."

WordWolf:

(after posting a lot of verses and a much longer explanation)

"Well,now I've run through the relevant verses, and explained my rationale.

Nobody needs a Greek text or some "old Jewish book" nobody ever heard of to see the meanings, either.

Now that I have, can you see why the LOGICAL conclusion is that the verses support both a virgin

conception and virgin birth,

and do NOT support any other possibility?"

Larry:

"Actually -- No I can't."

----

That's when I stopped and asked Larry to explain his position. I'll explain the reason shortly.

WordWolf:"Quid pro quo, Clarisse (or Larry in this case.)

I spent a considerable amount of time running through all the verses, in 2 versions, and explaining what

I think is the simplest explanation of each one.

Before I get back into them all over again, I ask you:

What is YOUR understanding of those chapters?

What do YOU come away with after reading them?

Your turn."

Seemed to me there was no logical reason for an intelligent person interested in honestly reviewing the

verses to be unable to see the same conclusion. Therefore, I wanted to know what Larry's motivation and

positions were if I was going to bother explaining beyond what I believe any unbiased, average

reader would need to see the same conclusion. I saw a request to make an UNREASONABLE effort,

and wanted to know why, before putting forth such an effort.

Larry's response:

"WordWolf, normally, in discussions of this sort the burden of proof rests upon the one making the assertion. I mean no offence to you but, you haven't adequately proven your claim (as far as I'm concerned)."

As far as I was concerned, I had already adequately proven and supported my claim-

the virgin conception and virgin birth were the logical position of Scripture.

If someone DOES do that, and someone disagrees, there's no guarantee the disagreeing person

is CORRECT and the case was not adequately proven. Anyone can maintain ANY position beyond all

logic and make a claim that ANY level of evidence is not "adequate."

Therefore, my request.

Larry then acceded to my request, and explained his position.

In his post, he included the following:

"So, from my perspective, I believe it's more logical to think that according to the cultural customs of the times, Mary was a virgin, even though married to Joseph at the time of Jesus' conception, because they hadn't yet consummated their marriage by doing the "horizontal thingy".

In other words,

Larry came to exactly the same position I did-

Jesus was the result of a virgin conception, based on the verses of Scripture.

So, when he posted that he could NOT see that this was the logical conclusion- despite holding the

exact same conclusion himself and posting it himself later-

he was NOT being honest.

TWICE.

So, I went through TWO lengthy explanations, and Larry apparently agreed with them but didn't like

them, because he announced he DIDN'T see the same conclusions.

Then he wanted me to explain further.

Sorry, I don't see a good-faith reason to rehash the same verses over and over.

I provided a clear, logical answer, and one even Larry agreed with.

Larry felt like arguing anyway, and wants me to rehash them some more.

THAT's why I asked before even CONSIDERING more of the same.

I suspected that, and Larry, despite himself, has confirmed it.

Meanwhile, the subject seems to have been adequately covered by all parties.

======

A separate issue would be to wonder WHY Larry would indulge in this pretense of misunderstanding.

WHY did he bother to do this?

Pending more information, it looks like he was looking for an excuse to show us how clever he was,

to show off, even if he had to manufacture the opportunity from whole cloth.

While I can communicate intelligently at Larry's level, I find an elementary DISHONESTY that

argues against making the effort.

I also note his documentation was 2 websites that cited no sources. Larry himself should easily see

that this means he's quoting someone's OPINIONS twice. There's no proof they had any reason

other than an opinion to post what they did, no proof there's any justification for their statements.

Thus, there's no proof for HIS statements, either-except he quoted SOMEONE.

Then again, with the lack of documentation, he may well have posted both sites and have been

quoting HIMSELF as proof he was correct. Larry should know better than to cite sources lacking

documentation.

Further, he's wasted no time lecturing the other students.

"Another spot, if you're an adult try to act like one."

His post would have made its point without the cheapshot or talking-down.

Naturally, it's eminently predictable if Larry denies any mistakes, nor any intent to be contrary

for its own sake when agreeing and lying and saying he didn't see the position he already held,

nor having done that. I trust everyone else can see what's happened so far, however.

Some might think he owes the posters here an apology for playing head-games with them.

Me, I can pass on that, but if he admitted what he did, I'd find that refreshingly honest under

the circumstances.

