A Few Big Things I Learned Taking PFAL

[doojable]

Wow, Dooj, another great insight. You seem to me to have a ministry of taking very complicated and convoluted subjects and distilling them down to a very pithy statement of truth. Thanks.

It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it. ;)

Thanks W&W - really I think it's a right-brain thing for me. Hard to describe really. I'm not sure it's a ministry, though. I'm not even sure I'd call it insight. It's just how my journey made sense to me. I've made a lot of mistakes along the way and this is how things processed out for me.

[Oakspear]

I doubt we'll solve to everyone's satisfaction the nature of God, Jesus and Elvis, nor unanimously agree on whether God's a trinity or not. Is there anyone though who thinks that Wierwille's explanation of why he believed the trinity to be unscriptural was well reasoned?

The Trinity

Made no sense then - still makes no sense , that about sums that up.

Wow. All that scholarship summed up 8 words.

[doojable]

I doubt we'll solve to everyone's satisfaction the nature of God, Jesus and Elvis, nor unanimously agree on whether God's a trinity or not. Is there anyone though who thinks that Wierwille's explanation of why he believed the trinity to be unscriptural was well reasoned?

And even if we all got together and agreed on "the nature of God, Jesus, and Elvis, would it really make a difference? What we hold to be true "ain't necessarily so."

There was a time when the civilized world believed the earth to be flat - that didn't change the curve of the earth even one degree.

[Oakspear]

What we hold to be true "ain't necessarily so."

Been saying that for years

[doojable]

Been saying that for years

So where's my prize? ;)

[waysider]

The basic (scholastic) reason TWI teachings so adamantly promoted the anti-trinitarian line of thought was because of the O.T. reference stating,"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

---------IMO---------

Now, you could easily get wrapped up in a discussion of the word "before" , etc., etc.

Not my cup of tea.

My beliefs about The Trinity are relevant only to me.

My beef is with this statement:

" If son of God means or equals God the son, then language and words are useless as a tool of communication."

---------VPW----------

Forget about the topic at hand; this statement is jibberish.

It sounds very noble----- but---- it really means nothing.

How many other catchy phrases are/were there in PFAL(and TWI) that really don't/didn't have any actual meaning in and of themselves?

These phrases were designed to evoke a response that was based on emotion, not logic and reason.

( Don't forget----When Eve stopped to *consider*, it marked the beginning of the end for her utopia.)

Sarcasm intended.

--------IMO-----

[Abigail]

I would ask Abigail what she thinks of Psalm 45:6, she knows more about the old testament than I.

Abigail would tell you she has never really tried to "work" that particular verse before. I have looked at it in several "versions" though and in some the second "your god" is left out.

None of it really tells me anything for certain, honestly. I would wonder when Hebrews was written as well.

But even that doesn't guarantee a satisfactory answer. So I go back to Isaiah and conclude God already knew Jesus would be called these things and didn't seem to mind, so why would I mind?

[anotherDan]

You got no excuse now, Oldies! Just kidding.

Please consider my pointed questions to be rhetorical -- for your thoughtful consideration. I appreciate your heart, brother!

[dmiller]

" If son of God means or equals God the son,

then language and words are useless as a tool of communication."

---------VPW---------

Actually -- this is a statement I can agree with,

(one of the few out of the many docvic made).

His statement *believing works for saint and sinner alike*,

is one I DON'T agree with, but (imo) the above statement has some sort of merit.

Most churches (well -- at least the ones I've attended in the past),

use that exact thinking to *prove* that Jesus is God.

I don't think He is, but that's beside the point.

What they think of the trinity is their business, not mine.

What I think of the trinity is my business, not theirs.

But I've seen this *circular reasoning* espoused in many denominations.

I hung out with a Messianic Jewish group for about a year ---

spending every Friday night at their bible study 2 or 3 years ago.

I guess Messianic groups have their own differences of opinion within themselves --

but the one I attended -- Pastor Stan was adamant that Jesus was not God.

He did however believe that Jesus *pre-existed* before being physically born.

Whenever that topic came up -- he always looked MY way,

because he knew where I stood on it!

Regardless of all that --- I think docvic's statement carries some merit,

since I've seen it *in manifestation* in hallowed halls, on the holy day. ;)

Some really great comments and observations here in the responses!

