quote: 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.
WW you can't have it both ways; make up your mind! Out of one side of your mouth you paint VP as the devil incarnate; out of the other side you paint him as stupid and insignificant. The devil is not stupid.
If VP and TWI are such a small footnote etc. then why the deprogrammings? Why do Christian book stores and church bookstores have entire sections about cults, with many books about them? Why was TWI always in the top 3 or 4 most dangerous cults in these books? Your logic wouldn't buy a very good cup of coffee even at Burger King.
vpw's twi lied to me. They tharted my knowledge of Christianity and kicked me when I was down. That would make them the devil incarnate to me.
Now, in the rest of the World, nobody gives two hoots about twi, if anyone has heard of them. That would make them insignificant in the big picture of things.
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.
Nope. I did not make this up. 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.
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.
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 critics who align VPW's anti-trinitarian stance along with that of Arius I think should be properly noted. Here is information about Arius the critics would probably rather not have those are seriously questioning trinitarian doctrine get a hold of. (This is taken from Wikipedia - the online Encylopedia.)
Although the character of Arius has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic character, pure morals, and decided convictions. Warren H. Carroll (paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius) describes him as “tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority.”
The anti-trinitarian critics are always painting Constantine as the hero of the Christian Church while painting Arius as it's opponent. Much like Arius, there are people who hold much the same opinion of VPW today, and it is that fact that really bugs and gets into some people's craw. But whether there are people who recognize it or not, (whether they value it or they debunk it) much like Arius, and regardless of your opinion of the book VPW wrote, he left behind a legacy on the doctrine of the trinity to be equally noted as well.
The logic in your post almost makes it sound like you are defending TWI's right to be considered dangerous.
Personally, I believe they were and are dangerous. That has nothing to do directly with their membership, particpant statistics. A cult of, let's say 10 followers, has just as much chance of inflicting damage on its members as a cult with 10,000 followers. Deprogrammers were hired by people who had a concern for their loved ones well- being and felt they were being led astray. Again, this has nothing to do with membership statistics.
Many of these deprogramming operations, by the way, were really set up as an opportunity to financially capitalize on a demand in the marketplace. (ie: to make money)
Why did they list them as being in the top 3 or 4 most dangerous? I don't know.
I'm not doubting you saw that in print but I would be curious to see what criteria was used to define "dangerous".
To sum it up: "Dangerous" does not necessarily equal "significant" in the global scheme of things.
After talking to people who were in other cults, I would have to agree that TWI was but a mere speck on the landscape of Christianity.( And that's GOOD news for the people TWI never reached.)
Didn't vpw get the idea from BG Leonard? (Although Leonard view was a little different)
I think the Christadelphians have believed the same as Wierwille wrote.
The answer is in the Introduction of JCING - page 7, as well as the conclusion, (technically the Conclusion would start on page 125, but it is not numbered in the book JCING). From the Introduction page 7 and 8.
This book [JCING] is a summation of my personal quest to test the doctrine of the trinity to see whether it is a man-made or a God-breathed doctrine. ... The book ends with a brief conclusion and six appendixes for a more careful study of certain aspects regarding God, Jesus Christ and the holy spirit.
Conclusion:
The Bible, which is God's revealed Word and will, does not once mention the word "trinity" although Biblically there are three: (1) God, who is Holy Spirit, the Father of ouf Lord Jesus Christ, (2) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Son of man, and (3) the holy spirit, God's gift, which God made available on the day of Pentecost.
Because God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ holds an exclusive, unparalleled position, it is imperitive that our worship of Him be directed to that position. God is before everything: [isaiah 43:10 is cited] God is the most holy [1 Samuel 2:2] God has no equal [Deuteronomy 32:39] God alone holds the power of salvation [isaiah 43:11] God does not want His people to know or worship any other gods. [Hosea 13:4, Exodus 20:3]
The unique and exalted position of God as one God is taught throughout the Word. Thus we must worship God as the one and only God. What does God's revelation of Himself in His Word say? [There is the answer to where VPW got his idea/concept of God - the revelation of God Himself from His Word. It should be yours as well, whether you happen to agree with the conclusions of VPW or not.] This only is true and right doctrine.
