I am afraid my post will be, in the words C.S. Lewis used often, "quite unpopular."
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
The Trinity...ahh...a hard subject. Essentially, my understanding is summed up in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, and which was decided on by the seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787 AD), and which is confessed by many Church Fathers before and after Nicea:
The Nicene Creed:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light, God of God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified for us also under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; and I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen."
The Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (Mother of God), according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ...and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." [st. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:1]
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." [st. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration of Faith]
"Do your utmost to stand firm in the precepts of the Lord and the Apostles, so that everything you do, worldly or spiritual, may go prosperously from beginning to end in faith and love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit, together with your most reverend bishop and that beautifully woven spiritual chaplet, your clergy and godly minded deacons. Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to His Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ and the Father and the Spirit; so that there may be complete unity, in the flesh as well as in the spirit." [st. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 13]
My understanding of the Trinity certainly goes beyond any creed of the Church, even though I affirm them to be true declarations of the Faith. There is one essence (ousia), and three persons (hypostasis). These three Hypostases share this one divine Ousia, Substance or Nature. They do not each have a part of it, but they each have the Essence in its totality. It is not that the Persons comprise the Essence, nor that the Persons each have a part of the Essence, but each Person has the Essence as a whole. The Persons describe the "Threeness" of God, and the Essence describes the "Oneness" of God. The Threeness and Oneness are the same, because in Threeness we have Oneness because the three Persons are said to be a perechoresis, meaning they mutually indwell within one another, and in Oneness of Essence we have Threeness, because the three Persons each contain the complete Essence. Because the Essence is not divided among the three Persons and because the Persons are within one another, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity would explain the Trinity further.
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus up above explains it well. He clearly states that there is one God, the Father, but then he goes on to say that the Son is "Only of Only, God of God, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal." Then he says of the Holy Spirit, that He gets His being from God the Father, and is made manifest or revealed to man by the God the Son. Just as the Son is the Image of the Father, the Spirit is said to be the "Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect," in whom we see God the Father and God the Son because they are in the Spirit and the Spirit is in them, and vice versa.
Many see the Trinity to be just one big compilation of confusing Neo-Platonic formulas. While it is true that the Church Fathers, especially St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. John the Apostle/Evangelist/Theologian, St. Athanansius, Origen, and others, used Neo-Platonic terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
Yes and No. Can one outright deny the Trinity and claim to be a Christian? No. Can one believe in the Trinity and not understand all the complex theology behind it, and be a Christian? Of course. Can one not believe in the Trinity and be closer to God than one who does believe in the Trinity? Certainly. God is everywhere and in everything and everyone. Some people are just...closer...to Him, than others, believers or non-believers. Can a non-Christian be saved? I think so. God judges what's in the heart, and He's the only judge: I'm not going to judge who will be saved and will won't, I can't.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
If one, as I said before, "outright denies" the Trinity and Jesus' divinity, then I would say one does believe in "another Jesus."
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I haven't read it, so I wouldn't know. I've read excerpts from it from a few sources on the internet, and from what I can see, he seems to have many misconceptions of Christian history and Trinitarian doctrine.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
Well, I appreciate your effort--and yes, not the "Popular" stance--I should know! LOL But, I too draw a distinction between not having all your t's crossed and i's dotted and flat out rejection of Jesus deity. That God looks on the heart is what I think as well, because we are without excuse. The Trinity--It IS an important doctrine.
terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.
I loved the way you explained that. . . . it is how we describe Him, a word--it is just a word used to describe Him. In all His glory! It is amazing compared to what I knew in TWI. I did not just flat out deny the trinity-I rabidly defended Dynamic Monarchism. God is merciful to be sure.
It is a sensitive subject here--as I have learned and I now am remembering much. God is able.
If you google "The Way International another Jesus" There are many great articles on this. A few with an more indepth look at the history.
Either way--I know He is able to save to the uttermost and my faith is in Him--so many wonderful people really sought the Lord--got lead astray and are finding their way out. I am in their corner--God is not limited.
ABBY,
You and I agree!!! Nice Post--it is a journey and He will lead us.
Well, I appreciate your effort--and yes, not the "Popular" stance--I should know! LOL But, I too draw a distinction between not having all your t's crossed and i's dotted and flat out rejection of Jesus deity. That God looks on the heart is what I think as well, because we are without excuse. The Trinity--It IS an important doctrine.
Hey G,
Did you ever actually go through trying to answer the questions posted personally? I saw a bunch of CS Lewis quotes that were more along the lines of persuasion or debate points, and a number of other posts discussing others responses. So I gather there is somewhat of an interest in the topic title. But I didn't read anything from you personally answering the questions and describing where you're at.
I mean, I guess you don't have to answer them. But it does a little bit remind me of Will Smith's movie "Hancock" that I saw last week. Hancock is in prison in a therapy group, and everyone is sharing all their life stories, and it gets around to him and he says "pass" everytime.
That's a good question, maybe the holy spirit just needs a perch?
Well, I appreciate your effort--and yes, not the "Popular" stance--I should know! LOL But, I too draw a distinction between not having all your t's crossed and i's dotted and flat out rejection of Jesus deity. That God looks on the heart is what I think as well, because we are without excuse. The Trinity--It IS an important doctrine.
terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.
I loved the way you explained that. . . . it is how we describe Him, a word--it is just a word used to describe Him. In all His glory! It is amazing compared to what I knew in TWI. I did not just flat out deny the trinity-I rabidly defended Dynamic Monarchism. God is merciful to be sure.
It is a sensitive subject here--as I have learned and I now am remembering much. God is able.
If you google "The Way International another Jesus" There are many great articles on this. A few with an more indepth look at the history.
