There's a reason for everything. But it's presumptuous (and not your place) to say that the reasons were evil.
In short, you don't know that.
And why should they, if the basic essence of it is correct?
(Because not everything taught by vpw or twi was all wrong.)
Perhaps, but not everyone does, nor does it necessarily mean or make the doctrine itself wrong.
(However, it may not have been presented in the best way possible.)
Yeah, I suppose. But maybe not so much as how you might think it so.
TLC,
Victor Paul Wierwille was a bad human being. There's no way around that. His teachings lead people to do evil. Evil teachings came from an evil man.
I've expressed to you in other threads that through that lens of understanding does the story of TWI make any sense. (Occam's razor) I was present to witness and experience enough.
Whether Jesus is God or not or existed at all is beside all points.
Victor Paul Wierwille had a reason for ousting The Trinity, based on his character, it was not for good. Many who've been influenced by VPW and his ministry, TWI, cling to that doctrine, and the reason is unlikely to be for the simple, knuckle-dragging reason of doctrinal purity.
....and trying to answer your question - yes i personally think our focus should be on the roles of God, Christ and Holy Spirit - AND our role as well - which i think gets back to what Steve talked about in post # 4.
Ah! . . . . Back to The Law of Not Accepting Believing.
Thanks T-Bone, and Steve. Being brought up in TWI, the viewpoints of the "false Christians" were not exactly honestly represented. I think this whole Trinity thing speaks volumes. I appreciate your explanations.
T-Bone,
I've heard the exalted and servant position of Jesus in TWI, I think. Hearing that again from your post, Jesus being both low and high at the same time seems contradictory. I think that's amazing. And I don't think TWI taught it quite like that.
I tend to agree with you, Bolshevik. He didn't merely present a dissenting religious opinion, he deliberately created a firestorm of controversy. It's been my experience that people with good intentions tend to avoid such situations, presenting their controversial opinions in a more palatable manner, in an effort to insure a better reception.
......The point of me bringing this up is that it's human nature that at least SOME people will
STOP LISTENING when they hear something they THINK they know. They will STOP LISTENING
and STOP LEARNING and rely on PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS when approaching something NEW that
they DON'T UNDERSTAND, and insist it's something OLD that they UNDERSTAND WELL.
(I've warned people about this when describing things to people, since it happens with
different things when someone deals with something unusual but that uses terms that
people THINK they understand.)
What did all of that have to do with this discussion? We can see that people will approach
any subject with preconceived notions, and at least some people won't bother to correct
them......
folks sorry i jump out of order on threads...i read them like i do magazines - i jump all around - skim articles - then back track and read some more - then post here and there - anyway....
Hi WordWolf- yeah i think i'm guilty of that on occasion - i also am good at making "accommodations" in my head when trying to understand something - - like in returning to Trinitarian beliefs i find a tendency to compromise with reason to satisfy the logical side of me;
(not saying it's the right thing to do - - and sometimes think it's like the old pop-up TWIisms that inhabited my processor and came to the foreground when i'm trying to make something foreign fit with a familiar or established thought)
anyway again - - in making "sense" of the Trinity i think to myself "like father...like son....Jesus said the father is greater than he is....Jesus is a mini-god...or a life size or human size version of God" not trying to be facetious or irreverent here....just telling you how i think....not saying it's right....i get the part of the Word being in the beginning with God...the pre-existent Christ - - but then my logical side will give me hell a hard time over funneling that down into the package of a human being..
...maybe that's the quintessential battle between faith and reason or at least part of it i dunno.....does this make any sense? i know i should love God with all my heart soul mind and strength - so i'm thinking that may mean some compromising (between faith and reason) is in order....i could be way off track or possibly on another grand detour ....geez the last detour lasted 12 years....oh but i have good intentions />
Well, it's actually more than one word. But, it seemed it would be a bit corny (or something to that effect) to say that you omitted a word, added a word, and changed a word from what my original suggestion (noted below) was.
And, for anyone that does not believe that Jesus is God, the way your question is worded - "When did Jesus START being God?" - might be like asking when someone became their own father.
I don't think in terms of PFLAP.
My question relates to the real world of humanity and Humanities.
From a historical perspective, at what point did some human declare that Jesus is God? It's really that simple.
And I believe it's a salient question for this discussion.
If nobody wants to discuss it, no big deal for me. However, doesn't the question "When did Jesus Stop Being God?" suppose that for all of human history there were people who believed Jesus was God?
I thought we all were understanding that the phrasing in use in this thread was not LITERAL,
but FIGURATIVE.
Instead of saying "when did Jesus stop being God?" the literal would have been
"When did vpw stop teaching that Jesus was God?" which is literally what he meant,
but he wrote FIGURATIVELY to match vpw's book title
"Jesus Christ is Not God."
So, we write of when Jesus "started being God" or when Jesus "stopped being God"
but mean when "teachings began declaring Jesus was God" or when
"teachings at twi stopped teaching that and began teaching Jesus was not God."
I tend to agree with you, Bolshevik. He didn't merely present a dissenting religious opinion, he deliberately created a firestorm of controversy. It's been my experience that people with good intentions tend to avoid such situations, presenting their controversial opinions in a more palatable manner, in an effort to insure a better reception.
I'd parse these points out. Technically, I don't believe we can truly know all of Wierwille's intentions. But, like Bolshevik indicated, Wierwille was a bad man. That's perhaps a valid assessment when considering what he did and the results thereof.
To a degree, his intentions can be deduced from his words and actions.
I have been reading with interest the posts on this thread. Many excellent insights and points indicating a diversity of thinking. That freedom to view the Bible as one source of information on the nature of God and Man and examine "it is written" with objective critical thinking and reasonable logic, leads, IMO, to a broader, increased understanding of what the crux of the matter is all about, again IMO, which is: What is the RELATIONSHIP God wants with Humankind? Is there a God Who wants to have relationships with humans? Do humans need or want a relationship with God, or a god, or gods? What is the means and basis of a relationship with God? What are the benefits of humans having a relationship with their God or gods? How is my God identified and how does She/He make her/himself known? Is such relationship available and/or necessary to ALL humans?
