If they removed the "cornerstone" of their "foundation of beliefs" their entire ministry would fall apart.
The fact that Jesus Christ is Not God is just as important(or maybe more) than their belief that the Bible is the "God Breathed Word and Will of God"
All the innies would revolt, pandamonium would breakout, and chaos would rule , indicating that the Return would be about to happen . God help us all. :blink:
I've read the CES book and there's no comparison other than the subject matter...CES actually put out a legitimate piece of work, whereas Wierwille's JCING reads like it was written by a freshman in high school over a long weekend.
I suspect that this book is probably the only one that Wierwille actually wrote himself without stealing other people's stuff...and you can tell...and the funny part is how highly this book was revered when it was first written...the simple truth is that the book is an embarrassment to any serious scholar...in fact it's laughable.
...and I'm not even debating the actual subject matter...I'm talking about the low degree of writing quality, the lack of anything substantial in terms of writing skills, indepth research, historical documentation or biblical knowledge...
I recall when It first came out and when I first read it...my thoughts, even then, were "Is this it?"...It was a joke.
I've heard Anthony Buzzard's book and the CES/STFI book both are superior to it.
(And I of course am unaffiliated with either and only know them from the GSC.)
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."
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. 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. 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.
It has often been said that the Truth is easily imparted/entreated. 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. 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.
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.
By KC Sierra "kcsierra" (Fort Lauderdale, FL USA) - See all my reviews
Wierwille's thesis must be taken seriously. His book must not.
Although he makes an attempt at being reader-friendly, he does so at the expense of sound proof of his thesis. This is a laughably bad book, and its primary usefulness lies in reassuring you if you already agree that Jesus Christ is not God.
A much more comprehensive attempt at addressing this issue can be found in Anthony Buzzard and Charles Hunting's "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound" and the book "One God and One Lord" by former Wierwille followers John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark Graeser. Of course, defenses of the Trinity doctrine can be found in any Christian bookstore.
If you're going to disagree with the Trinity or try to disprove it, Wierwille's book should be your last resource.
... This is a laughably bad book, and its primary usefulness lies in reassuring you if you already agree that Jesus Christ is not God.
This is the point where I and that particular reviewer part company and where we totally disagree. That reviewer is completely oblivious of the standpoint from which the original book JCING by VPW was written from, but I already explained that standpoint in my previous post. The point where I highly disagree with this reviewer is where they say the only usefulness of JCING by VPW is in reassuring someone who already agrees that JCING. They are another critic assuming that VPW was always an anti-trinitarian who was out just looking for supporters.
On the contrary - the book by VPW is highly useful to those who have never considered the doctrine of the Trinity and the various implications that it presents - and to those who are likewise searchers of the truth themselves. But if you are someone who just wants to debate the subject or the doctrine of the Trinity with someone else, then by all means go ahead and get those books by those other authors. You may be on better footing for a theological debate with them.
I wouldn't use any of Wierwilles books for debates. You may quote him thinking you're quoting him, but you don't know all of what he plagerized.
A more educated person would laugh in your face.
(I'm not saying JCING was plagerized. but since a number of vpw's works were, It's just not safe to assume you're quoting him. In a debate, you need facts.)
I wouldn't recommend showing the book to a new person simply because vpw's name is on it. They may start reading his other works (like I did) and assume he did an honest amount of research. Just show them the other books. Or better, show them what you know. Nobody needs to hear of vpw.
I wouldn't use any of Wierwilles books for debates. You may quote him thinking you're quoting him, but you don't know all of what he plagerized.
A more educated person would laugh in your face.
....
The truth of the matter is, many of those more educated ones your are referring to started out with the books written by VPW, so those educated ones really have no one else's face to laugh in except their own. I have nothing bad to say about any of my mentors. Even the really bad ones taught me something valuable.