Either way--I know He is able to save to the uttermost and my faith is in Him--so many wonderful people really sought the Lord--got lead astray and are finding their way out. I am in their corner--God is not limited.
Haha, I was quite sure my post wouldn't be so well received. Thank you!
Dynamic Monarchianism...that's a perfect description for what TWI's theology is. Well, actually I think TWI's would better be described as a form of Arianism or perhaps a variation of the Ebionite heresy.
This leads me to question...how does TWI view Jesus, exactly? I know they don't view Him as God, but is He a divine being but not God, or is He just a human who attained a certain state of holiness or enlightenment from God, like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha? Or rather, is He one of the Prophets, as Muslims view Him? Is He just a good moral teacher as the Jews view Him? What, in TWI's view, does the title "Son of God" mean? What does "Son of Man" mean?
This is a huge topic, and frankly all the theological wrangling is wearisome to me, I guess that it is because I've been through it hundreds of times. sigh
I think that for me there is one simple fact that folks have talked AROUND but never answered directly. I don't like to think that there is any doctrine that I believe that I wouldn't admit was wrong if I learned better. But this one thing has never been answered to my satisfaction.
The bible NEVER MENTIONS the trinity. After all, here are the writings of many prophets and apostles who bled themselves dry trying to insure that the believers understood the truth. Some begged the believers to understand certain things, some reproved, rebuked, and even cried tears so they'd get understanding. And it somehow slips their mind to mention the nature of God to the believers, come on.......
That is why the extensive theological discussions bore me. Without it even being mentioned in the scripture I assert that nobody has the right to compel me to believe it. Without a COMMANDMENT, I say that it a moot point. And after the afformentioned councils when the non-trinity believing believers were compelled to confess the trinity or die, they were being wickedly oppressed to believe in a God that was suppose to be styled after many pagan gods without ever being mentioned in the scriptures.
This may be a mind-bender for some of you but unlike my former TWI brethren I have no problem saying,"Jesus, my lord and god" either.
This leads me to question...how does TWI view Jesus, exactly? I know they don't view Him as God, but is He a divine being but not God, or is He just a human who attained a certain state of holiness or enlightenment from God, like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha? Or rather, is He one of the Prophets, as Muslims view Him? Is He just a good moral teacher as the Jews view Him? What, in TWI's view, does the title "Son of God" mean? What does "Son of Man" mean?
Brush,
I don't know if I can quantify TWI views quite as philosophically as your "divine perichosis of love" analysis, but I think I can give it a shot.
The sum and substance of the belief is I Tim. 2:5
"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
So TWI views Jesus as a man, the one Mediator between God and men, the only-begotten son of God, the only one now raised from the dead, ascended above all principality and power, and seated at the right hand of God. He is our Advocate, and the Red Thread or title subject throughout every book of the Bible which speaks of him indirectly.
So no, not God. No, not a divine being but not God. No, not a human who attained holiness or enlightenment from God like Buddha. (But a human who fulfilled his Father's will and was raised, ascended, and seated at the Fathers RH above all spiritual power). He was one of the Prophets, but no not just one, and no, not like the Muslims view him. He was a good moral teacher, but no, not only that as the Jews view him.
In TWI's view the title "son of God" isn't substantially different in meaning than normal language in that "son of Chockfull" would convey the same relationship to me as Jesus to God (except has infinitely fewer benefits). I don't recall in TWI teachings son of Man being emphasized a lot, so I don't know I can answer what TWI thinks that means. All in all it's a pretty simple straightforward description and application of terms. Where it doesn't fit VP handles in his JCNG book to explain the "difficult verses". And his research principles are that the "difficult verses" must be understood in light of the "clear verses". So whatever interpretation he comes up with for John 1:1 it can't contradict I Tim. 2:5.
1. He was with God in His foreknowledge, i.e., he was not co-eternal. But God knew he'd someday make him in Mary's womb.
2. He was born of Mary, a virgin. He was sinless, His flesh was perfect.
3. He had a Perfectly Renewed Mind (because of being perfect) - He walked flawlessly with God because: His mind was perfectly renewed (i.e. - thought the Word only)
3. When baptized by John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit came upon Him.
So, He was: Perfect man, with Holy Spirit upon Him.
We could be like him if we renewed our minds like he did, and believed God like he did. He could believe God because of his perfect mind and Holy Spirit.
Since we have Holy Spirit in us when born again, we are like him in this world, and there is no reason we could not walk like him and do the same things he did and eventually, become as him is - if we could just renew our minds.
When he was raised from the dead is the first time He and God actually met.
Dynamic Monarchianism...that's a perfect description for what TWI's theology is. Well, actually I think TWI's would better be described as a form of Arianism or perhaps a variation of the Ebionite heresy.
You know I've heard the Arianism and Ebionite heresy comparisons - usually spoken derogatorily and from a condescending type of intellectual position that only a Catholic priest can really pull off with the right facial expressions and voice inflection. It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world.
Also, with as many other things the Catholic church has edited in a one-sided fashion with no opposing viewpoint published, and swept under the carpet, out of courts, to the bottom of lakes, into abortion clinics, etc. I'm not so sure that Catholic history prior to 1000AD is even that reliable of a source.
Did you ever actually go through trying to answer the questions posted personally? I saw a bunch of CS Lewis quotes that were more along the lines of persuasion or debate points, and a number of other posts discussing others responses. So I gather there is somewhat of an interest in the topic title. But I didn't read anything from you personally answering the questions and describing where you're at.
I mean, I guess you don't have to answer them. But it does a little bit remind me of Will Smith's movie "Hancock" that I saw last week. Hancock is in prison in a therapy group, and everyone is sharing all their life stories, and it gets around to him and he says "pass" everytime.