I guess one can take the Introduction and the Conclusion of JCING for whatever they feel it is worth.
VPW had a profound effect on a relatively tiny number of people. More people believe JCING because of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach than because of Wierwille. They've got 6.7 million members (that's ONLY counting the people who go witnessing. Another 10 million are considered adherents, believers who don't go that extra step of door knocking).
The above is cited from Wikipedia, so not rock hard facts. But they agree with numbers I've seen elsewhere.
That's somewhere between 75 and 150 people currently in the JW's for every ONE person who ever took PFAL (whether or not they stayed).
We think Wierwille was profound because he had an effect on our lives. But our perspective on that is distorted for precisely that reason.
There was a time TWI was one of the fastest growing cults in America. That time was very, very short. Even looking at it as a 25-year phenomenon, its growth rate was not that impressive. Pick a 25 year span, and it will inevitably begin or end in a weak period.
It simply was not a big deal. Ever.
Books were written about cults, true. TWI was included in some of those books. The most influential of those books, Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, mentions TWI on exactly one page. YAWN.
For the effect that he had on our lives, we look at Wierwille's life and ministry. But let's try an experiment: go to 100 random people you've never met before and ask them if they've ever heard of The Way International. You'll be surprised how few have.
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.
I meant that the concept of arguing about how big a deal TWI was in relationship to how sinister Wierwille was. TWI was a wannabe cult, but it was never the big deal threat to orthodox Christianity Wierwille wanted to be. It was a piddling piece of nothing.
quote: We think Wierwille was profound because he had an effect on our lives. But our perspective on that is distorted for precisely that reason.
I believe VP/TWI/PFAL had impact in the world. Sometimes that's hard to measure. Immediate impact may not be the same as long range impact.
For example, the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision had IMO little immediate impact. The decision outlawed forced segregation of public schools, but it did not mandate forced integration. I didn't go to school with black kids until I was in 10th grade in 1969. Boston Celtic legend Bill Russell was not allowed to live in a certain house in the Boston area that same year. The decision's immediate impact was to switch the prejudice from the lawmakers to the realtors. However, the long range impact of the decision has played out much differently.
Today, some feel there is still much more that needs to be done, but the atmosphere is much better. Many black people and other minorities have better job and educational opportunities than back then. IMO the 1954 decision was a major benchmark in that direction.
For another example, Gerald Ford's passing evoked much comment about how when he pardoned Nixon at first he was villified, but even his harshest critics back then have seen that doing so was a good thing in the long run.
The reason I believe VP et al had impact is because of the power of words. Any college grad knows that a good vocabulary is a powerful weapon. Plus, the bible is ripe with scriptures documenting the power of words fitly spoken. (Heb. 4:12, John 6:63, Psalm 12:6 to name a few) In other words God's word has impact no matter how it is paraphrased. You can just tell how it consistently cuts through the bs.
The following is a second hand account that happened to a GSC poster 25 years ago. John Schoenheit came to STL back then and related this story that happened to a believer friend of his. The guy was driving around the city he lived in at the time while listening to talk radio. That day's program was about some individuals who had threatened to douse themselves with gasoline and ignite themselves if certain demands of their's weren't met. Most of the callers thought the individuals were altruistic and worthy of praise for daring to give their lives for whatever the cause was.
Well, the believer finally had enough and stopped his car, went to a pay phone, called the radio station, miraculously got to talk on the air shortly, and reamed the callers who praised these people, calling what they did terrorism, and basically giving the word's pov about the matter. After he returned to his car, every single caller for the next hour referred to his call, some for some against, yet his words had so much impact that he rattled their cages and shook up their darkness. They HAD to deal with his words. That's the impact the true word of God has always had. Shoenheit told that story to illustrate how the word cuts through the bs of the world when spoken with boldness and love.
So I really don't think the relative small size of twi is relevant. I don't think any alleged plagiarism is relevant. Either JCING is the word or it isn't. THAT's what's relevant.