I think Wierwille's book is fine as a presentation of a point of view: a tract, if you will. Its arguments are too poorly constructed to withstand serious study or challenge. Listing a bunch of instances of "Son of God" as though that somehow proves he's not God merely underscores a lack of sophistication in understanding what Trinitarians believe. Some of the explanations of various verses were well-argued. Most are not. And some are curiously skipped outright.
So, as has already been said, if you relied on it to win arguments, you were evenly matched with anyone from the Jack Chick school of browbeating Bible verses. They descended into shouting matches.
The CES book (which, IMO, dishonestly fails to include Wierwille's book in its bibliography) does a much better job of anticipating and withstanding challenge. I agree with WTH in that I don't believe withstanding challenge was Wierwille's true purpose in writing JCING. I think his purpose was indoctrination and developing a following. Let's face it: it's a much easier read than the CES book.
Even more difficult to read is Buzzard's book, which puts Wierwille's to absolute shame when it comes to detailed Biblical analysis and exposition, but suffers from being overloaded and somewhat unapproachable.
If you're going to be a non-Trinitarian, non-Arian, but still Christian, Wierwille's book is sufficient for the vapid and/or the people who have other things to worry about, like jobs; the CES book is sufficient for the interested, and Buzzard's book is sufficient for those endeavoring deep study.
The truth of the matter is, many of those more educated ones your are referring to started out with the books written by VPW, so those educated ones really have no one else's face to laugh in except their own. I have nothing bad to say about any of my mentors. Even the really bad ones taught me something valuable.
"the more educated" I was referring to were those who took the trinitarian stance. (unless your saying the trinitarians learned from vpw , my guess is most never heard of him)
If someone were making an argument, citing wierwille, when they unknowingly were quoting Kenyon or Bullinger (or whoever), they're own credibility would crumble.
If you're going to be a non-Trinitarian, non-Arian, but still Christian, Wierwille's book is sufficient for the vapid and/or the people who have other things to worry about, like jobs; the CES book is sufficient for the interested, and Buzzard's book is sufficient for those endeavoring deep study.
I'm sure there are many other books out there. vpw, twi, and CES don't need to be a part of anyone's education.
Come to think of it, I haven't heard anything from JCNG as a focus of twi for quite a while - probably due to the "contraversial" nature of the work... Since this is a kinder, gentler twi, dontcha know?
Makes me think it's a ploy to get more people in, the more similar it is to any other church, then the less threatening... so on and so on...
It seems like twi would get presidential whiplash with how fast they change tacts, but I guess whatever gets the people in the door. Non confrontational, easy to swallow twi. It doesn't hit you until later exactly what you swallowed.
JCING is bluntly logical. I have long felt that anybody who believes Jesus is God will never understand some biblical concepts. VPs biggest concern about the doctrine itself was that if JC is God then mankind is not redeemed.
Growing up I didn't go to a Christian church; I had heard the phrase 'Father, son and holy ghost' tossed around, but did not know that it was supposed to mean that JC is God. Even sitting through pfal session 3 I didn't grasp that people actually believed Jesus was God until the guy who gave me rides to and from class every session said he wasn't going to tell his folks that twi didn't believe in the trinity cause they'd freak out.
So I asked him questions and then it dawned on me that yes these people actually believed Jesus was God. At the time it reinforced all I'd heard in pfal and in twig before that...that churches were way off the mark. That was virgin adult response to the idea that Jesus is God. I was laughing about it.
I have to admit that the worst shouting matches I ever got into while witnessing were over JCING. Once a lightbearer brought a guy to twig who was with the Gideons. During the fellowship he noticed a way mag with a full page ad for JCING. Game over.
During the last 10 years I worked at a place where one table in the break room was all Christians. I made up my mind there were 2 subjects I would not push: abortion and the trinity. Abortion came up a few times; the trinity NEVER came up. I got along with them fine.
If someone were making an argument, citing wierwille, when they unknowingly were quoting Kenyon or Bullinger (or whoever), they're own credibility would crumble.