Now that is downright hilarious.
Chockful,
I would answer them, but honestly I am not 100% sure
I do believe God is a trinity.--A family--I do think it CAN and for me WAS another Jesus. No resemblance to what I know now.
On the rest--I don't know.
If I were to describe my quandry--or struggle---I would be at a loss for words.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
considering that the vast majority, 99.something percent of Christians believe in the Trinity.. I'd say to be "one of *them*" the belief, or agreement would be necessary..
maybe it depends on how one defines "Christian".
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I think vic's material is irrelevant, as far as any genuine kind of spirituality is concerned. He seemed to be able to debate facts, a few statistics.. but no genuine godliness as such came out of it...
You know I've heard the Arianism and Ebionite heresy comparisons - usually spoken derogatorily and from a condescending type of intellectual position that only a Catholic priest can really pull off with the right facial expressions and voice inflection. It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world.
Also, with as many other things the Catholic church has edited in a one-sided fashion with no opposing viewpoint published, and swept under the carpet, out of courts, to the bottom of lakes, into abortion clinics, etc. I'm not so sure that Catholic history prior to 1000AD is even that reliable of a source.
FYI, I'm not Catholic.
And for you to assert that comparing TWI's theology to Arianism and Ebionitism is in some sense derogatory comprises a misunderstanding of the heresies themselves.
Arianism, in its various forms, states that Jesus is not God, and is a created being. Most Arians held an Adoptionist view of Jesus, in that He was endowed with the Father's grace and through His cooperation with His Father's will, He attained divinity, though not equality with God, over a period of time. The Ebionites, according to the Church Fathers, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but a prophet, indeed the greatest of the prophets and a perfect man who fulfilled and obeyed the Law better than anyone ever could, but nothing more than a man, and certainly not divine.
St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, says of the Ebionites:
Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from Him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of Him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, the Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last the Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as He was a spiritual being.
Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God.
The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”
And also St. Hippolytus of Rome, who expounds the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Christ, in his book The Refutation of All Heresies:
"The Ebionæans however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified according to the Law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the Law. And therefore it was, according to the Ebionæans, that the Saviour was named the "Christ of God and Jesus", since not one of the rest of mankind had observed completely the Law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments contained in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the Ebionæans allege that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfill the Law, are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all the rest of the human family."
And about Arius, this is an epistle of Pope St. Alexander of the Church of Alexandria, who was elected Pope of Alexandria instead of Arius because of Arius' heretical views. This is from his Catholic Epistle, to the entire Church, where he quotes the Arians in their statements of belief:
"Now the apostates from the Church are these: Arius, Achilles, Aithales, Carpones, the other Arius, Sarmates, who were formerly priests; Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, formerly deacons; and with them Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops. And the words invented by them, and spoken contrary to the mind of Scripture, are as follows:—
'God was not always the Father; but there was a time when God was not the Father. The Word of God was not always, but was made ‘from things that are not;’ for He who is God fashioned the non-existing from the non-existing; wherefore there was a time when He was not. For the Son is a thing created, and a thing made: nor is He like to the Father in substance; nor is He the true and natural Word of the Father; nor is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things fashioned and made. And He is called, by a misapplication of the terms, the Word and Wisdom, since He is Himself made by the proper Word of God, and by that wisdom which is in God, in which, as God made all other things, so also did He make Him. Wherefore, He is by His very nature changeable and mutable, equally with other rational beings. The Word, too, is alien and separate from the substance of God. The father also is ineffable to the Son; for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can He perfectly see Him. For neither does the Son indeed know His own substance as it is. Since He for our sakes was made, that by Him as by an instrument God might create us; nor would He have existed had not God wished to make us. Some one asked of them whether the Son of God could change even as the devil changed; and they feared not to answer that He can; for since He was made and created, He is of mutable nature.'"
Chockfull, can you give me a reputable source that would show that Church history prior to 1000AD is unreliable?
And what exactly do you mean by "It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world."?
And for you to assert that comparing TWI's theology to Arianism and Ebionitism is in some sense derogatory comprises a misunderstanding of the heresies themselves.
No such assertion - just relaying the means that a couple of people have presented that argument to me in the past.
Arianism, in its various forms, states that Jesus is not God, and is a created being. Most Arians held an Adoptionist view of Jesus, in that He was endowed with the Father's grace and through His cooperation with His Father's will, He attained divinity, though not equality with God, over a period of time. The Ebionites, according to the Church Fathers, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but a prophet, indeed the greatest of the prophets and a perfect man who fulfilled and obeyed the Law better than anyone ever could, but nothing more than a man, and certainly not divine.
How can you assert what "most Arians" held as far as viewpoints when they lived 200-400AD? That's a reconstruction of an opinion of a belief system done from which writings? Their opponents?
St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, says of the Ebionites:
And also St. Hippolytus of Rome, who expounds the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Christ, in his book The Refutation of All Heresies:
None of those quotes sounds much at all like any teachings on Jesus Christ not being God that I've encountered in TWI.
And about Arius, this is an epistle of Pope St. Alexander of the Church of Alexandria, who was elected Pope of Alexandria instead of Arius because of Arius' heretical views. This is from his Catholic Epistle, to the entire Church, where he quotes the Arians in their statements of belief:
Yes - Catholic history. You're not a Catholic, but are you trying to assert in a logical discussion that Catholic history is not one-sided?
Chockfull, can you give me a reputable source that would show that Church history prior to 1000AD is unreliable?
How do you prove a negative? It is at best very incomplete. Are you going to try and assert that we have similar levels of reliability in historical accounts 50AD - 1000AD that we do 1500 - 1800? Ludicrous. Most of my history professors in college who are semi-reputable sources have told me that all history is unreliable to different degrees, because it is written by fallable humans with opinions.