John S really did say this happened to somebody who posts here. He hasn't posted too regularly for awhile, but I believe it happened. He could always confirm it. I just don't want to mention his name.
I was also taught that Bullinger denounced the trinity.
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."
But what about the "whoever."
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.
Who knows where vpw really got his "argument" in JCING? Kenyon and Bullinger are examples that he did have a habit of plagerism.
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.
twi did the work to make sure I was raised ignorant about Christianity today. Part of this was not allowing me to look elsewhere.
Well, I can't comment on how you were raised but, I can attest to the fact that I met many believers who were what was commonly known as "spoon-fed Christians". Even though the phrase was usually applied towards those outside TWI I seen it very prevalent even in TWI.
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.
That's unfortunate. I can't say the same was pulled on me but, my parents weren't members of TWI so I doubt anyone would tell me the same thing.
I was taught that only twi knew the truth about J.C.'s identity.
I don't recall receiving the same teaching. I might have but, it's been a long, long time since I was involved with TWI. I do remember reading books written by people outside TWI who had a pretty good grasp on who Jesus Christ was.
John S really did say this happened to somebody who posts here. He hasn't posted too regularly for awhile, but I believe it happened. He could always confirm it. I just don't want to mention his name.
Sorry johniam, didn't mean to impugne your truthfullness...it's just that the story that Schoenheit told had all the hallmarks of an urban legend: second or third hand report, anonymous person, anonymous city, anonymous radio talk show...big results that fit a pre-conceived conclusion and that teach a moral lesson.
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
WordWolf 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
Ham
Why can't you have it both ways?
There are hundreds of thousands of "devils" in the world, if not millions, but not many were REALLY significant. Hitler was, Stalin, Milosevek..
vic only managed to gain a following of at most, what.. 20,000?
The garden variety "devil" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
vpw's twi lied to me. They tharted my knowledge of Christianity and kicked me when I was down. That would make them the devil incarnate to me.
Now, in the rest of the World, nobody gives two hoots about twi, if anyone has heard of them. That would make them insignificant in the big picture of things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I would agree. My last post, I was only referring to the big scheme.
But these "garden variety" devils can play quite a bit of havoc with people's lives.
I'm just glad there isn't enough power to go around for these numbnuts..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Nope. I did not make this up. 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.
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.
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 critics who align VPW's anti-trinitarian stance along with that of Arius I think should be properly noted. Here is information about Arius the critics would probably rather not have those are seriously questioning trinitarian doctrine get a hold of. (This is taken from Wikipedia - the online Encylopedia.)
Although the character of Arius has been severely assailed by his opponents, Arius appears to have been a man of personal ascetic character, pure morals, and decided convictions. Warren H. Carroll (paraphrasing Epiphanius of Salamis, an opponent of Arius) describes him as “tall and lean, of distinguished appearance and polished address. Women doted on him, charmed by his beautiful manners, touched by his appearance of asceticism. Men were impressed by his aura of intellectual superiority.”
The anti-trinitarian critics are always painting Constantine as the hero of the Christian Church while painting Arius as it's opponent. Much like Arius, there are people who hold much the same opinion of VPW today, and it is that fact that really bugs and gets into some people's craw. But whether there are people who recognize it or not, (whether they value it or they debunk it) much like Arius, and regardless of your opinion of the book VPW wrote, he left behind a legacy on the doctrine of the trinity to be equally noted as well.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Didn't vpw get the idea from BG Leonard? (Although Leonard view was a little different)
I think the Christadelphians have believed the same as Wierwille wrote.
http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/wcb/notrinit.html
Does twi have an explanation as to why the Bible mentions God as "Holy Spirit" sometimes?
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Johniam
Don't take this the wrong way.
The logic in your post almost makes it sound like you are defending TWI's right to be considered dangerous.
Personally, I believe they were and are dangerous. That has nothing to do directly with their membership, particpant statistics. A cult of, let's say 10 followers, has just as much chance of inflicting damage on its members as a cult with 10,000 followers. Deprogrammers were hired by people who had a concern for their loved ones well- being and felt they were being led astray. Again, this has nothing to do with membership statistics.