As WordWolf did above, I now offer my 2 cents regarding the topic of this thread. IMO, vic "wrote" JCING as a pugnacious and unnecessary attack against the large and historically established Christian denominational Churches, particularly with a JBS hatred for the Roman Catholic and Jewish religions, but inclusive off all those "so-called" Christians, as he phrased it, whose denominations were run by "seed-boys" who were direct servants of Satan, who, in the paranoid narcissistic pathology vic lived in, was THE AUTHOR of that "damnable lie" he called The Trinity. He did so because he needed to manufacture a need for his bible products and trinkets among the huge customer base he wanted increased marketshare of, namely the rest of "organized Christianity". That meant he had to come up with a unique product and a unique platform from which to sell it. He chose THE one doctrine common to the vast majority of his competitors and their financial supporters, The Trinity. OOOHHHHHHH! Where angels and wisemen fear to tread! But not that fearless Aryan Supremacist dictor. He wanted those coffers for himself, but he had NOTHING but a bunch of spurious "definitions" from B.G. Leonard and great stuff from Bullinger that poor little dictor's alcohol infused mini-intellect never fully grasped, but fully misinterpreted to suit his purposes for his flagship product, pfal. Ladies and gentlemen! "It slices, it dices, it hacks the Bible to pieces! Ronco's biblical research, teaching and fellowship 'minus-try"! But it keeps those checks and blue forms rolling in!
I was in-rez at HQ in 1973-74 in the corpse. That's when the twit "research dept." which consisted of dictor, Falter Cummins, Donna Randall, Bernita Jess and one or two corps grads along with the entire in-rez corpse which consisted of about 100 people. There were numerous JCING research nights, all-day voluntary meetings with the research staff and editorial "staff", to "work da woid" on the subject in order to get the book out. The overall attitude pervading all of this was dictor's rabid JBS hatred for the Catholics and Jews, and his palpable ENVY of their MONEY! The Satan/Seedboy connection provided the villains. He had created his own little fictional playground of the Passion Play complete with the enemies and heroes characters necessary to a hit play. It was his version of "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" and "Guardians of The Galaxy" all rolled into one BRC feature. And of course, ONLY HE had the keys to the kingdoms.
dictor had no intellectual capacity to understand Bullinger. He just took what he wanted and changed what he didn't like saying, "Bullinger WOULD have surely come to the same conclusions" dictor himself had come to. SURELY! It took Donna Randall,Peter J. Wade, and Cummins to explain Bullinger to dictor, and then make sense out of dictor's alcohol-infused rants, which were taped and transcribed. Dictor never actually WROTE much at all. All his "original writings" were teaching tapes, transcribed by Donna Randall and edited by his daughter, Karen. Then embellished and fleshed out by PJ Wade, Cummins, and Randall. Wierwille reads THEIR work and puts his name on it and they all feel so proud that dictor "used" their work and approved it by signing it as his own. NO ONE WHO EVER WORKED AT TWIT'S RESEARCH DEPT. WILL DENY THAT THE PROCESS I DESCRIBED ABOVE IS HOW JCING WAS "WRITTEN". NO ONE WHO WAS EVER THERE FOR ANY "BOOKS" OF VIC CAN HONESTLY DISPUTE MY ACCOUNT. As a matter of fact, there are numerous former research staffers out there who will confirm and elaborate upon what i have said here. Some post here!
The word on JCING starting hitting the streets right after that 1970 twit summer school. It was all over twit fellowships by 1971, and dictor's trial balloon in 1970 was finding enthusiastic acceptance throughout the now booming fellowships around the US. With a perfect audience too.......disgruntled and disgusted old-time denominational misfits along with the huge surge of hippies just itching for a just cause to enlighten and change the world with, all found common ground in vic's new movie! Dictor thought, "By jove! I think I've gawt eet!". The $ and numbers started rolling in. This new upstart cult had grabbed a hold of something that galvanized the organized mob that twit turned into. Dictor and TWIt thrived on the controversy, in exactly the same manner in which The Trumpstah is thriving in today's political zoo, so he, like Trump, wratcheted up the pugnacious and contemptuous rhetoric earning the status of anti-semitic and dangerous fundamentalist cult from the ADL and the B'NAI B'RITH in 1982, along with becoming one of the most despised cults among the "anti-cult" communities springing up around America in the 1970's. So, with his coffers full of money taken from "Seedboys", and a bellyful of Seagram's and Drambuie, dictor went on his abundant living spree from 1976 until the day he died. Taking the place of the absent christ Who Is THE WORD, replacing it with the word-o-vic-is-the-will-o-vic. Buying multi-million dollar properties and spending millions more "bringing them up to gawd's standards". Motorcoaches, limousines, motorcycles, custom-tailored suits, airplanes, big bucks vacations and twustee hunting and fishing expeditions all over the US and Canada. Drinking and sexually molesting hundreds of innocents until the day he died in May,1985. Rotting from the inside out and buried in his idolatrous watery grave for all to barf on.
My personal take on the Trinity? Honestly? Who gives a dang? I sure don't as a Christian by personal choice. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christian Salvation. Nothing! It is completely non-salvific. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the type of relationship Jesus Christ or His Father encourages and fosters with ANY human being. It is a superfluous man-made philosophy concerning the nature of God, and attempting to explain that nature. It's as made up as dictor's books, and carries the same weight intellectually IMO.
Hardly any layperson in any church knows what it's supposed to mean, and they really could care less. All it is and ever was, is a clever little device invented to garner and expand the political and economic power of a small group of Roman elitists and imperial landowners who were running scared because of the Huns, Goths, Visigoths, Saxon and Norman hordes that were gobbling up the remnants of their crumbling Roman Empire. So, they morphed into The Holy Roman Empire, and continued their land and money grabs until the 7th and 8th centuries, when they eventually destroyed themselves with their Crusades to recapture the "Holy Lands" they lost to Islam and all them Goths.......lol. They used the Trinity in much the same way dictor tried to use JCING. It took quite a bit longer for them to be reduced to one city in Italy than it did for dictor to devour his own cult in less than 20 years.
If one starts with a premise which determines that there is a God, Creator, Universal Life Force, which desires and makes available to humans, a substantive, positive, and beneficent relationship with HER/HIM/IT, then one must ask, "Why would that god or goddess want to exclusivise such a beneficial and perhaps necessary relationship with 7 billion human beings and billions of other living creatures on the planet Earth?" IMO, that would be quite "un-Godlike". It seems to me that such a benevolent being would want that benevolence for all living creatures and not just some based on some secret code, or iconoclastic religion. That's why i identify myself as a "Christian by personal choice". I do not believe that Jesus Christ, as I accept him, is indeed, the ONLY "way, the truth, and the life" to or concerning an omnipotent God, or having a "relationship" with HER/HIM/IT. I see my God as able to reach and accept ANY human being who desires to experience and live the "fruit of the Spirit" as listed in Galatians 5:22,23. "AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW", and when one reads those verses in any bible version one can surely see why no "law" against them exists. Therefore, why would anyone want to bar anyone else from such a relationship with that omnipotent, benevolent Being? Why would any human being discount, discredit, despise, or restrict such fruit from anyone else? Only for personal social, political, or economic gain, greed, and envy.....none of which are "fruit" of the Spirit. They are the fruit of corrupted human nature.