And what exactly do you mean by "It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world."?
~Phil
What exactly I mean is that to draw parallels between TWI's One God teachings and Arianism and Ebionitism is a stretch for a few reasons:
1. Lack of clear ability to completely represent Arian / Ebionite doctrine & viewpoints.
2. No clear understanding of TWI's representation of Jesus Christ not being God and viewpoints related.
3. Over-generalization
The word heresy itself is pretty extremist. The Greek word hairesis means diverse or other. Heresy in practical application in the early church just meant someone didn't agree with the guy who won the political election. The word heresy eventually turned into a hate crime type of word - first being associated with excommunication, then the Inquisition. It gets tossed around like nothing, but there is quite a lot of evil in back of how that word has been used throughout church history. Brand a man a heretic, and it's not much of a stretch to burn him at the stake - like happened all the way up through the Reformation.
I have a question for you. What's all the mental acrobatics around the concept of Jesus being a "created being"? How exactly in your viewpoint did the virgin conception take place? Did Jesus actually go through the full fetal development or was he a fully cogniscent conscious "little God" in there in Mary's womb? Was or was not life created in Mary's womb?
I would answer them, but honestly I am not 100% sure
I do believe God is a trinity.--A family--I do think it CAN and for me WAS another Jesus. No resemblance to what I know now.
On the rest--I don't know.
If I were to describe my quandry--or struggle---I would be at a loss for words.
Glad I made you laugh though.
I understand. I think I pretty much said I was going through changes on viewpoints on a lot of that too. I do think it's a good thing that our understanding, appreciation, and viewpoints of the Lord Jesus Christ is growing and changing. The more I see the more I'm forming an opinion that a lot of it is just labels like "Republican" or "Democrat". And that leads to a degradation of the view of an individuals relationship with the Creator. I wouldn't have a problem calling Jesus Christ "my Lord and God" like Thomas did. It's a growing relationship, like a spouse. I mean, how can you describe the word "love" relating to a spouse over many years? So many things are hard to put in words.
Had to put a post up on this. Recently, I have switched beliefs from what TWI taught and the trinity. I did a lot of reading about the early church fathers, the different forms of belief that was being promoted, including Arian beliefs.
And I started comparing what was promoted as the Trinity with the Bible. I could not refute at all. And so now I am a trinitarian and I am soooo glad I am. I feel like I am "home" spiritually. It's just the most awesome deal!
TWI put down the trinity, when TWI didn't have a correct definition. Tape after tape, teachings by clergy, teaching by believers actually making fun of the Trinity. Things being said like, well Who was JC talking to if he was God? Himself?
And, If JC was God then he is sitting on his own right hand...and plenty more things that were said. Their understanding, if I could call it that, was in error. I found out what the early fathers defined it as and then saw the errors of what was being promoted by the different sects back then. Compared it to the bible, without all the scratch outs, and all the inserts....and I could not come to any other conclusion, but that JC was God.
AND, I just want to say, once I saw it, I was just really set free. I feel like I came "Home" and I never felt that way before. I don't have to arrange everything in the bible to make it say a certain thing. Those who believe in the trinity will know what I am talking about. Just had to add my post to the discussion.
AND, I just want to say, once I saw it, I was just really set free. I feel like I came "Home" and I never felt that way before. I don't have to arrange everything in the bible to make it say a certain thing. Those who believe in the trinity will know what I am talking about. Just had to add my post to the discussion.
:) What a topic! Forgive me for sounding “crass” as I give my opinion on the subject. And for those who do not consider the Bible as “authoritative”, this will (of course) be rather meaningless to you, because it is based upon “holy scripture”. (But I do glean from all of you at times – Christian or not.)
As far as the trinity is concerned, I find little to make sense of it. I suppose I could go into great depths while explaining expressions such as I and my father are one, Let us make man in our image, He who has seen me has seen the father, and a host of other quotes which tend to promote the trinity as being a valid argument. Such an attempt would only lead to a VAST variety of similar such suppositions and much wasted time with nothing gained except more “fuel for the fire” so it may continually rage on.
However, I have found one piece of logic which seems to dissolve these other “side issues” and expose the trinitarian doctrine for what it represents at “face value”:
Suppose (just for a moment – mind you) that the doctrine of the trinity is true. Let us suppose that Jesus is God. (as in God the Father, God the Son, etc…) Let us suppose, (despite the fact that it seems utterly ludicrous for a father to actually be his own son), that somehow they are truly equivalent and co-equal. Let us then, by sheer logic, “plug this into the scriptures” to see what they plainly say about themselves in light of this similarity.
I will now substitute these terms at random. For instance, when the Bible mentions Jesus, I may replace it by God. And when it mentions God, I may replace it by Jesus – assuming these to be equivalent terms, there should be no problem. Fair enough? (It should be!) Changes are marked in bold text.
Jn 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Fatherare you? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Fathermyself: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Fatherme also.
Making a lot of sense to me so far! :lol:
Jn 1:18 No man hath seen GodJesus at any time…. :huh:
Jn 8 29 And he that sent me is withme: the Father hath not left meI have not left myself alone; for I do always those things that please himmyself.
Supposing Jesus is God can become quite entertaining! There are literally hundreds of similar nonsensical things to be seen as you spend a pleasant afternoon just reading and substituting this way. (I do it at times just for a bit of comic relief!) :B) Judge me if you like, but at least I’m being honest about what I believe, as are most here.
But on a more serious note, the “classic” one is this: (Jesus is speaking)
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
If this is really God speaking, this verse informs us that we can do greater works than God. For those who want to entertain such a thought, you are treading upon very treacherous ground. Lucifer tried to be greater than God once, and failed. He was given a new name – the devil! Consider this deeply and make up your mind if the scriptures are acually saying Jesus is truly somehow his own Father!