Dooj and Abi --- :eusa_clap:

[T-Bone]

The Trinity

Made no sense then - still makes no sense , that about sums that up.

And I won't argue with that. But I will say when it comes to religious beliefs we all make concessions to some things that defy understanding. That comes with the territory of faith. Thinking about the God of the Bible can be an affront to the intellect.

He inhabits eternity – He has no beginning and no end. No one made Him – nothing caused Him to be. This does not agree with my understanding of cause and effect...of space and time.... Sort of like analyzing time-travel movies. Take the funny scene in Back to the Future, for instance. Michael J. Fox fills in on guitar for Marvin Berry who hurt his hand. While Michael is playing Chuck Berry's tune Johnny B. Goode, Marvin Berry is on the phone calling his cousin Chuck Berry – telling him "I found that new sound you've been looking for."

Some good points in these posts:

That's the short form on why my solution to the Gordian Knot was not to blow off either side

(and I've seen both sides do that), but to acknowledge that both sides can make a case,

but not an UNASSAILABLE case,

so I concluded that BOTH are WRONG and the truth is something else.

Lord and Son of God, yes, but some of the specifics beyond that?

I honestly say "I don't know."

What I think doesn't make sense is - trying to define God. Since when does the creation get to define the Creator?

I've said this before:

As long as God knows who He is, and Jesus knows who he is, then I'm fine. All I need to do is remember who I am and that I am neither God nor Jesus.

...At one point I was very tied up in knots over the question of the trinity, how to define the relationship between God and Jesus Christ etc. I got really peaceful and relaxed when this thought similar to what you said above came to me. God knows who He is, He doesn't need me or anyone else to tell Him.

What that did for me really helped me get close to Him as God, not as a theololgical construct. Doesn't mean I'm not interested in what the Bible says about Him and who He is, just that it's not my responsibility to define Him, lest I make up a God of my own imagination, and one infinitely smaller and tamer than the God of all creation.

I like to keep my options open…allow God to expand the walls of my theological box.

Edited August 29, 2007 by T-Bone

[Oakspear]

So where's my prize? ;)

I hereby award you a GsD, a doctorate of Grease Spotology, when I find my little note pad, I'll write it out for you :ph34r: -

[doojable]

Will you even dress up like the wizard and give me a pocket watch and a medal of honor too? ;)

[dmiller]

Will you even dress up like the wizard and give me a pocket watch and a medal of honor too? ;)

I think you deserve a pizza with Pineapple and Canadian Bacon on it!!

Oh --- wait a minute -- LIKE THAT'S EVER GONNA HAPPEN FROM OAK!!!

:biglaugh:

Edited August 29, 2007 by dmiller

[doojable]

I think you deserve a pizza with Pineapple and Canadian Bacon on it!!

Oh --- wait a minute -- LIKE THAT'S EVER GONNA HAPPEN FROM OAK!!!

:biglaugh:

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

[Oakspear]

Will you even dress up like the wizard and give me a pocket watch and a medal of honor too? ;)

What do mean..."dress up like....?"

[WordWolf]

As VP said in his book " if son of God means or equals God the Son " then language and words are useless as a tool for communication.

Where does the Bible say,"The son of God is God the son?"

Well, I don't believe it does but isn't this what trinitarians believe?

Trinitarians do not say that that the words "Son of God" = the words "God the Son". They do believe both of these things, but do not claim that one means the other.

For those who missed that and are following along from home, I shall break it down.

There are 2 statements.

For discussion, we shall limit ourselves to 2 specific statements.

A) Jesus is the Son of God.

In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was and is The Messiah, The one and only Son of God, pre-eminent among God's children

and worthy of greater honours then they, both from his position "genetically" and from his own acts which showed him

finer than any other human that ever walked the earth, showing he was worthy of the honours God Almighty granted him.

B) Jesus is God the Son.

In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was and is The Messiah, The Son of God, who, in addition to honours granted Him by His Father

by virtue of His birth, was and is eternally part of God, as co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

For discussion, we shall simplify the positions of most Christians.

We shall say that ex-twi non-Trinitarian Christians believe the first statement.

(We're skipping all minority positions for this discussion.)

We shall say that Trinitarian Christians believe both the first and second statements.