To me, the complete irrelevance and immateriality of "The Trinity" in having a real relationship with your god is outrageously obvious. One need not wonder any longer why it is, that religion OF ANY BRAND has ignited more wars and taken more human life than any other single "thing" in human history. It is as outrageously obvious as the Trinity being completely irrelevant to a relationship with God. God has not locked herself in a box and given the key to ANY one religion or spiritual belief. She has made Herself open to all human beings everywhere, at any time, in any manner necessary, in order for us ALL to be busy producing and "feeding on" the "fruit of the Spirit". She is able and willing to communicate Herself to humans in whatever idiosyncratic method might be necessary to reach each and every one of us any time we're looking for that fruit. That bowl of fruit lies on everyone's table, and when hungry enough by personal choice, it's like Elijah's cruse of oil.........never-ending light.....................peace.
I have been reading with interest the posts on this thread. Many excellent insights and points indicating a diversity of thinking. That freedom to view the Bible as one source of information on the nature of God and Man and examine "it is written" with objective critical thinking and reasonable logic, leads, IMO, to a broader, increased understanding of what the crux of the matter is all about, again IMO, which is: What is the RELATIONSHIP God wants with Humankind? Is there a God Who wants to have relationships with humans? Do humans need or want a relationship with God, or a god, or gods? What is the means and basis of a relationship with God? What are the benefits of humans having a relationship with their God or gods? How is my God identified and how does She/He make her/himself known? Is such relationship available and/or necessary to ALL humans?
As WordWolf did above, I now offer my 2 cents regarding the topic of this thread. IMO, vic "wrote" JCING as a pugnacious and unnecessary attack against the large and historically established Christian denominational Churches, particularly with a JBS hatred for the Roman Catholic and Jewish religions, but inclusive off all those "so-called" Christians, as he phrased it, whose denominations were run by "seed-boys" who were direct servants of Satan, who, in the paranoid narcissistic pathology vic lived in, was THE AUTHOR of that "damnable lie" he called The Trinity. He did so because he needed to manufacture a need for his bible products and trinkets among the huge customer base he wanted increased marketshare of, namely the rest of "organized Christianity". That meant he had to come up with a unique product and a unique platform from which to sell it. He chose THE one doctrine common to the vast majority of his competitors and their financial supporters, The Trinity. OOOHHHHHHH! Where angels and wisemen fear to tread! But not that fearless Aryan Supremacist dictor. He wanted those coffers for himself, but he had NOTHING but a bunch of spurious "definitions" from B.G. Leonard and great stuff from Bullinger that poor little dictor's alcohol infused mini-intellect never fully grasped, but fully misinterpreted to suit his purposes for his flagship product, pfal. Ladies and gentlemen! "It slices, it dices, it hacks the Bible to pieces! Ronco's biblical research, teaching and fellowship 'minus-try"! But it keeps those checks and blue forms rolling in!
I was in-rez at HQ in 1973-74 in the corpse. That's when the twit "research dept." which consisted of dictor, Falter Cummins, Donna Randall, Bernita Jess and one or two corps grads along with the entire in-rez corpse which consisted of about 100 people. There were numerous JCING research nights, all-day voluntary meetings with the research staff and editorial "staff", to "work da woid" on the subject in order to get the book out. The overall attitude pervading all of this was dictor's rabid JBS hatred for the Catholics and Jews, and his palpable ENVY of their MONEY! The Satan/Seedboy connection provided the villains. He had created his own little fictional playground of the Passion Play complete with the enemies and heroes characters necessary to a hit play. It was his version of "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" and "Guardians of The Galaxy" all rolled into one BRC feature. And of course, ONLY HE had the keys to the kingdoms.
dictor had no intellectual capacity to understand Bullinger. He just took what he wanted and changed what he didn't like saying, "Bullinger WOULD have surely come to the same conclusions" dictor himself had come to. SURELY! It took Donna Randall,Peter J. Wade, and Cummins to explain Bullinger to dictor, and then make sense out of dictor's alcohol-infused rants, which were taped and transcribed. Dictor never actually WROTE much at all. All his "original writings" were teaching tapes, transcribed by Donna Randall and edited by his daughter, Karen. Then embellished and fleshed out by PJ Wade, Cummins, and Randall. Wierwille reads THEIR work and puts his name on it and they all feel so proud that dictor "used" their work and approved it by signing it as his own. NO ONE WHO EVER WORKED AT TWIT'S RESEARCH DEPT. WILL DENY THAT THE PROCESS I DESCRIBED ABOVE IS HOW JCING WAS "WRITTEN". NO ONE WHO WAS EVER THERE FOR ANY "BOOKS" OF VIC CAN HONESTLY DISPUTE MY ACCOUNT. As a matter of fact, there are numerous former research staffers out there who will confirm and elaborate upon what i have said here. Some post here!
The word on JCING starting hitting the streets right after that 1970 twit summer school. It was all over twit fellowships by 1971, and dictor's trial balloon in 1970 was finding enthusiastic acceptance throughout the now booming fellowships around the US. With a perfect audience too.......disgruntled and disgusted old-time denominational misfits along with the huge surge of hippies just itching for a just cause to enlighten and change the world with, all found common ground in vic's new movie! Dictor thought, "By jove! I think I've gawt eet!". The $ and numbers started rolling in. This new upstart cult had grabbed a hold of something that galvanized the organized mob that twit turned into. Dictor and TWIt thrived on the controversy, in exactly the same manner in which The Trumpstah is thriving in today's political zoo, so he, like Trump, wratcheted up the pugnacious and contemptuous rhetoric earning the status of anti-semitic and dangerous fundamentalist cult from the ADL and the B'NAI B'RITH in 1982, along with becoming one of the most despised cults among the "anti-cult" communities springing up around America in the 1970's. So, with his coffers full of money taken from "Seedboys", and a bellyful of Seagram's and Drambuie, dictor went on his abundant living spree from 1976 until the day he died. Taking the place of the absent christ Who Is THE WORD, replacing it with the word-o-vic-is-the-will-o-vic. Buying multi-million dollar properties and spending millions more "bringing them up to gawd's standards". Motorcoaches, limousines, motorcycles, custom-tailored suits, airplanes, big bucks vacations and twustee hunting and fishing expeditions all over the US and Canada. Drinking and sexually molesting hundreds of innocents until the day he died in May,1985. Rotting from the inside out and buried in his idolatrous watery grave for all to barf on.
