To be clear: A discussion about whether Jesus is God, Biblically, belongs in doctrinal. I haven't analyzed every thread here, but...
A discussion about when Wierwille began teaching that Jesus is not God belongs here. A discussion about why most groups teach he is but TWI teaches he is not can be at home either here or in doctrinal.
It's inevitable that a topic like this will have some doctrinal overlap. But I don't see any threat of this becoming a doctrinal discussion so far.
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.
Not necessarily what most folks already believed, but because it was/is essentially impossible to understand the Trinitarian doctrine.
I think that's called "getting on the bandwagon".
Well, it simply made so much more sense.
Dunno, waysider, you might find that there are a lot of non-trinis out there. They just go along with the standard doctrine of the church of their choice, feeling they have nowhere else to go, but finding enough spiritual succour to want to stay.
I agree. It's not that hard to overlook (once you decide to.)
Not necessarily what most folks already believed, but because it was/is essentially impossible to understand the Trinitarian doctrine.
. . .
Just going off of what I heard quite often (That folks claim they never believed in the Trinity). I will easily believe that a lot of people said that just to fit in with the group.
Is there a reason that the Trinity needs to be understood?
My feeling is that there are many doctrinal snares, which when believed kept people trapped in TWI. This seems like a big one.
Bigger than it should have been, no doubt. But I actually think a much better (and more significant) question to ask (at least, doctrinally speaking) should be, "When did Jesus become more like God?" Because I think of lot of the confusion over who he is stems from a failure to see or account for the change that occurred with his resurrection.
Is there a reason that the Trinity needs to be understood?
Honestly speaking, I don't think it can be understood. Matter of fact, I'm inclined to think it may have been intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia of the day to suppress and subject (to their control) any and all folk deemed to be of "lessor intellectual ability."
edit:
To clarify my perspective, I do not believe in the Trinity. However, by and large, even though certain things are rather clear in my own understanding of the issue, I now mostly avoid discussions or debates on the issue - especially with anyone that views or holds it as being a fundamental and necessary part of salvation. Viewed strictly from a sense knowledge perspective, I really do get how or why people see and think of Jesus Christ as being God, and I don't fault them for it. He is, after all, the visible image of God. But from a more spiritual perspective, I see and think of him as being distinctly different from God. So, I think of it as all boiling down to the perspective he's viewed from.
Honestly speaking, I don't think it can be understood. Matter of fact, I'm inclined to think it may have been intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia of the day to suppress and subject (to their control) any and all folk deemed to be of "lessor intellectual ability."
I wasn't looking for whether or not The Trinity can be understood. I was asking why it should be understood. Accepting something doesn't mean anyone anywhere understands the matter.
I wasn't looking for whether or not The Trinity can be understood. I was asking why it should be understood. Accepting something doesn't mean anyone anywhere understands the matter.
Okay, then maybe this will better communicate what I think. Given that I suspect that it was intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia (for reasons stated in the previous post), I not only see no other sane or sensible reason for it (or for trying to understand it), I also can't find any real reason or benefit to accept it (or, as some might say, try to believe it.)
Okay, then maybe this will better communicate what I think. Given that I suspect that it was intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia (for reasons stated in the previous post), I not only see no other sane or sensible reason for it (or for trying to understand it), I also can't find any real reason or benefit to accept it (or, as some might say, try to believe it.)
I think motives in this case are more telling than reasoning. I'm atheist, so I don't care whether the Christion God is Jesus or a Lizard. You're very clear on your view that The Trinity was devised as part of some greater conspiracy theory, as opposed to maybe a joke by the ruling class on the plebes. My understanding is that this would have happened thousands of years ago. So today, who cares? That was a long time ago.
It is also my understanding that VPW went against the grain in adopting a non-Trinitarian view. So, in leaving TWI, and remaining a Christian, wouldn't there be a benefit to adopting The Trinity? You'll connect easier with billions of people. Unless maybe that's not a motive to be considered?
Many Christians (not all, but it's likely a majority), and most denominations of Christianity incorporate it (in some form or fashion) as an essential part of church doctrine, and to a somewhat lessor extent, an essential part of salvation. (Or else you might, as I've heard it put, "have the wrong Jesus.") So, there certainly can be - and is at times - a very "caring" aspect to it.
It is also my understanding that VPW went against the grain in adopting a non-Trinitarian view. So, in leaving TWI, and remaining a Christian, wouldn't there be a benefit to adopting The Trinity? You'll connect easier with billions of people. Unless maybe that's not a motive to be considered?
Well, that's sure not the kind of "benefit" I would categorize as being a genuine or godly benefit. And if that's not a "compromise the truth just to fit in" with the masses of other people proposition, I don't know what is. Aren't you familiar with these scriptures from Matthew 7?
[13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at:
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Sometimes the arguments for or against Jesus being God hit me as a litmus test by one side or the other to determine who is a genuine Christian. I get the thing about concerns over heresy and a counterfeit Jesus – but I often wonder if there is a possible practical aspect to keeping a certain "duality" of Jesus in mind; where he is both Lord and Savior.