========

Meanwhile, Raf has answered another question that was raised- that of the supposed

belief that Jesus was illegitimate, based on a misunderstanding of John 8.

We've discussed it before, but it's probably time to do so again.

Any thoughts on this?

Cowgirl

Yes.

I'm aware of someone who thinks 20 years isn't that big a difference, so long as it's in the other

direction. Personally, I think 20 years in either direction is a big difference.

Under a decade, however, I'm a lot more philosophical.

I forget where I heard this, but I'm paraphrasing heavily.

The world can sometimes be a hard, cold place. If you found someone that things work with,

and there's something like a few year's difference between you,

or how you met or whatever doesn't match a storybook or the expectations of others,

what does that matter?

It's your relationship, and you have to do what works for you.

Anyone else is welcome to concern themselves with their own relationships.

Actually -- No I can't. Without going over each and every verse you cited I'll just focus on two --

Matthew 1:18 (KJV)

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Your explanation following this verse:

"Mary was engaged to Joseph, and they hadn't been married, honeymooned, or done the

horizontal hula. Naturally, Mary knew this, and Joseph knew this. God Almighty knew this.

Unless anyone was spying on them, that's pretty much everyone who KNEW this."

Then you quoted verse 19:

19 (KJV) And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.

How did Joseph go from being engaged to Mary in verse 18 to being her husband in verse 19?

The key word of course is the word "espoused" which in our culture means one thing but, in the culture of that time meant another. I won't bore you with the details 'cause it really doesn't matter. Just going on common sense alone in reading verse 18 it should arrest your attention that if Mary was found with child BEFORE they were engaged you would have to ask yourself two questions -- 1) Who discovered she was pregnant? and 2) If the answer logically was Joseph based on the context then -- Why would Joseph marry her only to consider divorcing her? I'll await patiently your answer to these two questions and on how you reconcile verse 19 with verse 18 making your explanations more sensible.

Quid pro quo, Clarisse (or Larry in this case.)

I spent a considerable amount of time running through all the verses, in 2 versions, and explaining what

I think is the simplest explanation of each one.

Before I get back into them all over again, I ask you:

What is YOUR understanding of those chapters?

What do YOU come away with after reading them?

Your turn.

Ok, on request, I'm going to go through the verses little by little, across the Gospels,

with "help files enabled."

I'm also going to post the KJV on each verse, and the NASB on it- for a more accurate,

better word-for-word version that also offers italics.

Matthew 1:18 (KJV)

18"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

(NASB)

18"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit."

Explanation: Mary was engaged to Joseph, and they hadn't been married, honeymooned, or done the

horizontal hula. Naturally, Mary knew this, and Joseph knew this. God Almighty knew this.

Unless anyone was spying on them, that's pretty much everyone who KNEW this.

19"Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily."

19"And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly."

Explanation: Joseph, knowing he hadn't done the horizontal mambo with Mary, found out she was pregnant anyway.

Naturally, he concluded she had sex with someone else. (What would YOU have concluded? I would have concluded

the same Joseph did.) He had the option of publickly disgracing her. IIRC, he had the option of STONING,

under the strictest law. ("Now, Moses in the law said such should be stoned, but what do you say?")

However, he was willing to just give her a bill of divorcement and let it go quietly.

20"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."

20"But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Explanation: He was thinking this over, God sent an angel to talk to him.

"Joseph, she didn't cheat on you. The baby was conceived of God. Go ahead and marry her."

21"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

21"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Explanation: the angel is still explaining. He said they'll call this child, this son, JESUS, and he will save the Jews

(his people) from their sins.

22"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,"

22"Now all this took place to fulfill what was ®spoken by the Lord through the prophet:"

Explanation: this was done to fulfill a prophecy.

23"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

23:"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

Explanation: this is the prophecy that was fulfilled.

24"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

24"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."

Explanation: Joseph got up, and did as the angel said. He married Mary, and didn't perform the wicked dance

with her until after she had a son, whom they named Jesus.

================

That's Matthew, and it's pretty straightforward.

Mark does not have any such account. Neither does John.

We'll pick up the action in Luke.

26"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

26"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth,

27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary."

Explanation: In the 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy (read the preceding verses), the angel Gabriel was

sent by God to Mary, who was a virgin engaged to Joseph.