One of the questions in this thread is whether or not believing the trinity is necessary to become born again. The simple truth about the “new birth” or “becoming saved” is this:
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
If Jesus was God then there was a time when God was dead. (so much for being eternal!)
And if God were dead, He would (of necessity) be subject to His own truth on that subject:
Ec 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing…
If God were dead, then there was a time in which He did not know anything at all. (how silly!) Then just how could He raise Himself from the dead? :unsure:
My take on this is that if a person believes Jesus is God and God is Jesus, then it is utterly impossible to believe (according to all scripture) that Jesus was raised from the dead. Not being able to believe that would negate someone from believing Ro 10:9 and therefore, could not become saved. :(
And as far as the other thing in Ro 10:9 is concerned, Confessing Jesus as the lord in your life. To believe Jesus is God would say that there is “another Jesus” in addition to the one who is not God. Confessing the Jesus who says he is God might be confessing the wrong one, preventing salvation on both counts.
and . . . . the trinity is 3 distinct "persons" within the Godhead. That argument falls apart when confronted with the definition of the trinity itself.
People get hung upon the concept of "persons". . . . .it is a pretty amazing description of God found within the scriptures. . . . A completely self-contained God, overflowing in relationship to himself . . . . creating us out of that overflowing love and complete joy within Himself. Magnanimous in sharing that perfection and inviting us to experience love the way He does within Himself. . . .
If one can believe it is God. . . . in Christ. . . . dwelling within a person's heart by way of the Holy Spirit. . . . they can understand the theology or man's attempt to explain God with the word trinity.
It really is a beautiful thing because it reveals an amazing God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
10
8
Popular Days
Aug 14
12
Aug 8
10
Jan 23
9
Aug 9
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Sunesis 7 posts
Oakspear 6 posts
geisha779 10 posts
chockfull 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 14 2008
12 posts
Aug 8 2008
10 posts
Jan 23 2010
9 posts
Aug 9 2008
8 posts
Popular Posts
Mark Clarke
How is it God setting up man to fall? He defined what His rules were, and gave man the choice to obey or not. If you have children, and you tell them to do something, are you setting them up to fall
GarthP2000
Bingo cman! And more and more people are realizing that too. :B)
Sunesis
There can never be a reconciliation between one who believes and one who doesn't. As a believer, when God says man is fallen, and, as he tells us, he created us to be masterpieces, I think of fallen
Posted Images
anotherDan
chockfull, thanks for sharing..... good stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Paradiseden
I have a question concerning the Trinity. If the trinitarian doctrine is correct, why are there only two thrones?
Revelation 22:1
"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."
Revelation 22:3.
"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him."
If the trinitarian doctrine is correct, why is there no throne for the Holy Spirit?
Edited by ParadisedenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
That's a good question, maybe the holy spirit just needs a perch?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
I am afraid my post will be, in the words C.S. Lewis used often, "quite unpopular."
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
The Trinity...ahh...a hard subject. Essentially, my understanding is summed up in the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, and which was decided on by the seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787 AD), and which is confessed by many Church Fathers before and after Nicea:
The Nicene Creed:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages: Light of Light, God of God, begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; and was crucified for us also under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; and on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; and His kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; and I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the Resurrection of the dead, and the Life of the world to come. Amen."
The Chalcedonian Creed, adopted by the Church at the Council of Chalcedon in 451:
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos (Mother of God), according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty ...and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit." [st. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:10:1]
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever." [st. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Declaration of Faith]
"Do your utmost to stand firm in the precepts of the Lord and the Apostles, so that everything you do, worldly or spiritual, may go prosperously from beginning to end in faith and love, in the Son and the Father and the Spirit, together with your most reverend bishop and that beautifully woven spiritual chaplet, your clergy and godly minded deacons. Be as submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to His Father, and as the Apostles were to Christ and the Father and the Spirit; so that there may be complete unity, in the flesh as well as in the spirit." [st. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, ch. 13]
My understanding of the Trinity certainly goes beyond any creed of the Church, even though I affirm them to be true declarations of the Faith. There is one essence (ousia), and three persons (hypostasis). These three Hypostases share this one divine Ousia, Substance or Nature. They do not each have a part of it, but they each have the Essence in its totality. It is not that the Persons comprise the Essence, nor that the Persons each have a part of the Essence, but each Person has the Essence as a whole. The Persons describe the "Threeness" of God, and the Essence describes the "Oneness" of God. The Threeness and Oneness are the same, because in Threeness we have Oneness because the three Persons are said to be a perechoresis, meaning they mutually indwell within one another, and in Oneness of Essence we have Threeness, because the three Persons each contain the complete Essence. Because the Essence is not divided among the three Persons and because the Persons are within one another, the doctrine of Divine Simplicity would explain the Trinity further.
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus up above explains it well. He clearly states that there is one God, the Father, but then he goes on to say that the Son is "Only of Only, God of God, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal." Then he says of the Holy Spirit, that He gets His being from God the Father, and is made manifest or revealed to man by the God the Son. Just as the Son is the Image of the Father, the Spirit is said to be the "Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect," in whom we see God the Father and God the Son because they are in the Spirit and the Spirit is in them, and vice versa.