In Phil.2:6 & 10 it speaks of Jesus being in the form of God but he did not regard being equal with God as something to be asserted, but humbles himself and became a servant; therefore God exalted him so that at Jesus' name every knee should bow. We also find out in Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus is not like some elite high priest who holds himself far above the congregation as one out of touch with the rest of us puny humans, unable to empathize with our weaknesses – but he was tempted just like we are.
I think the duality of Jesus being a servant, being human, and now is exalted – has significant relevance to the Christian; we acknowledge the absolute authority of his lordship, his words, his example but we also can look to him when we are weak and falter and in confidence draw near to the throne of grace.
Sometimes the arguments for or against Jesus being God hit me as a litmus test by one side or the other to determine who is a genuine Christian. I get the thing about concerns over heresy and a counterfeit Jesus – but I often wonder if there is a possible practical aspect to keeping a certain "duality" of Jesus in mind; where he is both Lord and Savior.
In Phil.2:6 & 10 it speaks of Jesus being in the form of God but he did not regard being equal with God as something to be asserted, but humbles himself and became a servant; therefore God exalted him so that at Jesus' name every knee should bow. We also find out in Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus is not like some elite high priest who holds himself far above the congregation as one out of touch with the rest of us puny humans, unable to empathize with our weaknesses – but he was tempted just like we are.
I think the duality of Jesus being a servant, being human, and now is exalted – has significant relevance to the Christian; we acknowledge the absolute authority of his lordship, his words, his example but we also can look to him when we are weak and falter and in confidence draw near to the throne of grace.
Hi T-Bone,
I've read elsewhere on GSC, a number of posters have said something to this effect . . . my understanding being that VPW, starting with the Christian faith as his initial framework, needed to push Jesus and the role he filled aside . . . creating a void for someone VPW had in mind to conveniently fill. This was a way to sidestep compassion, empathy, and other items which certain individuals may have been lacking already.
You're saying it's not an argument of identity (Trinity V. non-Trinity), that's a red herring. It's about roles to play?
Bigger than it should have been, no doubt. But I actually think a much better (and more significant) question to ask (at least, doctrinally speaking) should be, "When did Jesus become more like God?" Because I think of lot of the confusion over who he is stems from a failure to see or account for the change that occurred with his resurrection.
Honestly speaking, I don't think it can be understood. Matter of fact, I'm inclined to think it may have been intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia of the day to suppress and subject (to their control) any and all folk deemed to be of "lessor intellectual ability."
edit:
To clarify my perspective, I do not believe in the Trinity. However, by and large, even though certain things are rather clear in my own understanding of the issue, I now mostly avoid discussions or debates on the issue - especially with anyone that views or holds it as being a fundamental and necessary part of salvation. Viewed strictly from a sense knowledge perspective, I really do get how or why people see and think of Jesus Christ as being God, and I don't fault them for it. He is, after all, the visible image of God. But from a more spiritual perspective, I see and think of him as being distinctly different from God. So, I think of it as all boiling down to the perspective he's viewed from.
Might another very significant question to ask be related to what people believed and did before Christianity, and before Judiasm?
That is, why are we parsing the difference between trinitarianism and JCING anyway?
That is, why are we parsing the difference between trinitarianism and JCING anyway?
probably largely because of this:
Many Christians (not all, but it's likely a majority), and most denominations of Christianity incorporate it (in some form or fashion) as an essential part of church doctrine, and to a somewhat lessor extent, an essential part of salvation. (Or else you might, as I've heard it put, "have the wrong Jesus.") So, there certainly can be - and is at times - a very "caring" aspect to it.
Many Christians (not all, but it's likely a majority), and most denominations of Christianity incorporate it (in some form or fashion) as an essential part of church doctrine, and to a somewhat lessor extent, an essential part of salvation. (Or else you might, as I've heard it put, "have the wrong Jesus.") So, there certainly can be - and is at times - a very "caring" aspect to it.
. . .
You put the "caring" in quotes, not sure why.
I remember in TWI it was said if you can SIT you are born again and that can never be taken away.
So constant searching for just the right, correct doctrine is liking digging for gold in a gold rush. It's motivated by greed and a lot folks end up with less than they started with?
Because I was quoting you. Did you forget that you had asked me a question?
My understanding is that this would have happened thousands of years ago. So today, who cares? That was a long time ago.
The following, however, is another matter entirely, discussed elsewhere:
I remember in TWI it was said if you can SIT you are born again and that can never be taken away.
And this makes no sense at all to me:
So constant searching for just the right, correct doctrine is liking digging for gold in a gold rush. It's motivated by greed and a lot folks end up with less than they started with?
Okay, let's try this (related) question. When did Jesus START being God?
From a historical writing standpoint, that is. I get that the bible says he was with God in the beginning. But there was a time before any people at all believed that to be the case.
One thing that I never knew until I went back to school recently and took a class on it is that there are TWO doctrines of the Trinity, the economic doctrine and the ontological doctrine.