(We're skipping all minority positions for this discussion.)

We'll come back to that in a minute.

=========

As of the time I'm posting this, George W. Bush is the President of the United States.

As of the time I'm posting this, George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

So,

let the statements be represented as follows:

H) George W. Bush is President of the US.

I) George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief of the US.

Can he be both at the same time?

Yes.

Do both apply to him correctly?

Yes.

Does that mean that H=I,

that President=Commander-in-Chief?

No, those are 2 different statements.

However, both apply to him, although they mean 2 different things.

===========

Going back to the initial statement....

Edited August 29, 2007 by WordWolf

[T-Bone]

Will you even dress up like the wizard and give me a pocket watch and a medal of honor too? ;)

Now click the mouse three times and say, "There's no place like Grease Spot."

[WordWolf]

For those who missed that and are following along from home, I shall break it down.

There are 2 statements.

For discussion, we shall limit ourselves to 2 specific statements.

A) Jesus is the Son of God.

In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was and is The Messiah, The one and only Son of God, pre-eminent among God's children

and worthy of greater honours then they, both from his position "genetically" and from his own acts which showed him

finer than any other human that ever walked the earth, showing he was worthy of the honours God Almighty granted him.

B) Jesus is God the Son.

In other words, Jesus of Nazareth was and is The Messiah, The Son of God, who, in addition to honours granted Him by His Father

by virtue of His birth, was and is eternally part of God, as co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

For discussion, we shall simplify the positions of most Christians.

We shall say that ex-twi non-Trinitarian Christians believe the first statement.

(We're skipping all minority positions for this discussion.)

We shall say that Trinitarian Christians believe both the first and second statements.

(We're skipping all minority positions for this discussion.)

We'll come back to that in a minute.

=========

As of the time I'm posting this, George W. Bush is the President of the United States.

As of the time I'm posting this, George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

So,

let the statements be represented as follows:

H) George W. Bush is President of the US.

I) George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief of the US.

Can he be both at the same time?

Yes.

Do both apply to him correctly?

Yes.

Does that mean that H=I,

that President=Commander-in-Chief?

No, those are 2 different statements.

However, both apply to him, although they mean 2 different things.

===========

Going back to the initial statement....

Going back to the initial statement...

I'm sure there ARE people who will say that statement A=statement B.

There are also people who say that the space program is faked,

the earth is flat,

and that pfal is superior to the Bible.

HOWEVER, those people are not representative of the population or their respective subcultures as a whole,

and, as such, it is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST to pretend that they are representative of anything

but their own personal positions.

Therefore,

let's freely admit that Trinitarians, as a whole, say Statement A AND Statement B,

but don't say "these are the same thing."

They say "these are both true and both apply."

That having been said, it is sometimes possible to get a knee-jerk reaction from a Christian who will

rattle off that they ARE the same if asked and pressed on it.

I don't consider that a particularly HONEST method to find out what someone believes or how they

explain it.

But, they are 2 different statements,

and those who believe both claim that both apply but not, generally, that they are the same statement.

[bliss]

Simplicity

Jesus= NO HUMAN FATHER

none, zip, nada

What does that make him?

It certainly does NOT make him like a regular man.

PFAL minimized this fact to make him just like us. Heck, they couldn't even keep Mary a virgin until after the birth.

No, he was and is no regular man.

Can you imagine yourself in heaven seated down at the right hand of God? New body and all, wouldn't you feel a little , out of place?

I dunno. I was trying to write a funny skit about this very thing.

I laughed a lot trying to see a "man" Jesus kinda sitting down after the resurection and looking over at God and saying

"whoa, that was some suffering. Now what? Hey, I always wondered what the cheribum were.........Oh, send everyone that confesses me as lord, a gift? wow, that will keep me busy. Hey God, you know, I did everything you asked of me, I obeyed every jot and tittle........even unto death.......and since I am the only human up here, and me being the 'second Adam' and all...........you think just maybe, you could make me a 'second eve?'"

I am thinking out loud. You don't mind do you?

[anotherDan]

Hi Bliss. I don't mind.

But maybe the historical Jesus did die and was raised from the dead, and made heir of all the universe in a way that is not apparent to everyone. I consider that as a possibility. If that is the case, my question would be, does he mind?