My personal take on the Trinity? Honestly? Who gives a dang? I sure don't as a Christian by personal choice. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christian Salvation. Nothing! It is completely non-salvific. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the type of relationship Jesus Christ or His Father encourages and fosters with ANY human being. It is a superfluous man-made philosophy concerning the nature of God, and attempting to explain that nature. It's as made up as dictor's books, and carries the same weight intellectually IMO.
Hardly any layperson in any church knows what it's supposed to mean, and they really could care less. All it is and ever was, is a clever little device invented to garner and expand the political and economic power of a small group of Roman elitists and imperial landowners who were running scared because of the Huns, Goths, Visigoths, Saxon and Norman hordes that were gobbling up the remnants of their crumbling Roman Empire. So, they morphed into The Holy Roman Empire, and continued their land and money grabs until the 7th and 8th centuries, when they eventually destroyed themselves with their Crusades to recapture the "Holy Lands" they lost to Islam and all them Goths.......lol. They used the Trinity in much the same way dictor tried to use JCING. It took quite a bit longer for them to be reduced to one city in Italy than it did for dictor to devour his own cult in less than 20 years.
If one starts with a premise which determines that there is a God, Creator, Universal Life Force, which desires and makes available to humans, a substantive, positive, and beneficent relationship with HER/HIM/IT, then one must ask, "Why would that god or goddess want to exclusivise such a beneficial and perhaps necessary relationship with 7 billion human beings and billions of other living creatures on the planet Earth?" IMO, that would be quite "un-Godlike". It seems to me that such a benevolent being would want that benevolence for all living creatures and not just some based on some secret code, or iconoclastic religion. That's why i identify myself as a "Christian by personal choice". I do not believe that Jesus Christ, as I accept him, is indeed, the ONLY "way, the truth, and the life" to or concerning an omnipotent God, or having a "relationship" with HER/HIM/IT. I see my God as able to reach and accept ANY human being who desires to experience and live the "fruit of the Spirit" as listed in Galatians 5:22,23. "AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW", and when one reads those verses in any bible version one can surely see why no "law" against them exists. Therefore, why would anyone want to bar anyone else from such a relationship with that omnipotent, benevolent Being? Why would any human being discount, discredit, despise, or restrict such fruit from anyone else? Only for personal social, political, or economic gain, greed, and envy.....none of which are "fruit" of the Spirit. They are the fruit of corrupted human nature.
To me, the complete irrelevance and immateriality of "The Trinity" in having a real relationship with your god is outrageously obvious. One need not wonder any longer why it is, that religion OF ANY BRAND has ignited more wars and taken more human life than any other single "thing" in human history. It is as outrageously obvious as the Trinity being completely irrelevant to a relationship with God. God has not locked herself in a box and given the key to ANY one religion or spiritual belief. She has made Herself open to all human beings everywhere, at any time, in any manner necessary, in order for us ALL to be busy producing and "feeding on" the "fruit of the Spirit". She is able and willing to communicate Herself to humans in whatever idiosyncratic method might be necessary to reach each and every one of us any time we're looking for that fruit. That bowl of fruit lies on everyone's table, and when hungry enough by personal choice, it's like Elijah's cruse of oil.........never-ending light.....................peace.
BRAVO DWBH!
That's an impressive and highly relevant essay. :eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>
Listening to all the adults in fellowships . . . most folks never "believed in the trinity", it never made sense and so it was clear JC was not God . . . VPW taught what most folks already believed . . . or so that what was a common thing to hear.
Old folks, yes, most old folks I knew in the Lutheran church were not sold out to the trinitarian concept and then when I got married, half my wife's family were Lutheran and the others Catholic and there was not any "acceptance" of Jesus being God or the "TRIUNE" God; yet, they still thought the Holy Ghost was some seperate entitiy, another God persona.
Going back to the PFAL and as many times as I sat through it, I did not get a feeling that vpw had trinitarian undertones in the teaching of PFAL. Like any of that means squat.
It seems when talking to my cousins, brother, nieces and nephews when the subject comes up, the older you get the less the acceptance of the trinity - of course, this is family kitchen table discussion which is never to go beyound the kitchen.
I will say though, all the kids think that Jesus is God, then of course, they also think that Santa is God as well.
These are just observations and are not justified on any credible reasearch techniques.
"Going back to the PFAL and as many times as I sat through it, I did not get a feeling that vpw had trinitarian undertones in the teaching of PFAL."
What about the session (was it #5?) where he appears to get all excited and blasts out, "He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!!"?
Did your class instructors gloss that over? We were told to downplay that and explain that he had been a Trinitarian but no longer was.
I asked at one point, before I had run any classes myself, why he didn't just re-film that segment. I think you can imagine the reception my question got. Know what I mean,Vern?
Looking back now, it occurs to me that this idea of "Jesus is not God" has the indirect effect of empowering dispensationalism. It draws attention away from the gospels and refocuses it on the epistles. (written for our learning vs. written directly to us)
Very good point, Waysider. None of vic'n'twit theology or eschatology works outside of ultradispensationalism. That's what makesit all fit like a hand in the oven.
I thought we all were understanding that the phrasing in use in this thread was not LITERAL,
but FIGURATIVE.
Instead of saying "when did Jesus stop being God?" the literal would have been
"When did vpw stop teaching that Jesus was God?" which is literally what he meant,
but he wrote FIGURATIVELY to match vpw's book title
"Jesus Christ is Not God."
So, we write of when Jesus "started being God" or when Jesus "stopped being God"
but mean when "teachings began declaring Jesus was God" or when
"teachings at twi stopped teaching that and began teaching Jesus was not God."
Fair enough. Given that I was the one that first alluded to the doctrinal importance of considering when Jesus became more like God in the post shortly before Rocky's question, I suppose it was my interest to transition more into a doctrinal discussion that compelled me to note the differences in our two questions. But, evidently that is not the preferred direction of discussion. (Me bad in thinking it could or would be.)