Many of these deprogramming operations, by the way, were really set up as an opportunity to financially capitalize on a demand in the marketplace. (ie: to make money)
Why did they list them as being in the top 3 or 4 most dangerous? I don't know.
I'm not doubting you saw that in print but I would be curious to see what criteria was used to define "dangerous".
To sum it up: "Dangerous" does not necessarily equal "significant" in the global scheme of things.
After talking to people who were in other cults, I would have to agree that TWI was but a mere speck on the landscape of Christianity.( And that's GOOD news for the people TWI never reached.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
The answer is in the Introduction of JCING - page 7, as well as the conclusion, (technically the Conclusion would start on page 125, but it is not numbered in the book JCING). From the Introduction page 7 and 8.
This book [JCING] is a summation of my personal quest to test the doctrine of the trinity to see whether it is a man-made or a God-breathed doctrine. ... The book ends with a brief conclusion and six appendixes for a more careful study of certain aspects regarding God, Jesus Christ and the holy spirit.
Conclusion:
The Bible, which is God's revealed Word and will, does not once mention the word "trinity" although Biblically there are three: (1) God, who is Holy Spirit, the Father of ouf Lord Jesus Christ, (2) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Son of man, and (3) the holy spirit, God's gift, which God made available on the day of Pentecost.
Because God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ holds an exclusive, unparalleled position, it is imperitive that our worship of Him be directed to that position. God is before everything: [isaiah 43:10 is cited] God is the most holy [1 Samuel 2:2] God has no equal [Deuteronomy 32:39] God alone holds the power of salvation [isaiah 43:11] God does not want His people to know or worship any other gods. [Hosea 13:4, Exodus 20:3]
The unique and exalted position of God as one God is taught throughout the Word. Thus we must worship God as the one and only God. What does God's revelation of Himself in His Word say? [There is the answer to where VPW got his idea/concept of God - the revelation of God Himself from His Word. It should be yours as well, whether you happen to agree with the conclusions of VPW or not.] This only is true and right doctrine.
I guess one can take the Introduction and the Conclusion of JCING for whatever they feel it is worth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
A personnal quest huh?
It's been shown he plagerized other books.
How can I believe anything vpw wrote concerning his intentions?
As far as the content, that knowledge was available before he existed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A lot of fur flying here over nothing.
VPW had a profound effect on a relatively tiny number of people. More people believe JCING because of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach than because of Wierwille. They've got 6.7 million members (that's ONLY counting the people who go witnessing. Another 10 million are considered adherents, believers who don't go that extra step of door knocking).
The above is cited from Wikipedia, so not rock hard facts. But they agree with numbers I've seen elsewhere.
That's somewhere between 75 and 150 people currently in the JW's for every ONE person who ever took PFAL (whether or not they stayed).
We think Wierwille was profound because he had an effect on our lives. But our perspective on that is distorted for precisely that reason.
Now, let's look at TWI's status as a cult. Type "Top Ten Cults" into your Google search. Top item that comes up is this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-top10cults.html
Please note what is NOT on that list.
There was a time TWI was one of the fastest growing cults in America. That time was very, very short. Even looking at it as a 25-year phenomenon, its growth rate was not that impressive. Pick a 25 year span, and it will inevitably begin or end in a weak period.
It simply was not a big deal. Ever.
Books were written about cults, true. TWI was included in some of those books. The most influential of those books, Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, mentions TWI on exactly one page. YAWN.
For the effect that he had on our lives, we look at Wierwille's life and ministry. But let's try an experiment: go to 100 random people you've never met before and ask them if they've ever heard of The Way International. You'll be surprised how few have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Someone suggested sharing a work of Wierwille's with other people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I meant that the concept of arguing about how big a deal TWI was in relationship to how sinister Wierwille was. TWI was a wannabe cult, but it was never the big deal threat to orthodox Christianity Wierwille wanted to be. It was a piddling piece of nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Did anyone notice an advertisement above refuting the trinity?
http://www.bibletoday.com/book/trinity.htm...CFQGPWAodt0RGRQ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: We think Wierwille was profound because he had an effect on our lives. But our perspective on that is distorted for precisely that reason.
