I don't want to get into a doctrinal debate, since this isn't the thread to do that. But there have been many writers since the Reformation that questioned the Trinity, not to mention many second and third century writers that expressed opinions contrary to what became the orthodox Trinitarian view. I think it's possible that VPW really believed that Jesus was not God, but also realized how that controversial teaching could be an effective marketing ploy as has been mentioned in this thread.
It is true, though, that his JCNG was not a great scholarly work. I have read a number of more scholarly works that do a better job at making the point that Scripture presents Jesus as the Son of God and not God. Remember, VP didn't come up with anything original, so don't discount what he taught just because he taught it. He got a FEW things right (though not many).
If you want to know what convinced VP of the fallacy of the Trinity, a good source would be the bibliography that was supposed to be available. If you remember, JCNG had a note that said that you could obtain a complete bibliography just by writing and asking for it. (Why they didn't just include it in the book in the first place, I don't know.) Did anyone here happen to write in for it? I've always wondered what sources were listed in it. If anyone on GS has it or knows where it can be obtained, it would be interesting to find out.
And if anyone still wants to discuss the subject doctrinally, we could start another thread in the Doctrinal section (though it's probably been discussed there already.)
In the 1st edition the bibliography was included, but omited in the 2nd edition. Some of the same resources were used in John Schoenheit's book One God and One Lord from Christian Education Services/Spirit and Truth Fellowship but with some additional material.
I have 2 versions of the JCNG bibliography. It doesn't appear to me to be helpful. It looks as though somebody just made a list of books and nobody actually read them. There certainly is no evidence in JCNG that anybody actually read and closely evaluated them. (Footnotes nearly nonexistent)
The more interesting version of the bibliog included the article "Forgers of the Word" in which VP claims the Bible was dramatically rewritten ("forged"), deleting all the wording of the verses that he would prefer ( like one of his prefered versions of Mat 28:19 which he insists on the basis of no evidence at all that it would not have the words "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), and including versions of verses he prers.
If you're wondering what was deleted and what was "forged," just ask VP because he knows everything.
It's a typical cult ploy, to insist that Bible's been changed, which is why it doesn't read exactly the way the cult leader wants it to read.
if you're looking for sources for JCNG, I don't think you'll find them in the JCNG bibliog.
They are more likely to be the guys that VP said he learned from -- Rufus Moseley, Glenn Clark, Starr Daily and George Lamsa. All these guys were primarily "new Thought" (like Christian Science). A few of VP's ideas, like the impersonal "Christ in you," were essentially New Thought even though VP didn't apparently have the discernment to notice that.
Although Lamsa claimed to be Nestorian, his beleifs were mainly New Thought, and he had an office at Unity School of Christianity, which is a New Thought group. (Actually "New Thought" is over 100 years old in its current form, not new at all. It's dying as a movement, though some of its beliefs continue in the New Age movement and Hindu derivatives.)
The more interesting version of the bibliog included the article "Forgers of the Word" in which VP claims the Bible was dramatically rewritten ("forged"), deleting all the wording of the verses that he would prefer ( like one of his prefered versions of Mat 28:19 which he insists on the basis of no evidence at all that it would not have the words "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), and including versions of verses he prers.
Interestingly enough, VPW didn't even come up with THIS on his own. The idea was first put forth by F. C. Conybeare (1856-1924) and is still quoted by various non-trinitarians, but has been refuted by other scholars. The thing is, that verse doesn't say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God, or co-equal, or anything else that you could prove the Trinity from. There is no need to try to prove that those words weren't in the original.
Recommended Posts
Mark Clarke
I don't want to get into a doctrinal debate, since this isn't the thread to do that. But there have been many writers since the Reformation that questioned the Trinity, not to mention many second and third century writers that expressed opinions contrary to what became the orthodox Trinitarian view. I think it's possible that VPW really believed that Jesus was not God, but also realized how that controversial teaching could be an effective marketing ploy as has been mentioned in this thread.
It is true, though, that his JCNG was not a great scholarly work. I have read a number of more scholarly works that do a better job at making the point that Scripture presents Jesus as the Son of God and not God. Remember, VP didn't come up with anything original, so don't discount what he taught just because he taught it. He got a FEW things right (though not many).
If you want to know what convinced VP of the fallacy of the Trinity, a good source would be the bibliography that was supposed to be available. If you remember, JCNG had a note that said that you could obtain a complete bibliography just by writing and asking for it. (Why they didn't just include it in the book in the first place, I don't know.) Did anyone here happen to write in for it? I've always wondered what sources were listed in it. If anyone on GS has it or knows where it can be obtained, it would be interesting to find out.
And if anyone still wants to discuss the subject doctrinally, we could start another thread in the Doctrinal section (though it's probably been discussed there already.)
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
In the 1st edition the bibliography was included, but omited in the 2nd edition. Some of the same resources were used in John Schoenheit's book One God and One Lord from Christian Education Services/Spirit and Truth Fellowship but with some additional material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
I have 2 versions of the JCNG bibliography. It doesn't appear to me to be helpful. It looks as though somebody just made a list of books and nobody actually read them. There certainly is no evidence in JCNG that anybody actually read and closely evaluated them. (Footnotes nearly nonexistent)
The more interesting version of the bibliog included the article "Forgers of the Word" in which VP claims the Bible was dramatically rewritten ("forged"), deleting all the wording of the verses that he would prefer ( like one of his prefered versions of Mat 28:19 which he insists on the basis of no evidence at all that it would not have the words "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"), and including versions of verses he prers.
If you're wondering what was deleted and what was "forged," just ask VP because he knows everything.
It's a typical cult ploy, to insist that Bible's been changed, which is why it doesn't read exactly the way the cult leader wants it to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
if you're looking for sources for JCNG, I don't think you'll find them in the JCNG bibliog.
They are more likely to be the guys that VP said he learned from -- Rufus Moseley, Glenn Clark, Starr Daily and George Lamsa. All these guys were primarily "new Thought" (like Christian Science). A few of VP's ideas, like the impersonal "Christ in you," were essentially New Thought even though VP didn't apparently have the discernment to notice that.
Although Lamsa claimed to be Nestorian, his beleifs were mainly New Thought, and he had an office at Unity School of Christianity, which is a New Thought group. (Actually "New Thought" is over 100 years old in its current form, not new at all. It's dying as a movement, though some of its beliefs continue in the New Age movement and Hindu derivatives.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Interestingly enough, VPW didn't even come up with THIS on his own. The idea was first put forth by F. C. Conybeare (1856-1924) and is still quoted by various non-trinitarians, but has been refuted by other scholars. The thing is, that verse doesn't say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons in one God, or co-equal, or anything else that you could prove the Trinity from. There is no need to try to prove that those words weren't in the original.
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.