Many see the Trinity to be just one big compilation of confusing Neo-Platonic formulas. While it is true that the Church Fathers, especially St. Justin Martyr, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St. John the Apostle/Evangelist/Theologian, St. Athanansius, Origen, and others, used Neo-Platonic terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
Yes and No. Can one outright deny the Trinity and claim to be a Christian? No. Can one believe in the Trinity and not understand all the complex theology behind it, and be a Christian? Of course. Can one not believe in the Trinity and be closer to God than one who does believe in the Trinity? Certainly. God is everywhere and in everything and everyone. Some people are just...closer...to Him, than others, believers or non-believers. Can a non-Christian be saved? I think so. God judges what's in the heart, and He's the only judge: I'm not going to judge who will be saved and will won't, I can't.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
If one, as I said before, "outright denies" the Trinity and Jesus' divinity, then I would say one does believe in "another Jesus."
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I haven't read it, so I wouldn't know. I've read excerpts from it from a few sources on the internet, and from what I can see, he seems to have many misconceptions of Christian history and Trinitarian doctrine.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
I was never in TWI.
Edited by BrushstrokeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Brushstroke,
Well, I appreciate your effort--and yes, not the "Popular" stance--I should know! LOL But, I too draw a distinction between not having all your t's crossed and i's dotted and flat out rejection of Jesus deity. That God looks on the heart is what I think as well, because we are without excuse. The Trinity--It IS an important doctrine.
terminology to describe God's activity within Himself and within the world, they used this terminology because it was the only way to explain their belief in the Father and the Son and the Spirit as God, without falling into a strange sort of polytheism, and also because it explained most clearly what the Church experienced in its worship and saw in Scripture. I see the Trinity as more than just a compilation of philosophical formulas. It explains the experience of a God who not only loves, but is love, and contains love and is the source of love: God loves because He is a family. So the Trinity is a divine perichoresis of love between the three Persons, and God's infinite love expands from within Himself to across the whole of His creation.
I loved the way you explained that. . . . it is how we describe Him, a word--it is just a word used to describe Him. In all His glory! It is amazing compared to what I knew in TWI. I did not just flat out deny the trinity-I rabidly defended Dynamic Monarchism. God is merciful to be sure.
It is a sensitive subject here--as I have learned and I now am remembering much. God is able.
If you google "The Way International another Jesus" There are many great articles on this. A few with an more indepth look at the history.
Either way--I know He is able to save to the uttermost and my faith is in Him--so many wonderful people really sought the Lord--got lead astray and are finding their way out. I am in their corner--God is not limited.
ABBY,
You and I agree!!! Nice Post--it is a journey and He will lead us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Regarding those thrones from a few posts back: throne is singular, not plural
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey G,
Did you ever actually go through trying to answer the questions posted personally? I saw a bunch of CS Lewis quotes that were more along the lines of persuasion or debate points, and a number of other posts discussing others responses. So I gather there is somewhat of an interest in the topic title. But I didn't read anything from you personally answering the questions and describing where you're at.
I mean, I guess you don't have to answer them. But it does a little bit remind me of Will Smith's movie "Hancock" that I saw last week. Hancock is in prison in a therapy group, and everyone is sharing all their life stories, and it gets around to him and he says "pass" everytime.
Now that is downright hilarious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
Haha, I was quite sure my post wouldn't be so well received. Thank you!
Dynamic Monarchianism...that's a perfect description for what TWI's theology is. Well, actually I think TWI's would better be described as a form of Arianism or perhaps a variation of the Ebionite heresy.
This leads me to question...how does TWI view Jesus, exactly? I know they don't view Him as God, but is He a divine being but not God, or is He just a human who attained a certain state of holiness or enlightenment from God, like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha? Or rather, is He one of the Prophets, as Muslims view Him? Is He just a good moral teacher as the Jews view Him? What, in TWI's view, does the title "Son of God" mean? What does "Son of Man" mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
This is a huge topic, and frankly all the theological wrangling is wearisome to me, I guess that it is because I've been through it hundreds of times. sigh
I think that for me there is one simple fact that folks have talked AROUND but never answered directly. I don't like to think that there is any doctrine that I believe that I wouldn't admit was wrong if I learned better. But this one thing has never been answered to my satisfaction.
The bible NEVER MENTIONS the trinity. After all, here are the writings of many prophets and apostles who bled themselves dry trying to insure that the believers understood the truth. Some begged the believers to understand certain things, some reproved, rebuked, and even cried tears so they'd get understanding. And it somehow slips their mind to mention the nature of God to the believers, come on.......
That is why the extensive theological discussions bore me. Without it even being mentioned in the scripture I assert that nobody has the right to compel me to believe it. Without a COMMANDMENT, I say that it a moot point. And after the afformentioned councils when the non-trinity believing believers were compelled to confess the trinity or die, they were being wickedly oppressed to believe in a God that was suppose to be styled after many pagan gods without ever being mentioned in the scriptures.
This may be a mind-bender for some of you but unlike my former TWI brethren I have no problem saying,"Jesus, my lord and god" either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Brush,
I don't know if I can quantify TWI views quite as philosophically as your "divine perichosis of love" analysis, but I think I can give it a shot.
The sum and substance of the belief is I Tim. 2:5
"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".
So TWI views Jesus as a man, the one Mediator between God and men, the only-begotten son of God, the only one now raised from the dead, ascended above all principality and power, and seated at the right hand of God. He is our Advocate, and the Red Thread or title subject throughout every book of the Bible which speaks of him indirectly.
So no, not God. No, not a divine being but not God. No, not a human who attained holiness or enlightenment from God like Buddha. (But a human who fulfilled his Father's will and was raised, ascended, and seated at the Fathers RH above all spiritual power). He was one of the Prophets, but no not just one, and no, not like the Muslims view him. He was a good moral teacher, but no, not only that as the Jews view him.