It's highly unlikely that anyone would be "unknowingly" quoting either Kenyon or Bullinger since both were trinitarians.
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
Arguing the quality of CES and Buzzard's books vs JCING is irrelevant. At least VP had the guts to write the book knowing what fur would fly. There's even another exway book on the topic: One God; the unfinished reformation, by Bob Carden. I hear it's pretty good, too. Weak argument??? Did you even read JCING WW?
Arguing the quality of CES and Buzzard's books vs JCING is irrelevant. At least VP had the guts to write the book knowing what fur would fly. There's even another exway book on the topic: One God; the unfinished reformation, by Bob Carden. I hear it's pretty good, too. Weak argument??? Did you even read JCING WW?
I think that Wordwolf addresses the above post quite well...
Another point to consider is that Wierwille needed to present a doctrinal deviation from mainstream Christianity in order to seperate his "ministry", his organization, his following, his CULT, from other Christian organizations...Why?...Because he needed to stand out from the rest...he needed to show a difference between himself and all the others...and for several reasons.
If you're going to present yourself as an apostle who is teaching the "word" as it has not been known since the 1st century...well, you had better come up with something "different"...something that is controversial.
In order to secure his self made image, JCING was the ticket. He had to have a "gimmick" to keep his followers from wandering off to other Christian groups or churches (who's gonna pay money for a class that you can hear for free in church)...This book, this doctrine was the fuel that propelled the "Us versus Them" mentality that was so pervasive in twi and lended itself to a false sense of superiority that was part of the twi package.
...I believe that this book was intended to stay "in house"...as laughable as it was, it was sufficient to keep his glassy eyed followers in the fold.
When i started with pfal that was news to me that people even thought Jesus could be God. We always considered HIM the Son.
it was not his gimmick it was NOT a new idea by far. I know lots of churches that do not believe Jesus is God. even 25 years ago.
I had a buddy who was catholic , who i got involved, now HE was thrilled just thrilled at this stuff of jesus not being God.
we had alot of talks first about how it was wrong then in a ironic twist how come it was right!
he is still in.
fur didnt fly with this teaching for all christians ,just those who had issue with it. and it was only a tiny little cult in ohio not a main stay religous event . good God, lol .
the gimmick that attracted folks was rebellion , that was His calling card that attracted those unhappy with what they had been taught by the authority of the day. and we were all young and indeed stupid about much in life rebellion was a good thing in the day!
then ya grow up and realize your just a mass of baby boomers that had their thing like every other generation, i remeber drugs was the other rebellion of the day.
the gimmick was not his theory about who Jesus is or isnt it was to get together a mass of folks willing to state they were right and EVERYONE eles was wrong.
It's highly unlikely that anyone would be "unknowingly" quoting either Kenyon or Bullinger since both were trinitarians.
But what about the "whoever." Who knows where vpw really got his "argument" in JCING? Kenyon and Bullinger are examples that he did have a habit of plagerism.
twi did the work to make sure I was raised ignorant about Christianity today. Part of this was not allowing me to look elsewhere. Seriously, if I asked about another church and their beliefs or suggested going to see for myself, they pulled the your young and stupid card, obey your parents. (Or die outside the HH). I was taught that only twi knew the truth about J.C.'s identity.
I was also taught that Bullinger denounced the trinity.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
9
20
17
Popular Days
May 31
41
May 30
28
May 29
15
Jun 1
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 15 posts
What The Hey 9 posts
Bolshevik 20 posts
Larry N Moore 17 posts
Popular Days
May 31 2007
41 posts
May 30 2007
28 posts
May 29 2007
15 posts
Jun 1 2007
11 posts
likeaneagle
Not to my knowledge...all vps books where still on the shelf tucked away in a closet and i left in 2000..maybe they will introduce it..
still have mine cause it stills makes perfect sence to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Oh, it's still around.
If they removed the "cornerstone" of their "foundation of beliefs" their entire ministry would fall apart.