I believe VP/TWI/PFAL had impact in the world. Sometimes that's hard to measure. Immediate impact may not be the same as long range impact.
For example, the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education decision had IMO little immediate impact. The decision outlawed forced segregation of public schools, but it did not mandate forced integration. I didn't go to school with black kids until I was in 10th grade in 1969. Boston Celtic legend Bill Russell was not allowed to live in a certain house in the Boston area that same year. The decision's immediate impact was to switch the prejudice from the lawmakers to the realtors. However, the long range impact of the decision has played out much differently.
Today, some feel there is still much more that needs to be done, but the atmosphere is much better. Many black people and other minorities have better job and educational opportunities than back then. IMO the 1954 decision was a major benchmark in that direction.
For another example, Gerald Ford's passing evoked much comment about how when he pardoned Nixon at first he was villified, but even his harshest critics back then have seen that doing so was a good thing in the long run.
The reason I believe VP et al had impact is because of the power of words. Any college grad knows that a good vocabulary is a powerful weapon. Plus, the bible is ripe with scriptures documenting the power of words fitly spoken. (Heb. 4:12, John 6:63, Psalm 12:6 to name a few) In other words God's word has impact no matter how it is paraphrased. You can just tell how it consistently cuts through the bs.
The following is a second hand account that happened to a GSC poster 25 years ago. John Schoenheit came to STL back then and related this story that happened to a believer friend of his. The guy was driving around the city he lived in at the time while listening to talk radio. That day's program was about some individuals who had threatened to douse themselves with gasoline and ignite themselves if certain demands of their's weren't met. Most of the callers thought the individuals were altruistic and worthy of praise for daring to give their lives for whatever the cause was.
Well, the believer finally had enough and stopped his car, went to a pay phone, called the radio station, miraculously got to talk on the air shortly, and reamed the callers who praised these people, calling what they did terrorism, and basically giving the word's pov about the matter. After he returned to his car, every single caller for the next hour referred to his call, some for some against, yet his words had so much impact that he rattled their cages and shook up their darkness. They HAD to deal with his words. That's the impact the true word of God has always had. Shoenheit told that story to illustrate how the word cuts through the bs of the world when spoken with boldness and love.
So I really don't think the relative small size of twi is relevant. I don't think any alleged plagiarism is relevant. Either JCING is the word or it isn't. THAT's what's relevant.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Didn't the Devil quote scripture? Did that make it less of God's Word? Did it make the Devil less of a devil?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sounds like a TWI urban legend to me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I think Raf makes some valid points...let's put twi in perspective:
Twi was to Christianity what this post is to everything that has ever been written in the history of mankind...
In other words, he was a passing fart in a wind storm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When twi can no longer influence me, I'll do that.
Of course, I'm just a passing fart in a wind storm compared to everyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Sounds like a TWI urban legend to me...
John S really did say this happened to somebody who posts here. He hasn't posted too regularly for awhile, but I believe it happened. He could always confirm it. I just don't want to mention his name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
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.
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.Well, I can't comment on how you were raised but, I can attest to the fact that I met many believers who were what was commonly known as "spoon-fed Christians". Even though the phrase was usually applied towards those outside TWI I seen it very prevalent even in TWI.
That's unfortunate. I can't say the same was pulled on me but, my parents weren't members of TWI so I doubt anyone would tell me the same thing.I don't recall receiving the same teaching. I might have but, it's been a long, long time since I was involved with TWI. I do remember reading books written by people outside TWI who had a pretty good grasp on who Jesus Christ was.
Anyways, thanks for your response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
For what it's worth --- I'm a *fan* of Bullinger.
He does promote the trinity, in his works.
(And an extra --- *For what it's worth* --- ),
I remember docvic teaching once that had EWB lived a few years longer,
he would have seen the error of his ways (concerning the trinity).
Like I said -- *For what's it's worth*.
:)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
P.S. -- Hey there Larry N Moore!
Welcome to GreaseSpot Cafe!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
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.