In TWI's view the title "son of God" isn't substantially different in meaning than normal language in that "son of Chockfull" would convey the same relationship to me as Jesus to God (except has infinitely fewer benefits). I don't recall in TWI teachings son of Man being emphasized a lot, so I don't know I can answer what TWI thinks that means. All in all it's a pretty simple straightforward description and application of terms. Where it doesn't fit VP handles in his JCNG book to explain the "difficult verses". And his research principles are that the "difficult verses" must be understood in light of the "clear verses". So whatever interpretation he comes up with for John 1:1 it can't contradict I Tim. 2:5.
-cf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Brushstroke, TWI believes this about Jesus:
1. He was with God in His foreknowledge, i.e., he was not co-eternal. But God knew he'd someday make him in Mary's womb.
2. He was born of Mary, a virgin. He was sinless, His flesh was perfect.
3. He had a Perfectly Renewed Mind (because of being perfect) - He walked flawlessly with God because: His mind was perfectly renewed (i.e. - thought the Word only)
3. When baptized by John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit came upon Him.
So, He was: Perfect man, with Holy Spirit upon Him.
We could be like him if we renewed our minds like he did, and believed God like he did. He could believe God because of his perfect mind and Holy Spirit.
Since we have Holy Spirit in us when born again, we are like him in this world, and there is no reason we could not walk like him and do the same things he did and eventually, become as him is - if we could just renew our minds.
When he was raised from the dead is the first time He and God actually met.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You know I've heard the Arianism and Ebionite heresy comparisons - usually spoken derogatorily and from a condescending type of intellectual position that only a Catholic priest can really pull off with the right facial expressions and voice inflection. It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world.
Also, with as many other things the Catholic church has edited in a one-sided fashion with no opposing viewpoint published, and swept under the carpet, out of courts, to the bottom of lakes, into abortion clinics, etc. I'm not so sure that Catholic history prior to 1000AD is even that reliable of a source.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Chockful,
I would answer them, but honestly I am not 100% sure
I do believe God is a trinity.--A family--I do think it CAN and for me WAS another Jesus. No resemblance to what I know now.
On the rest--I don't know.
If I were to describe my quandry--or struggle---I would be at a loss for words.
Glad I made you laugh though.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe it depends on how one defines "Christian".
I think vic's material is irrelevant, as far as any genuine kind of spirituality is concerned. He seemed to be able to debate facts, a few statistics.. but no genuine godliness as such came out of it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brushstroke
FYI, I'm not Catholic.
And for you to assert that comparing TWI's theology to Arianism and Ebionitism is in some sense derogatory comprises a misunderstanding of the heresies themselves.
Arianism, in its various forms, states that Jesus is not God, and is a created being. Most Arians held an Adoptionist view of Jesus, in that He was endowed with the Father's grace and through His cooperation with His Father's will, He attained divinity, though not equality with God, over a period of time. The Ebionites, according to the Church Fathers, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but a prophet, indeed the greatest of the prophets and a perfect man who fulfilled and obeyed the Law better than anyone ever could, but nothing more than a man, and certainly not divine.
St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, says of the Ebionites:
And also St. Hippolytus of Rome, who expounds the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Christ, in his book The Refutation of All Heresies:
And about Arius, this is an epistle of Pope St. Alexander of the Church of Alexandria, who was elected Pope of Alexandria instead of Arius because of Arius' heretical views. This is from his Catholic Epistle, to the entire Church, where he quotes the Arians in their statements of belief:Chockfull, can you give me a reputable source that would show that Church history prior to 1000AD is unreliable?
And what exactly do you mean by "It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world."?
~Phil
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
No such assertion - just relaying the means that a couple of people have presented that argument to me in the past.
How can you assert what "most Arians" held as far as viewpoints when they lived 200-400AD? That's a reconstruction of an opinion of a belief system done from which writings? Their opponents?None of those quotes sounds much at all like any teachings on Jesus Christ not being God that I've encountered in TWI.
Yes - Catholic history. You're not a Catholic, but are you trying to assert in a logical discussion that Catholic history is not one-sided?
How do you prove a negative? It is at best very incomplete. Are you going to try and assert that we have similar levels of reliability in historical accounts 50AD - 1000AD that we do 1500 - 1800? Ludicrous. Most of my history professors in college who are semi-reputable sources have told me that all history is unreliable to different degrees, because it is written by fallable humans with opinions.What exactly I mean is that to draw parallels between TWI's One God teachings and Arianism and Ebionitism is a stretch for a few reasons:
1. Lack of clear ability to completely represent Arian / Ebionite doctrine & viewpoints.
2. No clear understanding of TWI's representation of Jesus Christ not being God and viewpoints related.
3. Over-generalization
The word heresy itself is pretty extremist. The Greek word hairesis means diverse or other. Heresy in practical application in the early church just meant someone didn't agree with the guy who won the political election. The word heresy eventually turned into a hate crime type of word - first being associated with excommunication, then the Inquisition. It gets tossed around like nothing, but there is quite a lot of evil in back of how that word has been used throughout church history. Brand a man a heretic, and it's not much of a stretch to burn him at the stake - like happened all the way up through the Reformation.
I have a question for you. What's all the mental acrobatics around the concept of Jesus being a "created being"? How exactly in your viewpoint did the virgin conception take place? Did Jesus actually go through the full fetal development or was he a fully cogniscent conscious "little God" in there in Mary's womb? Was or was not life created in Mary's womb?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I understand. I think I pretty much said I was going through changes on viewpoints on a lot of that too. I do think it's a good thing that our understanding, appreciation, and viewpoints of the Lord Jesus Christ is growing and changing. The more I see the more I'm forming an opinion that a lot of it is just labels like "Republican" or "Democrat". And that leads to a degradation of the view of an individuals relationship with the Creator. I wouldn't have a problem calling Jesus Christ "my Lord and God" like Thomas did. It's a growing relationship, like a spouse. I mean, how can you describe the word "love" relating to a spouse over many years? So many things are hard to put in words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
Hi Everyone,
Had to put a post up on this. Recently, I have switched beliefs from what TWI taught and the trinity. I did a lot of reading about the early church fathers, the different forms of belief that was being promoted, including Arian beliefs.