Which leaves me without much comment on the later portion of WW's diatribe, even though somewhat interesting (from a doctrinal perspective, which I always seem to favor) because it touches on certain much older historical factors or possibilities (in church history) that are evidently outside the intent of this thread.
Old folks, yes, most old folks I knew in the Lutheran church were not sold out to the trinitarian concept and then when I got married, half my wife's family were Lutheran and the others Catholic and there was not any "acceptance" of Jesus being God or the "TRIUNE" God; yet, they still thought the Holy Ghost was some seperate entitiy, another God persona.
Going back to the PFAL and as many times as I sat through it, I did not get a feeling that vpw had trinitarian undertones in the teaching of PFAL. Like any of that means squat.
It seems when talking to my cousins, brother, nieces and nephews when the subject comes up, the older you get the less the acceptance of the trinity - of course, this is family kitchen table discussion which is never to go beyound the kitchen.
I will say though, all the kids think that Jesus is God, then of course, they also think that Santa is God as well.
These are just observations and are not justified on any credible reasearch techniques.
This wasn't just "kitchen table talk". Sometimes it was the population of the OSC dining room. Sometimes it was part of teachings in fellowships or parking lots. It was frequent, and it was in many locations, and many different people, 99% of them of no relation to me.
Also, when I was a child, I thought that PFAL grads were good, honest-speaking, people.
Victor Paul Wierwille was a bad human being. There's no way around that. His teachings lead people to do evil. Evil teachings came from an evil man.
I've expressed to you in other threads that through that lens of understanding does the story of TWI make any sense. (Occam's razor) I was present to witness and experience enough.
Well, I still find those to be very brash statements for you to make about someone that you never really met or knew. (And I'm not saying that he didn't do a number of bad things.) If DWBH (or someone else that has much more experience in the matter) wants to say it, fine. But you? Why are you passing judgment on it and posing as if you know much more than you really do? Careful with Occam's razor, or you might cut off something of yourself.
My question relates to the real world of humanity and Humanities.
From a historical perspective, at what point did some human declare that Jesus is God? It's really that simple.
And I believe it's a salient question for this discussion.
If nobody wants to discuss it, no big deal for me. However, doesn't the question "When did Jesus Stop Being God?" suppose that for all of human history there were people who believed Jesus was God?
Well, that certainly appears (to me) to be doctrinal in nature... and therefore qualifies as something that would be inappropriate for this thread.
Well, I still find those to be very brash statements for you to make about someone that you never really met or knew. (And I'm not saying that he didn't do a number of bad things.) If DWBH (or someone else that has much more experience in the matter) wants to say it, fine. But you? Why are you passing judgment on it and posing as if you know much more than you really do? Careful with Occam's razor, or you might cut off something of yourself.
It isn't necessarily required that one be personally acquainted with someone to see evidence of their true character. It says so in the Bible. Something about knowing them by their fruits or some such thing.
I have been reading with interest the posts on this thread. Many excellent insights and points indicating a diversity of thinking. That freedom to view the Bible as one source of information on the nature of God and Man and examine "it is written" with objective critical thinking and reasonable logic, leads, IMO, to a broader, increased understanding of what the crux of the matter is all about, again IMO, which is: What is the RELATIONSHIP God wants with Humankind? Is there a God Who wants to have relationships with humans? Do humans need or want a relationship with God, or a god, or gods? What is the means and basis of a relationship with God? What are the benefits of humans having a relationship with their God or gods? How is my God identified and how does She/He make her/himself known? Is such relationship available and/or necessary to ALL humans?
<snip>
Good post, DWBH......thanks.
In terms of wierwille, I tend to think that wierwille's pathological underpinnings and gravitational pull can be traced back to his childhood and upbringing. Being the youngest child (with some siblings 10-12 years older) and raised in the shadow of Dr. Kunst's German-backed congregation and community, young victor was struggling to grasp a profession, trade or pastorate that would bestow prominence in his life. Clearly, his school record card shows that as a young kid, victor was average [82%] at best.....an "intellectual prowess" than he maintained throughout life.
Seemingly, young victor set his sights on second-rate academia to pursue ministerial studies and training. With his father's financial backing, vic left the farm and never looked back......until old man wierwille died and deeded the farm property to the wierwille brothers. Shortly thereafter, badda-bing, batta-boom.....vic maneuvers his way back to the homestead to set up shop. After two stints in pastoral work, Payne and Van Wert....(and now, with a CLASS-BASED system that could govern outside the four-walls of church denominational dogma).....wiewille could function, and control, his pathological deception and grievances via his "research." His world had come full circle. With plagiarism as his platform, he now was able to wield power by skewing and skewering biblical truths to advance his Simon-sorcerer adulation.
Could it be that EVERYTHING was subordinate to wierwille's socio-pathological yearnings of himself? I think so.
The class-based "vehicle" changed every dynamic in wierwille's relevance. The substance was secondary.
"The teacher/student relationship was the basis of twi......NOT Christ as lord.
And, therefore.....wierwille maintained authoritarian rule to his grave. It was
a slick counterfeit in the modern-era.....but very similar to Simon the sorcerer.
Wierwille continued to teach that it was about the abundance and power of God, but
in practice he commanded his followers to affix their eyes upon him."
Well, I still find those to be very brash statements for you to make about someone that you never really met or knew. (And I'm not saying that he didn't do a number of bad things.) If DWBH (or someone else that has much more experience in the matter) wants to say it, fine. But you? Why are you passing judgment on it and posing as if you know much more than you really do? Careful with Occam's razor, or you might cut off something of yourself.
If one starts with a premise which determines that there is a God, Creator, Universal Life Force, which desires and makes available to humans, a substantive, positive, and beneficent relationship with HER/HIM/IT, then one must ask, "Why would that god or goddess want to exclusivise such a beneficial and perhaps necessary relationship with 7 billion human beings and billions of other living creatures on the planet Earth?" IMO, that would be quite "un-Godlike". It seems to me that such a benevolent being would want that benevolence for all living creatures and not just some based on some secret code, or iconoclastic religion. That's why i identify myself as a "Christian by personal choice". I do not believe that Jesus Christ, as I accept him, is indeed, the ONLY "way, the truth, and the life" to or concerning an omnipotent God, or having a "relationship" with HER/HIM/IT.
Obviously not the right thread to discuss this DWBH, but I am curious as to what your view or opinion is concerning the existence of the devil. Something real? (Or, just some word or figure of speech used to depict our adversity and separation from God?)