28"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be."

28"And coming in, he said to her, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

29But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was."

Explanation: Gabriel greeted Mary, and Mary was confused by his greeting- did it mean something specific,

or was it just effusive?

30"And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS."

30"The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God.

31"And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus."

Explanation: Gabriel explained she was favoured by God, and began to explain about her future son, Jesus,

who was yet to be conceived.

32"He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

32"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;

33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."

Explanation: Gabriel explains more about how important Jesus will be.

34"Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

34"Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" "

Explanation: Mary is puzzled about this future son- she is still a virgin, so HOW could she have a son?

35"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

35The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."

Explanation: Gabriel explained how she, a virgin, would have a son. He gives what explanation that can be given-

the conception will be by the power of God, making this child The Son of God,

not the son of a man, which is the NORMAL expectation, and the expectation Mary had.

36"And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible."

36"And behold, even your relative Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month.

37 For nothing will be impossible with God."

Explanation: Gabriel completes his explanation, with another example of something seen as "impossible".

38"And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

38"And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her."

Explanation: Mary said, "Ok", and Gabriel left.

================

(snip)

Although Matthew (I'll have to recheck Luke) doesn't actually say one way or the other that Joseph and Mary had sex prior to the birth of Jesus I don't see why (based on the context) one could not logically assume they did.

(snip)

Well,

now I've run through the relevant verses, and explained my rationale.

Nobody needs a Greek text or some "old Jewish book" nobody ever heard of to see the meanings, either.

Now that I have, can you see why the LOGICAL conclusion is that the verses support both a virgin

conception and virgin birth,

and do NOT support any other possibility?

========

As to the other issues raised, I'll get to them in turn as well.

Even your vpw said

"you can be dead right but dead wrong because you have no love."

Being eager to win points and forgetting to deal with HUMANS is one reason door-to-door witnessing

(mentioned in this thread) often backfired.

Being eager to win points and forgetting to deal with HUMANS is one reason post-to-post witnessing

(seen in this thread) often backfires.

There's a lesson there, and a lesson there, and a lesson there.

Cool! But could you lay it out a little more plainer. I didn't see your answer to my post herein. :)

I said I'd respond "in a bit".

You'll get FASTER responses right after you start PAYING for them.

Otherwise, I will get back to what I promised to get back to within the timeframe I

promised to do so.

True freedom is being able to read the writings of anyone and have the ability to think through what's taught and make up your own mind.

I agree in the principle.

When someone CLAIMS to have done that, and COINCIDENTALLY agrees with EVERYTHING put forth

by ANY teacher or ANY group,

I am very suspicious they did not TRULY do what they CLAIM they did.

Furthermore,

can one review discussions of a CONTRARY view and CHANGE ONE'S MIND?

That's important to LEARNING and expanding beyond the straitjackets of any group's theology....

Well, Bolshevik, I guess that just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you're taught, unless it's supported with evidence. If you look at Bullinger's notes on the structure of the Gospel of John you'll see where he states the purpose of that Gospel "is to present the Lord Jesus as God."

That's true. To judge only from Bullinger's writings, he was unquestionably a Trinitarian, and there are no

HINTS, even, that he considered otherwise. The suggestions he "would have changed his opinion" or anything

along those lines were promulgated by those in the top in twi *cough* vpw* cough* to try to make him agree

with EVERYTHING they taught.

Here, again, I wouldn't find it very logical to draw any conclusion absent evidence. Even though VP most assuredly borrowed (that verb probably won't sit well with many) from the writings of Bullinger and others as seen in some of his books it does not follow that he did likewise with every book or article he ever wrote including JCING. If you have evidence showing that he plagiarized someone else's writing (when he wrote JCING) then I'd like to see it.

"his" works, and those he did not (POSSIBLY excepting JCING) were written by the research staff and vpw

left THEIR names off and put "by VPW" on the covers. If you need help finding any of these threads,

pm me and I will point you to a few.

Isn't the "argument" (message) more important than the source? Whenever, someone tries to discredit the source they are generally committing the fallacy called Ad Hominem.

You missed what that post was about.

So far, we've documented the sources for most of "vpw"'s books- books that vpw took chapter by chapter,

or paragraph by paragraph, or word by word from-

EXCEPT JCING.