And I started comparing what was promoted as the Trinity with the Bible. I could not refute at all. And so now I am a trinitarian and I am soooo glad I am. I feel like I am "home" spiritually. It's just the most awesome deal!
TWI put down the trinity, when TWI didn't have a correct definition. Tape after tape, teachings by clergy, teaching by believers actually making fun of the Trinity. Things being said like, well Who was JC talking to if he was God? Himself?
And, If JC was God then he is sitting on his own right hand...and plenty more things that were said. Their understanding, if I could call it that, was in error. I found out what the early fathers defined it as and then saw the errors of what was being promoted by the different sects back then. Compared it to the bible, without all the scratch outs, and all the inserts....and I could not come to any other conclusion, but that JC was God.
AND, I just want to say, once I saw it, I was just really set free. I feel like I came "Home" and I never felt that way before. I don't have to arrange everything in the bible to make it say a certain thing. Those who believe in the trinity will know what I am talking about. Just had to add my post to the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi newlife
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
that Jesus Christ God but God and Jesus Christ and us become one light
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
no
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
no
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
inaccurate
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
more turns than I can list but here one born is conceive
love Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
God is good. :) Home indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Mercifully (and I mean that), I don't care anymore. It's a relief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
:) What a topic! Forgive me for sounding “crass” as I give my opinion on the subject. And for those who do not consider the Bible as “authoritative”, this will (of course) be rather meaningless to you, because it is based upon “holy scripture”. (But I do glean from all of you at times – Christian or not.)
As far as the trinity is concerned, I find little to make sense of it. I suppose I could go into great depths while explaining expressions such as I and my father are one, Let us make man in our image, He who has seen me has seen the father, and a host of other quotes which tend to promote the trinity as being a valid argument. Such an attempt would only lead to a VAST variety of similar such suppositions and much wasted time with nothing gained except more “fuel for the fire” so it may continually rage on.
However, I have found one piece of logic which seems to dissolve these other “side issues” and expose the trinitarian doctrine for what it represents at “face value”:
Suppose (just for a moment – mind you) that the doctrine of the trinity is true. Let us suppose that Jesus is God. (as in God the Father, God the Son, etc…) Let us suppose, (despite the fact that it seems utterly ludicrous for a father to actually be his own son), that somehow they are truly equivalent and co-equal. Let us then, by sheer logic, “plug this into the scriptures” to see what they plainly say about themselves in light of this similarity.
I will now substitute these terms at random. For instance, when the Bible mentions Jesus, I may replace it by God. And when it mentions God, I may replace it by Jesus – assuming these to be equivalent terms, there should be no problem. Fair enough? (It should be!) Changes are marked in bold text.
Jn 8:19 Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father are you? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father myself: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father me also.
Making a lot of sense to me so far! :lol:
Jn 1:18 No man hath seen God Jesus at any time…. :huh:
Jn 8 29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me I have not left myself alone; for I do always those things that please him myself.
Supposing Jesus is God can become quite entertaining! There are literally hundreds of similar nonsensical things to be seen as you spend a pleasant afternoon just reading and substituting this way. (I do it at times just for a bit of comic relief!) :B) Judge me if you like, but at least I’m being honest about what I believe, as are most here.
But on a more serious note, the “classic” one is this: (Jesus is speaking)
Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
If this is really God speaking, this verse informs us that we can do greater works than God. For those who want to entertain such a thought, you are treading upon very treacherous ground.
Lucifer tried to be greater than God once, and failed. He was given a new name – the devil! Consider this deeply and make up your mind if the scriptures are acually saying Jesus is truly somehow his own Father!
One of the questions in this thread is whether or not believing the trinity is necessary to become born again. The simple truth about the “new birth” or “becoming saved” is this:
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
If Jesus was God then there was a time when God was dead. (so much for being eternal!)
And if God were dead, He would (of necessity) be subject to His own truth on that subject:
Ec 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing…
If God were dead, then there was a time in which He did not know anything at all. (how silly!) Then just how could He raise Himself from the dead? :unsure:
My take on this is that if a person believes Jesus is God and God is Jesus, then it is utterly impossible to believe (according to all scripture) that Jesus was raised from the dead. Not being able to believe that would negate someone from believing Ro 10:9 and therefore, could not become saved. :(
And as far as the other thing in Ro 10:9 is concerned, Confessing Jesus as the lord in your life. To believe Jesus is God would say that there is “another Jesus” in addition to the one who is not God. Confessing the Jesus who says he is God might be confessing the wrong one, preventing salvation on both counts.
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Gee, you left out the one about Christ being seated at God's right hand.
("God must be sitting on his hands.")
Heard all these arguments years ago. Still sounds like trying to manipulate scriptures to suit an agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
and . . . . the trinity is 3 distinct "persons" within the Godhead. That argument falls apart when confronted with the definition of the trinity itself.
People get hung upon the concept of "persons". . . . .it is a pretty amazing description of God found within the scriptures. . . . A completely self-contained God, overflowing in relationship to himself . . . . creating us out of that overflowing love and complete joy within Himself. Magnanimous in sharing that perfection and inviting us to experience love the way He does within Himself. . . .
If one can believe it is God. . . . in Christ. . . . dwelling within a person's heart by way of the Holy Spirit. . . . they can understand the theology or man's attempt to explain God with the word trinity.
It really is a beautiful thing because it reveals an amazing God.
Edited by geisha779Link 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.