The fact that Jesus Christ is Not God is just as important(or maybe more) than their belief that the Bible is the "God Breathed Word and Will of God"
All the innies would revolt, pandamonium would breakout, and chaos would rule
, indicating that the Return would be about to happen 
. God help us all. :blink:
OK NOW, FESS UP, WHO PULLED OUT THE RED THREAD?
(Hides wooden spoon behind back)
Edited by JustSayNOLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Of late, they've been soft-pedaling it.
It's still in the required doctrine, but not as blatant as in vpw's day.
If you look closely, it still appears in stacks of books when they advertise,
but you can't make out the entire title clearly.
(In other words, they're not proudly flying the flag for the strangers and visitors.)
I've heard Anthony Buzzard's book and the CES/STFI book both are superior to it.
(And I of course am unaffiliated with either and only know them from the GSC.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I've read the CES book and there's no comparison other than the subject matter...CES actually put out a legitimate piece of work, whereas Wierwille's JCING reads like it was written by a freshman in high school over a long weekend.
I suspect that this book is probably the only one that Wierwille actually wrote himself without stealing other people's stuff...and you can tell...and the funny part is how highly this book was revered when it was first written...the simple truth is that the book is an embarrassment to any serious scholar...in fact it's laughable.
...and I'm not even debating the actual subject matter...I'm talking about the low degree of writing quality, the lack of anything substantial in terms of writing skills, indepth research, historical documentation or biblical knowledge...
I recall when It first came out and when I first read it...my thoughts, even then, were "Is this it?"...It was a joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
More like they pulled in the welcome mat. I don't think they have anybody left there with even enough warped logic to attempt to debate it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
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."
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. 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. 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.
It has often been said that the Truth is easily imparted/entreated. 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. 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.
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.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I once found a statement on Amazon.com that said the same thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Victor-...6837&sr=1-1
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Had a technical problem. Previous post was edited and then resubmitted.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
This is the point where I and that particular reviewer part company and where we totally disagree. That reviewer is completely oblivious of the standpoint from which the original book JCING by VPW was written from, but I already explained that standpoint in my previous post. The point where I highly disagree with this reviewer is where they say the only usefulness of JCING by VPW is in reassuring someone who already agrees that JCING. They are another critic assuming that VPW was always an anti-trinitarian who was out just looking for supporters.
On the contrary - the book by VPW is highly useful to those who have never considered the doctrine of the Trinity and the various implications that it presents - and to those who are likewise searchers of the truth themselves. But if you are someone who just wants to debate the subject or the doctrine of the Trinity with someone else, then by all means go ahead and get those books by those other authors. You may be on better footing for a theological debate with them.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Of course.
I wouldn't use any of Wierwilles books for debates. You may quote him thinking you're quoting him, but you don't know all of what he plagerized.
A more educated person would laugh in your face.
(I'm not saying JCING was plagerized. but since a number of vpw's works were, It's just not safe to assume you're quoting him. In a debate, you need facts.)
I wouldn't recommend showing the book to a new person simply because vpw's name is on it. They may start reading his other works (like I did) and assume he did an honest amount of research. Just show them the other books. Or better, show them what you know. Nobody needs to hear of vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The truth of the matter is, many of those more educated ones your are referring to started out with the books written by VPW, so those educated ones really have no one else's face to laugh in except their own. I have nothing bad to say about any of my mentors. Even the really bad ones taught me something valuable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think Wierwille's book is fine as a presentation of a point of view: a tract, if you will. Its arguments are too poorly constructed to withstand serious study or challenge. Listing a bunch of instances of "Son of God" as though that somehow proves he's not God merely underscores a lack of sophistication in understanding what Trinitarians believe. Some of the explanations of various verses were well-argued. Most are not. And some are curiously skipped outright.
So, as has already been said, if you relied on it to win arguments, you were evenly matched with anyone from the Jack Chick school of browbeating Bible verses. They descended into shouting matches.