One might argue that it's only a matter of time, since all the others were found over time.

However, the question is: what materials did he plagiarize to make JCING?

That's a separate question from "is the book any good?" or "is the book making its case?"

So, the book was not being DISCREDITED by vpw's blatant plagiarism there or anywhere else,

at least as regarding the quality of the material on the pages.

(If the supposed author is a cheat, liar, rapist, plagiarist, and so on,

the book itself may still have merit.)

Then we have that gem from WTH:

WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive:

Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian?

Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim.

Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book.

Got a source for this claim?

Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.

It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.

They did not care at ALL what his background was like.

They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.

Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,

most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too.

Nope. I did not make this up.

So, you have a source supporting the claim that

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."?

I bet you don't, and the rest of the post will obfuscate the question...

Apparently you skipped over the Introduction in JCING. (Taken from page 2-3):

"So while studying God's Word for the past several decades, I have always kept the trinity in mind, hoping I would find the key to understanding it, hoping that this wasn't one of God's secrets.

But, through the years, the more and more I carefully researched God's Word for knowledge, the less and less I found to substantiate a trinity. Even though I had always accepted the idea of a three-in-one God, I continually found evidence in the Word of God which undermined a Christian trinity."

Congratulations!

You COMPLETELY FAILED to support your claim that

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book"

and attempted to change the subject at the same time!

You demonstrated that you have NO support for your claim of what "most critics" say,

or even ONE critic, let alone 51% of them!

I knew vpw was raised Trinitarian. He'd addressed correspondence before this with a Trinity invocation.

YOU made a claim that critics misrepresented him- and when I asked you to show this misinterpretation,

you did everything to hide FROM any quote from any critic!

Your statement about critics was unsupported, and you elected to distract and change the subject

when asked TO support it.

Logical conclusion: this statement of yours:

"Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book."

Was MADE UP ENTIRELY, and has NO BASIS IN ANY QUOTES FROM ANY CRITICS,

LET ALONE "MOST" OF THEM.

There is VPW's own personal tesitmony regarding his original stance on the doctrine of the trinity. But if you are saying I need to back up the statement of the critic's who claim VPW was always anti-trinitarian, then apparently you have never read the Introduction in any of their books either. They often state and make the claim that VPW was always anti-trinitarian in the Introduction of their books (while aligning his position along with that of Arius) and then go on to refer to VPW as the one who is the: "Johnny-come-lately" to the party (debate) - i.e. saying Arius was the first one who came up with the anti-triniatarian idea of God, and VPW just came along later.

YOU'RE the one who made the claim they said that.

Therefore, YOU'RE the one who needs to support your made-up claim.

Don't pretend I have to find books that I think NEVER EXISTED, to quote

Introductions that NEVER EXISTED, when you're the one who claims they do.

That's not how INTELLIGENT discussions work- the Burden of Proof is on the one

claiming the existence of something.

The only question I would ask the critics is why do they feel the need to distort this fact regarding VPW's own personal "indoctrination" of the trinity from his childhood? The only answer to that is because it helps reinforce their weak doctrinal position - so that question really doesn't need to be asked.

The obvious question is why you feel the need to distort the critics? The obvious answer is that it helps

reinforce your weak position- so that they appear to make weaker arguments than the weak arguments

of JCING.

I have no idea if you've been here with this thread yet or not... I've lurked on it quite a bit, off and on, so please forgive me if you've covered this already...

...I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

So do I, Chas!

Feel free to post a quote from a movie whenever you're ready!

=============

What?

For "Sledge Hammer", I would only have recognized one quote:

"Trust me-I know what I'm doing."

Even the one-shot comic book used that line- and put it on the cover, as well.

WordWolf, try as much as I might I can't discover how you came to this conclusion. In fact this statement seems to contradict other comments you made in the same post (which I drew this from). Although Matthew (I'll have to recheck Luke) doesn't actually say one way or the other that Joseph and Mary had sex prior to the birth of Jesus I don't see why (based on the context) one could not logically assume they did.

*sigh*

I'll lay it out again in plain English in a bit.

Although I was always puzzled as to why Jesus was considered a bastard child by members of the community he grew up in. You would think that the family would have kept their mouths shut about Mary's condition and just let everyone think that Jesus was actually Joseph's son. I never really ferreted out my thoughts on this matter 'cause it really wasn't all that important to me.