Obviously not the right thread to discuss this DWBH, but I am curious as to what your view or opinion is concerning the existence of the devil. Something real? (Or, just some word or figure of speech used to depict our adversity and separation from God?)
There are pre-existing threads that deal with this question. Some may be a bit old chronologically, but, nevertheless, still relevant enough to rekindle.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
18
23
27
Popular Days
Apr 3
30
Apr 1
28
Dec 3
14
Apr 2
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 8 posts
waysider 18 posts
Bolshevik 23 posts
TLC 27 posts
Popular Days
Apr 3 2016
30 posts
Apr 1 2016
28 posts
Dec 3 2015
14 posts
Apr 2 2016
13 posts
Popular Posts
shortfuse
The original premise of the thread was that TWI's doctrine on the nature of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit served to isolate way followers from the rest of Christianity. (Indeed, some people would not e
Bolshevik
This incredibly important IMO. Growing up I would make the effort to learn about other religions, the Trinity among other topics . . but TWI would literally stop me with direct confrontation. (Happe
WordWolf
That settles that. As for the Martin Luther imitation, I thought that was too interesting not to explain. vpw announced, at the end of one ROA (77), that they were going to go to the local churc
Bolshevik
TLC,
Victor Paul Wierwille was a bad human being. There's no way around that. His teachings lead people to do evil. Evil teachings came from an evil man.
I've expressed to you in other threads that through that lens of understanding does the story of TWI make any sense. (Occam's razor) I was present to witness and experience enough.
Whether Jesus is God or not or existed at all is beside all points.
Victor Paul Wierwille had a reason for ousting The Trinity, based on his character, it was not for good. Many who've been influenced by VPW and his ministry, TWI, cling to that doctrine, and the reason is unlikely to be for the simple, knuckle-dragging reason of doctrinal purity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Ah! . . . . Back to The Law of Not Accepting Believing.
Thanks T-Bone, and Steve. Being brought up in TWI, the viewpoints of the "false Christians" were not exactly honestly represented. I think this whole Trinity thing speaks volumes. I appreciate your explanations.
T-Bone,
I've heard the exalted and servant position of Jesus in TWI, I think. Hearing that again from your post, Jesus being both low and high at the same time seems contradictory. I think that's amazing. And I don't think TWI taught it quite like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I tend to agree with you, Bolshevik. He didn't merely present a dissenting religious opinion, he deliberately created a firestorm of controversy. It's been my experience that people with good intentions tend to avoid such situations, presenting their controversial opinions in a more palatable manner, in an effort to insure a better reception.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
folks sorry i jump out of order on threads...i read them like i do magazines - i jump all around - skim articles - then back track and read some more - then post here and there -
anyway....
Hi WordWolf- yeah i think i'm guilty of that on occasion - i also am good at making "accommodations" in my head when trying to understand something - - like in returning to Trinitarian beliefs i find a tendency to compromise with reason to satisfy the logical side of me;
(not saying it's the right thing to do - - and sometimes think it's like the old pop-up TWIisms that inhabited my processor and came to the foreground when i'm trying to make something foreign fit with a familiar or established thought)
anyway again - - in making "sense" of the Trinity i think to myself "like father...like son....Jesus said the father is greater than he is....Jesus is a mini-god...or a life size or human size version of God" not trying to be facetious or irreverent here....just telling you how i think....not saying it's right....i get the part of the Word being in the beginning with God...the pre-existent Christ - - but then my logical side will give me hell a hard time over funneling that down into the package of a human being..
...maybe that's the quintessential battle between faith and reason or at least part of it i dunno.....does this make any sense? i know i should love God with all my heart soul mind and strength - so i'm thinking that may mean some compromising (between faith and reason) is in order....i could be way off track or possibly on another grand detour ....geez the last detour lasted 12 years....oh but i have good intentions
/>
edited for clarity
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I don't think in terms of PFLAP.
My question relates to the real world of humanity and Humanities.
From a historical perspective, at what point did some human declare that Jesus is God? It's really that simple.
And I believe it's a salient question for this discussion.
If nobody wants to discuss it, no big deal for me. However, doesn't the question "When did Jesus Stop Being God?" suppose that for all of human history there were people who believed Jesus was God?
Correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'd parse these points out. Technically, I don't believe we can truly know all of Wierwille's intentions. But, like Bolshevik indicated, Wierwille was a bad man. That's perhaps a valid assessment when considering what he did and the results thereof.
To a degree, his intentions can be deduced from his words and actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Hi fellow greasespotters!
I have been reading with interest the posts on this thread. Many excellent insights and points indicating a diversity of thinking. That freedom to view the Bible as one source of information on the nature of God and Man and examine "it is written" with objective critical thinking and reasonable logic, leads, IMO, to a broader, increased understanding of what the crux of the matter is all about, again IMO, which is: What is the RELATIONSHIP God wants with Humankind? Is there a God Who wants to have relationships with humans? Do humans need or want a relationship with God, or a god, or gods? What is the means and basis of a relationship with God? What are the benefits of humans having a relationship with their God or gods? How is my God identified and how does She/He make her/himself known? Is such relationship available and/or necessary to ALL humans?
As WordWolf did above, I now offer my 2 cents regarding the topic of this thread. IMO, vic "wrote" JCING as a pugnacious and unnecessary attack against the large and historically established Christian denominational Churches, particularly with a JBS hatred for the Roman Catholic and Jewish religions, but inclusive off all those "so-called" Christians, as he phrased it, whose denominations were run by "seed-boys" who were direct servants of Satan, who, in the paranoid narcissistic pathology vic lived in, was THE AUTHOR of that "damnable lie" he called The Trinity. He did so because he needed to manufacture a need for his bible products and trinkets among the huge customer base he wanted increased marketshare of, namely the rest of "organized Christianity". That meant he had to come up with a unique product and a unique platform from which to sell it. He chose THE one doctrine common to the vast majority of his competitors and their financial supporters, The Trinity. OOOHHHHHHH! Where angels and wisemen fear to tread! But not that fearless Aryan Supremacist dictor. He wanted those coffers for himself, but he had NOTHING but a bunch of spurious "definitions" from B.G. Leonard and great stuff from Bullinger that poor little dictor's alcohol infused mini-intellect never fully grasped, but fully misinterpreted to suit his purposes for his flagship product, pfal. Ladies and gentlemen! "It slices, it dices, it hacks the Bible to pieces! Ronco's biblical research, teaching and fellowship 'minus-try"! But it keeps those checks and blue forms rolling in!