The CES book (which, IMO, dishonestly fails to include Wierwille's book in its bibliography) does a much better job of anticipating and withstanding challenge. I agree with WTH in that I don't believe withstanding challenge was Wierwille's true purpose in writing JCING. I think his purpose was indoctrination and developing a following. Let's face it: it's a much easier read than the CES book.
Even more difficult to read is Buzzard's book, which puts Wierwille's to absolute shame when it comes to detailed Biblical analysis and exposition, but suffers from being overloaded and somewhat unapproachable.
If you're going to be a non-Trinitarian, non-Arian, but still Christian, Wierwille's book is sufficient for the vapid and/or the people who have other things to worry about, like jobs; the CES book is sufficient for the interested, and Buzzard's book is sufficient for those endeavoring deep study.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"the more educated" I was referring to were those who took the trinitarian stance. (unless your saying the trinitarians learned from vpw
, my guess is most never heard of him)
If someone were making an argument, citing wierwille, when they unknowingly were quoting Kenyon or Bullinger (or whoever), they're own credibility would crumble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm sure there are many other books out there. vpw, twi, and CES don't need to be a part of anyone's education.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Come to think of it, I haven't heard anything from JCNG as a focus of twi for quite a while - probably due to the "contraversial" nature of the work... Since this is a kinder, gentler twi, dontcha know?
Makes me think it's a ploy to get more people in, the more similar it is to any other church, then the less threatening... so on and so on...
It seems like twi would get presidential whiplash with how fast they change tacts, but I guess whatever gets the people in the door. Non confrontational, easy to swallow twi. It doesn't hit you until later exactly what you swallowed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
JCING is bluntly logical. I have long felt that anybody who believes Jesus is God will never understand some biblical concepts. VPs biggest concern about the doctrine itself was that if JC is God then mankind is not redeemed.
Growing up I didn't go to a Christian church; I had heard the phrase 'Father, son and holy ghost' tossed around, but did not know that it was supposed to mean that JC is God. Even sitting through pfal session 3 I didn't grasp that people actually believed Jesus was God until the guy who gave me rides to and from class every session said he wasn't going to tell his folks that twi didn't believe in the trinity cause they'd freak out.
So I asked him questions and then it dawned on me that yes these people actually believed Jesus was God. At the time it reinforced all I'd heard in pfal and in twig before that...that churches were way off the mark. That was virgin adult response to the idea that Jesus is God. I was laughing about it.
I have to admit that the worst shouting matches I ever got into while witnessing were over JCING. Once a lightbearer brought a guy to twig who was with the Gideons. During the fellowship he noticed a way mag with a full page ad for JCING. Game over.
During the last 10 years I worked at a place where one table in the break room was all Christians. I made up my mind there were 2 subjects I would not push: abortion and the trinity. Abortion came up a few times; the trinity NEVER came up. I got along with them fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
It's highly unlikely that anyone would be "unknowingly" quoting either Kenyon or Bullinger since both were trinitarians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
My 2 cents worth ---
I was raised Catholic. Always believed in the trinity.
Somewhere along the road of life --
the trinity was something I starting seeing in my rear view mirror.
JCING was published in 1975. I got married that year.
Both my (then) wife and I had our own copies,
and brought them along with us on the honeymoon.
Our first stop (once we started the honeymoon from southern Indiana), was in Chicago.
We visited a friend there, who was an awesome banjo picker, and devout Christian.
He could NOT BELIEVE that we had that book (actually two of them),
and that we had actually planned to read them during *our time*.
Well -- that was then. Fast forward 30 some years.
Raf made an accurate statement about Buzzard and CES, and the books produced by them.
I've got both those books -- and when I compare them to what docvic *wrote* --
you're looking at kindergarten (docvic), versus PHD (Buzzard and CES).
For what it is worth -- docvic presented a premise.
It was nothing more than a *schoolbook* for children.