The upshot-and it's still here somewhere- is that there is NO REASON to think that the members of the community

Jesus grew up in thought he was anyone OTHER than Joseph and Mary's son.

(Except "this is what vpw taught they meant in that ONE reference in John 8",

and "vpw taught that there's some ancient doctrine where illegitimates bar-mitzvah'ed at age 12",

which was a separate discussion that addressed things like

"THERE WAS NO BAR-MITZVAH in that century, and Jesus wasn't going to be bar-mitvahed in the account

at all".)

I can dig for them when I have time, or you can beat me to it.

This is not stated at all anywhere. That's a matter of interpretation.

(I know not at a man at that point. What about afterwards?

Also 'knew her not till Jesus was born does not say that Joseph didn't know her.

This statement was made after conception.)

Doesn't anyone find it interesting that if a virgin was found with child, she should be stoned or put away?

What is a Virgin? And what was to become of the father?

I can see I'm really going to have to break this down in detail, verse by verse.

I shall, in a bit.

I'd also like to thank people like Oakspear for participating in this discussion on its OWN merits,

that is "If the Bible has a consistent or even semi-consistent explanation, let's see what it is"

rather than shoving his opinion down our throats.

(He has stated his opinion, but hasn't required it to limit the discussion.)

And 'knew her not' could very well apply to another pregnancy or intercourse.

The meaning of 'knew her not' has never been established.

Do you have a source for an alternate explanation-

"knew her not"- other than "vpw claimed that this is one meaning of this phrase"?

Joseph and Mary had sex, and enjoyed it too before their marriage ceremony.

as "this is what happened", and not presenting it as "my understanding",

as "this is what I believe happened", or "this is one possibility."

While Mary was 'overshadowed' and 'in the Spirit'.

And was told before that it would happen-Be it unto me according to thy will.

A person is entirely engulfed while in the spirit-body, soul, mind and spirit.

Got a basis for this claim? If so, I WOULD like to see it.

(No, I'm not joking- if you have one, go ahead, I may learn something.)

Not looking for any one to agree with me, I don't care if they do or not.

In fact here at this Greasespotcafe, I am normally not believed or ignored, which is fine with me.

Some do hear wether anyone thinks so or not.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you're going to claim it doesn't contradict the

Bible, you'll need to SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM. Otherwise, those who CAN support their claims

will point out that you're engaging in a "leap of faith" that contradicts the Bible.

(Which, of course, you can choose to do, but most people prefer not to do that while

simultaneously claiming to believe the Bible. Disbelievers of the Bible, of course, have no

difficulty contradicting it.)

Making statements of belief without supporting them is by its nature limiting, which would

limit your participation in discussion. I noticed that when I asked you to explain and expand

on one of your claims, you seemed to get indignant and refused to clarify.

That means either "I'm too important to explain"- which is a bad attitude on the internet

in general and the GSC in particular,

or "I don't HAVE an answer and don't want to admit it"-which is also bad for either.

Still your decision, of course...

"That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost"

This does not exclude the way God set it up for children to be born.

But rather adds to it.

Thing is, the other accounts DID exclude "the way God set it up for children to be born."

Even vpw agreed that all verses must agree with the OTHER verses on the same subject.

So, saying this while IGNORING the other verses suggests your only way to deal with them

contradicting your position is to IGNORE THE VERSES.

You're free to do that, but, again, that's NOT a good thing anywhere, including here.

Arguing the quality of CES and Buzzard's books vs JCING is irrelevant.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

They demonstrate there were other, more INFORMATIVE, ways to handle the same subject.

But if one is trying to make JCING seem more special, then of course one needs to squelch any

discussion of SIMILAR BOOKS TACKLING THE SAME SUBJECT.

At least VP had the guts to write the book knowing what fur would fly.

....NOTHING HAPPENED.

twi was always a small-time player in the big game, a footnote in modern Christianity, something where

an asterisk points to its entire existence.

vpw MANUFACTURED the controversy.

vpw gave the book the most controversial title he could, and made sure it had a HUGE TITLE on the

cover. Don't believe me? MEASURE IT, then measure the cover.