The blood of Christ may not have been a common thing, but something that was in fact sacred. It may have actually purchased our pardon.

[Sunesis]

Dan, I also believe blood is sacred. The spirit realm does not have it, we do. I think that is why you see so much "blood sacrifice" in ancient pagan religions. We are told blood cleanses, covers, thus we see the correct, "godly" sacrifices made by the Jewish people in the temple - not the counterfeit sacrifice and spilling of innocent blood devilishly used in pagan religions, as we've seen through history.

Why it is sacred? Only God knows. It cries from the ground when spilled.

When Christ ascended, his blood cleansed the inner temple that had been polluted by Satan when he fell, he went to "prepare a place" for us in the heavenlies. His blood cleanses us, covers us, and allows us into the new kingdom that is coming. His blood was that perfect and precious.

I too, after I left TWI finally understood the "incarnation" for lack of a better word.

Christ is not "God" almighty, but that essence of which God is - was in him.

Picture a block of shining silver. Now picture an edge chipped off. That chip is what was in Christ - the essence of God, in him.

We walk around with a soul, he walked around with God in him - the essence.

You are right Dan. Since Christ was a only man with the holy spirit, as VP taught, TWI essentially taught, that if we only renewed our minds enough we could be like him. All we had to do was renew our mind.

I disagree. If all it took was a fleshly, albeit, perfect man with spirit to redeem us, Moses or any of the prophets could have done it long ago.

Man's redemption required more than flesh.

VP totally negated Christ's divinity.

Christ is so much more than we were ever taught.

VP with his adamancy that JC is not God, his ridicule of it, basically closed TWIers minds to the immense greatness of Christ - whether you are a trinitarian or not.

Either way, some things are a mystery, a paradox, that our minds, no matter how brilliant cannot comprehend. We were done a massive disservice by VP's black and white, and misinformed ridicule laden teaching in this area.

[T-Bone]

Simplicity

Jesus= NO HUMAN FATHER

none, zip, nada

What does that make him?

It certainly does NOT make him like a regular man.

PFAL minimized this fact to make him just like us....

That makes Him a truly unique person!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John 1:18 KJV

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

I shared this on another thread:

...the Greek text reads "o monogenes huios" = "the only begotten son." If you look at the word monogenes – it is composed of two words mono = one and genes = kind…..and perhaps could mean Jesus Christ is one of a kind.

Edited August 29, 2007 by T-Bone

[Sunesis]

And what is so awesome is that we too are now in this "family" - this new kind of being.

We too will someday be this "new kind." It will be way beyond what we can imagine.

Way beyond any kind of evolution.

We will be a totally new kind - as he is now, so shall we be.

As he was at the transfiguration when he appeared to Peter and the others in his glorified body - so shall we be.

Peter's mind was blown when he saw that and he mentions it quite a bit.

What ever it will be - it will be awesome.

[oldiesman]

So, Oldies, I guess the question is, are you comfortable calling Jesus "not God" when God Himself calls him God? I can see you thinking Thomas was confused when he said, "My Lord and my God." But God Himself? Are you comfortable contradicting God?

You can base your answer on the NT alone, before you get to consult with Abi on the OT. The class taught you the keys to the Word's interpretation, remember?

edited to add Scripture verses

Another Dan, to try to answer you question, I am not comfortable calling Jesus "God". To me, there is only one Supreme God who stands alone. Jesus is not Jehovah Elohim or Allah. I think if God calls Jesus God, that's ok, God can call Jesus whatever He wants.

However I AM personally very comfortable calling Jesus LORD. :)

Abigail would tell you she has never really tried to "work" that particular verse before. I have looked at it in several "versions" though and in some the second "your god" is left out.

None of it really tells me anything for certain, honestly. I would wonder when Hebrews was written as well.

But even that doesn't guarantee a satisfactory answer. So I go back to Isaiah and conclude God already knew Jesus would be called these things and didn't seem to mind, so why would I mind?

If that's what you choose to do and have no problem, then its ok with me :)

Edited August 29, 2007 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

You got no excuse now, Oldies! Just kidding.

Please consider my pointed questions to be rhetorical -- for your thoughtful consideration. I appreciate your heart, brother!

I appreciate yours too Dan and thanks for the correction.