There was little (if anything) about *research*.
Compared to the two (previously mentioned) works ---
on page 177 of JCING (under the title *RESOURCES*) it says
Ya know what??? -- CES and Buzzard BOTH list ALL their *resources* within the covers of their books.
For that matter -- so did Eagle -- and he is getting shot down for *heresy*
Docvic wrote a book. So what??
The only *resources* I see listed are scriptures,
and NO reference to ANYTHING else, that might lead to that conclusion.
Shucks -- docvic said it himself -- right there in pfal.
(You all know how the rest of this goes) ---
Methinks he chose to *prove* (and got published) thoughts harbored,
with No other documentation (at least unless you want to send a *snail mail* to them.
Perhaps all our ABS money didn't allow for proper financing ---
for listing even ONE of those 428 books, in the back of JCING.
And docvic's book is worthy??
As it's been said here before --- NO WAY!!
:)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf in boldface.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Arguing the quality of CES and Buzzard's books vs JCING is irrelevant. At least VP had the guts to write the book knowing what fur would fly. There's even another exway book on the topic: One God; the unfinished reformation, by Bob Carden. I hear it's pretty good, too. Weak argument??? Did you even read JCING WW?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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.
Yeah, that's right. Within 2 weeks of the book's release..........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.
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.
Yes.Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I think that Wordwolf addresses the above post quite well...
Another point to consider is that Wierwille needed to present a doctrinal deviation from mainstream Christianity in order to seperate his "ministry", his organization, his following, his CULT, from other Christian organizations...Why?...Because he needed to stand out from the rest...he needed to show a difference between himself and all the others...and for several reasons.
If you're going to present yourself as an apostle who is teaching the "word" as it has not been known since the 1st century...well, you had better come up with something "different"...something that is controversial.
In order to secure his self made image, JCING was the ticket. He had to have a "gimmick" to keep his followers from wandering off to other Christian groups or churches (who's gonna pay money for a class that you can hear for free in church)...This book, this doctrine was the fuel that propelled the "Us versus Them" mentality that was so pervasive in twi and lended itself to a false sense of superiority that was part of the twi package.
...I believe that this book was intended to stay "in house"...as laughable as it was, it was sufficient to keep his glassy eyed followers in the fold.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
I was born and raised in the baptist church.
We never believed that Jesus Christ was God.
When i started with pfal that was news to me that people even thought Jesus could be God. We always considered HIM the Son.
it was not his gimmick it was NOT a new idea by far. I know lots of churches that do not believe Jesus is God. even 25 years ago.
I had a buddy who was catholic , who i got involved, now HE was thrilled just thrilled at this stuff of jesus not being God.
we had alot of talks first about how it was wrong then in a ironic twist how come it was right!
he is still in.
fur didnt fly with this teaching for all christians ,just those who had issue with it. and it was only a tiny little cult in ohio not a main stay religous event . good God, lol .
the gimmick that attracted folks was rebellion , that was His calling card that attracted those unhappy with what they had been taught by the authority of the day. and we were all young and indeed stupid about much in life rebellion was a good thing in the day!
then ya grow up and realize your just a mass of baby boomers that had their thing like every other generation, i remeber drugs was the other rebellion of the day.
the gimmick was not his theory about who Jesus is or isnt it was to get together a mass of folks willing to state they were right and EVERYONE eles was wrong.
such is stupid youth . he knew what he was doing.
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
But what about the "whoever." Who knows where vpw really got his "argument" in JCING? Kenyon and Bullinger are examples that he did have a habit of plagerism.
twi did the work to make sure I was raised ignorant about Christianity today. Part of this was not allowing me to look elsewhere. Seriously, if I asked about another church and their beliefs or suggested going to see for myself, they pulled the your young and stupid card, obey your parents. (Or die outside the HH). I was taught that only twi knew the truth about J.C.'s identity.
I was also taught that Bullinger denounced the trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.