Then compare ANY other twi book. The print on THAT cover was HUGE.

And he picked a yellow-and-black contrast. That's the colour contrast used on traffic signs

because they are the fastest-spotted contrast. All it was missing was blinking lights.

Still, nobody would have heard of it, because nobody was stopping to listen as if vpw was

EF Hutton. So, he had to PUSH the doctrine some more in twi so people would trumpet it,

and manufactured his own little media event- the one where he tried to anger the local churches

and gave away AUTOGRAPHED COPIES of JCING at the same time. (Scroll up for the description.)

vpw went out of his way to TRY to make as much fur fly as possible.

There's even another exway book on the topic: One God; the unfinished reformation, by Bob Carden. I hear it's pretty good, too.

This is the first I've heard of the book, so I don't have anything to say on it.

I've never heard of the author, either, so I've no opinion on him, either.

Weak argument???

Did you even read JCING WW?

Yes.

That's fine with me.

ATTENTION LURKERS: Now's your chance to post a clue WITHOUT FIRST GUESSING ONE!

George

When a word is used figuratively, the literal meaning of the word isn't going to help all that much. However, one can look at the context:

Mary asks the questions "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

The answer is:

"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:"

Practically, the results of "coming upon" and "overshadowing", at least in this case, is pregnancy. Obviously, biblically, this is a unique situation, so the word "overshadow" wouldn't necessarily mean impregnate" anywhere else.

Let's look at the same incident as it's reported in the other Gospels.

Matthew 1:18-25.

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23Behold,a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Jesus' conception was "before [Joseph and Mary] came together",

"conceived...of the Holy Ghost",

child of "a virgin" "that it might be fulfilled",

and Joseph "knew her not" until after Jesus was born.

So, based on Matthew 1, if one believes Matthew 1, Jesus was unmistakeably the son of Mary,

and God Almighty.

(Mark and John don't address this incident.)

The most detailed answer-as was mentioned previously- as to how this worked was in Luke 1:34-35.

"34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Mary got pregnant without "knowing a man". INSTEAD, "the Power of the Highest overshadowed her",

and as a direct result of that, the holy one born of her shall be called The Son of God.

If one believes the Bible, that's fairly straightforward:

A) Joseph was not Jesus' genetic father.

B) Mary was Jesus' mother.

C) Instead of a genetic father, the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary, and she was pregnant with

Jesus as a result.

If the specifics are not that God Almighty created the male reproductive genetic material that normally

would be contributed by a genetic father,

then the differences are so small as to make it effectively identical.

Or one can just discard the Bible. "I don't care what it says-I don't trust it. I think otherwise."

Which, of course, is anyone's privilege, but it DOES limit one's contributions to discussions like this.

You are interpreting that as meaning impregnating Mary when it is not.

The demonstrated EXPLANATION and demonstrated RESULT disagree with you.

The Spirt overshadowing and coming upon someone is not a new thing.

What is unique is that it happened during intercourse with Joseph.

Mary did NOT dance the horizontal until after Jesus was born.

Which you can choose to discard, of course-but don't expect the rest of us to just follow along.

As the seed of Joseph inpregnated Mary.

Mary was in the spirit, totally.

Sanctified, holy, and a special birth like no other.

Please supply any verses that support this position- that is,

verses that say that Joseph supplied 50% of the genetic material for Jesus' conception.

The verses seem to claim the OPPOSITE.

WordWolf in boldface.

I remember when VPW/TWI put out the challenge for a serious debate on the subject of the Trinity. I believe this was right around the time or shortly after VPW had hung his JCING thesis on the doors of the church from his childhood - pretty much Martin Luther style. VPW said he would debate anyone on the subject, but then as soon as a challenge came up VPW said, "I'm not gonna handle it anymore. (I guess by then he had plenty of challenges to deal with at the time.) I don't have time for this junk. There are men in the ministry who can handle the subject better than me."

[You don't remember 1/2 you think you remember.

Martin Luther posted one set of his 95 Theses with the express purpose of opening discussion.

vpw announced he was going to compile the list of all the verses that say Jesus is the Son of God

and post those at church doors.

According to eyewitnesses, what he did was post a big sign at each door that said

"Jesus Christ: not God, never was, never will be!"

and placed an AUTOGRAPHED copy of JCING there.