I was in-rez at HQ in 1973-74 in the corpse. That's when the twit "research dept." which consisted of dictor, Falter Cummins, Donna Randall, Bernita Jess and one or two corps grads along with the entire in-rez corpse which consisted of about 100 people. There were numerous JCING research nights, all-day voluntary meetings with the research staff and editorial "staff", to "work da woid" on the subject in order to get the book out. The overall attitude pervading all of this was dictor's rabid JBS hatred for the Catholics and Jews, and his palpable ENVY of their MONEY! The Satan/Seedboy connection provided the villains. He had created his own little fictional playground of the Passion Play complete with the enemies and heroes characters necessary to a hit play. It was his version of "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" and "Guardians of The Galaxy" all rolled into one BRC feature. And of course, ONLY HE had the keys to the kingdoms.
dictor had no intellectual capacity to understand Bullinger. He just took what he wanted and changed what he didn't like saying, "Bullinger WOULD have surely come to the same conclusions" dictor himself had come to. SURELY! It took Donna Randall,Peter J. Wade, and Cummins to explain Bullinger to dictor, and then make sense out of dictor's alcohol-infused rants, which were taped and transcribed. Dictor never actually WROTE much at all. All his "original writings" were teaching tapes, transcribed by Donna Randall and edited by his daughter, Karen. Then embellished and fleshed out by PJ Wade, Cummins, and Randall. Wierwille reads THEIR work and puts his name on it and they all feel so proud that dictor "used" their work and approved it by signing it as his own. NO ONE WHO EVER WORKED AT TWIT'S RESEARCH DEPT. WILL DENY THAT THE PROCESS I DESCRIBED ABOVE IS HOW JCING WAS "WRITTEN". NO ONE WHO WAS EVER THERE FOR ANY "BOOKS" OF VIC CAN HONESTLY DISPUTE MY ACCOUNT. As a matter of fact, there are numerous former research staffers out there who will confirm and elaborate upon what i have said here. Some post here!
The word on JCING starting hitting the streets right after that 1970 twit summer school. It was all over twit fellowships by 1971, and dictor's trial balloon in 1970 was finding enthusiastic acceptance throughout the now booming fellowships around the US. With a perfect audience too.......disgruntled and disgusted old-time denominational misfits along with the huge surge of hippies just itching for a just cause to enlighten and change the world with, all found common ground in vic's new movie! Dictor thought, "By jove! I think I've gawt eet!". The $ and numbers started rolling in. This new upstart cult had grabbed a hold of something that galvanized the organized mob that twit turned into. Dictor and TWIt thrived on the controversy, in exactly the same manner in which The Trumpstah is thriving in today's political zoo, so he, like Trump, wratcheted up the pugnacious and contemptuous rhetoric earning the status of anti-semitic and dangerous fundamentalist cult from the ADL and the B'NAI B'RITH in 1982, along with becoming one of the most despised cults among the "anti-cult" communities springing up around America in the 1970's. So, with his coffers full of money taken from "Seedboys", and a bellyful of Seagram's and Drambuie, dictor went on his abundant living spree from 1976 until the day he died. Taking the place of the absent christ Who Is THE WORD, replacing it with the word-o-vic-is-the-will-o-vic. Buying multi-million dollar properties and spending millions more "bringing them up to gawd's standards". Motorcoaches, limousines, motorcycles, custom-tailored suits, airplanes, big bucks vacations and twustee hunting and fishing expeditions all over the US and Canada. Drinking and sexually molesting hundreds of innocents until the day he died in May,1985. Rotting from the inside out and buried in his idolatrous watery grave for all to barf on.
My personal take on the Trinity? Honestly? Who gives a dang? I sure don't as a Christian by personal choice. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christian Salvation. Nothing! It is completely non-salvific. It makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the type of relationship Jesus Christ or His Father encourages and fosters with ANY human being. It is a superfluous man-made philosophy concerning the nature of God, and attempting to explain that nature. It's as made up as dictor's books, and carries the same weight intellectually IMO.
Hardly any layperson in any church knows what it's supposed to mean, and they really could care less. All it is and ever was, is a clever little device invented to garner and expand the political and economic power of a small group of Roman elitists and imperial landowners who were running scared because of the Huns, Goths, Visigoths, Saxon and Norman hordes that were gobbling up the remnants of their crumbling Roman Empire. So, they morphed into The Holy Roman Empire, and continued their land and money grabs until the 7th and 8th centuries, when they eventually destroyed themselves with their Crusades to recapture the "Holy Lands" they lost to Islam and all them Goths.......lol. They used the Trinity in much the same way dictor tried to use JCING. It took quite a bit longer for them to be reduced to one city in Italy than it did for dictor to devour his own cult in less than 20 years.
If one starts with a premise which determines that there is a God, Creator, Universal Life Force, which desires and makes available to humans, a substantive, positive, and beneficent relationship with HER/HIM/IT, then one must ask, "Why would that god or goddess want to exclusivise such a beneficial and perhaps necessary relationship with 7 billion human beings and billions of other living creatures on the planet Earth?" IMO, that would be quite "un-Godlike". It seems to me that such a benevolent being would want that benevolence for all living creatures and not just some based on some secret code, or iconoclastic religion. That's why i identify myself as a "Christian by personal choice". I do not believe that Jesus Christ, as I accept him, is indeed, the ONLY "way, the truth, and the life" to or concerning an omnipotent God, or having a "relationship" with HER/HIM/IT. I see my God as able to reach and accept ANY human being who desires to experience and live the "fruit of the Spirit" as listed in Galatians 5:22,23. "AGAINST SUCH THERE IS NO LAW", and when one reads those verses in any bible version one can surely see why no "law" against them exists. Therefore, why would anyone want to bar anyone else from such a relationship with that omnipotent, benevolent Being? Why would any human being discount, discredit, despise, or restrict such fruit from anyone else? Only for personal social, political, or economic gain, greed, and envy.....none of which are "fruit" of the Spirit. They are the fruit of corrupted human nature.
To me, the complete irrelevance and immateriality of "The Trinity" in having a real relationship with your god is outrageously obvious. One need not wonder any longer why it is, that religion OF ANY BRAND has ignited more wars and taken more human life than any other single "thing" in human history. It is as outrageously obvious as the Trinity being completely irrelevant to a relationship with God. God has not locked herself in a box and given the key to ANY one religion or spiritual belief. She has made Herself open to all human beings everywhere, at any time, in any manner necessary, in order for us ALL to be busy producing and "feeding on" the "fruit of the Spirit". She is able and willing to communicate Herself to humans in whatever idiosyncratic method might be necessary to reach each and every one of us any time we're looking for that fruit. That bowl of fruit lies on everyone's table, and when hungry enough by personal choice, it's like Elijah's cruse of oil.........never-ending light.....................peace.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ring Around The Collar
Who knew what a plague on mankind it was until the advertising world made us aware?
And, so it was with the trinity/JCING dilemma.
I never knew it was a problem until VPW told us it was.
Task #1: Create a problem.
Task #2: Solve the problem.
Task #3: Bask in new-found celebrity, as king of the heap, for having solved the problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
BRAVO DWBH!
That's an impressive and highly relevant essay. :eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>:eusa_clap:/>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
Old folks, yes, most old folks I knew in the Lutheran church were not sold out to the trinitarian concept and then when I got married, half my wife's family were Lutheran and the others Catholic and there was not any "acceptance" of Jesus being God or the "TRIUNE" God; yet, they still thought the Holy Ghost was some seperate entitiy, another God persona.
Going back to the PFAL and as many times as I sat through it, I did not get a feeling that vpw had trinitarian undertones in the teaching of PFAL. Like any of that means squat.
It seems when talking to my cousins, brother, nieces and nephews when the subject comes up, the older you get the less the acceptance of the trinity - of course, this is family kitchen table discussion which is never to go beyound the kitchen.
I will say though, all the kids think that Jesus is God, then of course, they also think that Santa is God as well.
These are just observations and are not justified on any credible reasearch techniques.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
OBVIOUSLY!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Going back to the PFAL and as many times as I sat through it, I did not get a feeling that vpw had trinitarian undertones in the teaching of PFAL."
What about the session (was it #5?) where he appears to get all excited and blasts out, "He's coming back as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!!"?
Did your class instructors gloss that over? We were told to downplay that and explain that he had been a Trinitarian but no longer was.
I asked at one point, before I had run any classes myself, why he didn't just re-film that segment. I think you can imagine the reception my question got. Know what I mean,Vern?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Looking back now, it occurs to me that this idea of "Jesus is not God" has the indirect effect of empowering dispensationalism. It draws attention away from the gospels and refocuses it on the epistles. (written for our learning vs. written directly to us)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Very good point, Waysider. None of vic'n'twit theology or eschatology works outside of ultradispensationalism. That's what makesit all fit like a hand in the oven.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Wow. A lot posted here in the last day or two.
Fair enough. Given that I was the one that first alluded to the doctrinal importance of considering when Jesus became more like God in the post shortly before Rocky's question, I suppose it was my interest to transition more into a doctrinal discussion that compelled me to note the differences in our two questions. But, evidently that is not the preferred direction of discussion. (Me bad in thinking it could or would be.)
Which leaves me without much comment on the later portion of WW's diatribe, even though somewhat interesting (from a doctrinal perspective, which I always seem to favor) because it touches on certain much older historical factors or possibilities (in church history) that are evidently outside the intent of this thread.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
This wasn't just "kitchen table talk". Sometimes it was the population of the OSC dining room. Sometimes it was part of teachings in fellowships or parking lots. It was frequent, and it was in many locations, and many different people, 99% of them of no relation to me.
Also, when I was a child, I thought that PFAL grads were good, honest-speaking, people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I still find those to be very brash statements for you to make about someone that you never really met or knew. (And I'm not saying that he didn't do a number of bad things.) If DWBH (or someone else that has much more experience in the matter) wants to say it, fine. But you? Why are you passing judgment on it and posing as if you know much more than you really do? Careful with Occam's razor, or you might cut off something of yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, that certainly appears (to me) to be doctrinal in nature... and therefore qualifies as something that would be inappropriate for this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It isn't necessarily required that one be personally acquainted with someone to see evidence of their true character. It says so in the Bible. Something about knowing them by their fruits or some such thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Good post, DWBH......thanks.
In terms of wierwille, I tend to think that wierwille's pathological underpinnings and gravitational pull can be traced back to his childhood and upbringing. Being the youngest child (with some siblings 10-12 years older) and raised in the shadow of Dr. Kunst's German-backed congregation and community, young victor was struggling to grasp a profession, trade or pastorate that would bestow prominence in his life. Clearly, his school record card shows that as a young kid, victor was average [82%] at best.....an "intellectual prowess" than he maintained throughout life.
Seemingly, young victor set his sights on second-rate academia to pursue ministerial studies and training. With his father's financial backing, vic left the farm and never looked back......until old man wierwille died and deeded the farm property to the wierwille brothers. Shortly thereafter, badda-bing, batta-boom.....vic maneuvers his way back to the homestead to set up shop. After two stints in pastoral work, Payne and Van Wert....(and now, with a CLASS-BASED system that could govern outside the four-walls of church denominational dogma).....wiewille could function, and control, his pathological deception and grievances via his "research." His world had come full circle. With plagiarism as his platform, he now was able to wield power by skewing and skewering biblical truths to advance his Simon-sorcerer adulation.
Could it be that EVERYTHING was subordinate to wierwille's socio-pathological yearnings of himself? I think so.
The class-based "vehicle" changed every dynamic in wierwille's relevance. The substance was secondary.
"The teacher/student relationship was the basis of twi......NOT Christ as lord.
And, therefore.....wierwille maintained authoritarian rule to his grave. It was
a slick counterfeit in the modern-era.....but very similar to Simon the sorcerer.
Wierwille continued to teach that it was about the abundance and power of God, but
in practice he commanded his followers to affix their eyes upon him."
Wierwille's Quest for Greatness
.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's not a doctrinal question.
Rocky posed the question:
"From a historical perspective, at what point did some human declare that Jesus is God?"
You don't have to have any knowledge of the Bible or particular religious slant to address this from a historical perspective.
"It's really that simple."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
TLC,
Sometimes, just see the forest for the trees. Not just The Way Tree.
Edited to fix link. . . .Details details details
Bahahahahaha!
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Obviously not the right thread to discuss this DWBH, but I am curious as to what your view or opinion is concerning the existence of the devil. Something real? (Or, just some word or figure of speech used to depict our adversity and separation from God?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There are pre-existing threads that deal with this question. Some may be a bit old chronologically, but, nevertheless, still relevant enough to rekindle.
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.