Apparently, he was convinced reading it would make SOME difference in a Christian's mind,

although even you are admitting it's insufficient to make its own case.

According to your own account, he claimed to be open to discussion, but as soon

as he was answered, he backed off and did a cut-and-run.

So HE wasn't sufficient to make his own case, EITHER.]

If the CES/STFI book and Mr. Buzzard's book are better, then I guess VPW told the truth in that regard, although I highly doubt either of those books will convince a die-hard trinitarian that JCING any more than VPW's original book did.

A hardcore ANYTHING won't be convinced on ANYTHING whether or not the "argument"

is strong, logical and documented, or weak, speculative and illogical.

That has nothing to do with why anyone WRITES such a book.

Why pretend it does?

Most of the critic's of the book JCING put forth the argument that VPW was always anti-trinitarian and that was his motivation for writing the book.

Got a source for this claim?

Otherwise, I'm saying you made it up.

It doesn't make sense, either. vpw and JCING critics objected to its main assertion and its conclusions.

They did not care at ALL what his background was like.

They didn't care his MOTIVATION for writing the book-they objected to the book.

Considering how weak an "argument" it makes for something so controversial,

most of us-even those who agree with its conclusions- can see the critics had a point, too.

Now that might be the motivation behind these later books written by Buzzard and CES/STFI - to win a debate or an argument, so in that respect those books are probably better than the original book written by VPW.

JCING supposedly addressed and refuted the doctrine of the Trinity.

That's what vpw thought when he left those copies- otherwise, even HE was convinced

all that was show lacking substance.

(If you want to claim that, I'll go along with it.)

The other books-including the one by Buzzard who never had anything to do with vpw or twi-

also supposedly addressed and refuted the doctrine of the Trinity.

THEY, however, actually ADDRESS it in a fashion that holds up under scrutiny.

The only "respect" vpw's book holds up in is readability- and it's possible to make

a readable book that addresses FAR more complicated subjects-

like molecular biology.

If you're "preaching to the converted", JCING is sufficient- but then, if you're

"preaching to the converted", ANYTHING, no matter how shoddy or slipshod-

is sufficient.

It has often been said that the Truth is easily imparted/entreated.

It has often been said "this is a Burger King town and we know how burgers should be."

"Often said" is no guarantee of truth.

It's often said Jesus is God the Son, and you don't believe THAT.

Truth is sometimes easily imparted.

Truth is sometimes complicated, or deep.

Ever try to comprehend all the stages in the process of a light receptor detecting light?

It's true, but hardly "easily imparted."

VPW's orignal work was written from the standpoint of one searching for truth - it is not written from the standpoint of one looking to win a theological debate. The challenge for a theological debate on this subject came about years after VPW's original book was written.

Although vpw obviously believed his own press that it could easily do so...

So before one goes off casually debunking VPW's book as being any kind of credible work on the Trinity, it is important that one recognizes the context and the standpoint from which VPW's book was originally written from. In that context I believe one will find a great and deep appreciation for the work that was initiated by VPW.

Before one goes off and builds a shrine to vpw's book, I find it important that we not

rewrite history and remember what vpw himself thought about it- as demonstrated

by his actions. In THAT context, I believe one will find it was a passable book at best,

masquerading as deep truth.

I am of the opinion if someone wants to debate the doctrine of the Trinity (and it's been attempted numerous times in the Doctrinal section of this board) and if a person already has a diffucult time with VPW's original work on this subject - which is essentially written from the standpoint of a searcher for truth, then they will certainly run into greater difficulty when dealing with the later books written by CES/STFI, etc - which I believe are books written from the standpoint of those who are willing to debate the doctrine of the Trinity with someone.

The readability and user-friendliness IS a legitimate criticism of either of the other 2 books.

However, readability by itself is insufficient to elevate an inferior book to the level of

books which actually MAKE THEIR CASE.

I'm ok with them, provided they are tasteful, and small.

I don't like the "climbing up the arm" type on men OR women.

I suppose even a number of them- discreetly placed and small-

work be seen as fine by me.

Having stated my opinion, people can do whatever they want.

I do recommend not getting a person's NAME tattooed, of course.

"You want a piece of my heart,

You better start from start.

You wanna be in the show?

Come on baby, lets GO!"