The economic doctrine of the Trinity simply says that everything we receive from God the Father we receive through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit, and everything we offer to God the Father we offer through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of the Holy Spirit. The economic Trinity is Gad as he has chosen to reveal himself to us. A person can pretty much take any passage from the Bible regarding the relationships between us, God, Jesus and the Spirit at face value.
The ontological doctrine of the Trinity is God as he is in himself. The first thing everybody says about the ontological Trinity is that it is ineffable, which means we can't say any effing thing about it. They then go on to produce volumes of information about something which cannot be talked about.
The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) attempted to settle all arguments about the relations between God and Jesus by saying that Jesus had two natures, one human and one divine, the two natures cannot be said to mix or mingle, and the two natures cannot be said to be divisible or separable. The decision of the Council didn't say what the relationship was... it just said you can't argue about it. Since then, Christianity has managed to maintain what little unity it has by singing the doxology without examining too closely the meaning of the words being sung.
Wierwille screwed up our understandings of the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit by teaching that Jesus is out of the loop, seated at God's right hand, and everything we receive from God we receive either through the vending machine of our believing or through the man of God of the world for this our day and time. The holy spirit is little seed that God plants in each one of us which we have to feed and water by speaking in tongues.
Jesus is and always has been the Head of his body! When Wierwille taught that PFAL was the Word as it had not been known since the first century, he was denying that the Lord Jesus has had a hand in anything that's been going on for the last 2,000 years, and that just ain't so.
Love,
Steve
Thanks Steve - that's some good insight in my opinion; where you nailed it on VP i marked in bold red; and that first part about the economic & ontological doctrines is something i want to think about some more; i think you've shared stuff along those lines in doctrinal too - thanks for your input;
two thoughts from PFAL keep running thru my mind right now "tell me what you think of Jesus and i'll tell you how far you're going to go spiritually" ....and ..."the word takes the place of the absent Christ."....in PFAL class it's like Jesus was just some window dressing in a store front display window - advertising Jesus is sold here - but you get inside and like bait and switch - VP sells you on the word (or rather the words of VP) takes the place of the absent Christ.
In TWI God is something that can be understood, explained, is predictable and therefore controllable. In TWI there's only one point of view, one personality, to see reality from (although they gave lip-service to the idea of more.)
The Trinity is something less certain, less concrete, requires acceptance without understanding, or multiple views to even begin to explain. (Too complicated, not easy to explain, and uncontrollable, therefore do not accept it.)
JMO.
Bolshevik i should have mentioned this before (but i side-tracked myself when i started posting) - anyway - i think you made a very interesting point here; Ezekiel 14:3 talks about leaders who set up idols in their hearts....the way PFAL was sold - it held the promise of answering all your questions about life, about God or anything that mattered. PFAL appealed to folks wanting to make sense of it all....a one stop, all of life's mysteries revealed shop.
Hi T-Bone,
I've read elsewhere on GSC, a number of posters have said something to this effect . . . my understanding being that VPW, starting with the Christian faith as his initial framework, needed to push Jesus and the role he filled aside . . . creating a void for someone VPW had in mind to conveniently fill. This was a way to sidestep compassion, empathy, and other items which certain individuals may have been lacking already.
You're saying it's not an argument of identity (Trinity V. non-Trinity), that's a red herring. It's about roles to play?
maybe there was somewhat of a red herring device in VP's anti-Trinity doctrine that was misleading or distracting... perhaps more of a sales ploy to differentiate himself from mainstream Christianity;..... just a goofy thought here - VP had to have realized he'd step on a lot of toes / turn people off with his JCING teaching - but was he hoping it would galvanize those who already thought he was the man of god for this day and time and hour...
....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.
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.
Bigger than it should have been, no doubt. But I actually think a much better (and more significant) question to ask (at least, doctrinally speaking) should be, "When did Jesus become more like God?" Because I think of lot of the confusion over who he is stems from a failure to see or account for the change that occurred with his resurrection.
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 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."
================
It's obvious, reading vpw's really old stuff, that vpw was teaching the Trinity
for some time. He was doing it long after his supposed 1943 promise which supposedly
began twi (despite him working full-time at his church for several years following
and not using "The Way" publickly for anything), and it seems he was using it
all the way into the end of the 1960s, because he was claiming that when he
suborned part of the House of Acts and hijacked the hippies. His taped version
of pfal included that as well- end of the 1960s.
As one poster pointed out, it was THE SUMMER OF 1970 when vpw started teaching this,
because it was the Summer School of 1970 where vpw began to dwell on this, and
speculate that Bullinger wasn't REALLY a Trinitarian, and so on- and research
and writings followed that chronologically. So, in-house, vpw began teaching it
that Summer, with more things to follow.
Separate questions would include WHY he taught it, and what he meant to accomplish-
with several answers all possibly being true at the same time, and some possibly
being added as time went on and he discovered possible further benefits
(i.e., hey, I can grab new converts among young people who actually disapprove of
the Trinity doctrine.)
==============================
A separate question was also raised:
"When did Jesus START being God?
From a historical writing standpoint, that is. I get that the bible says he was with God in the beginning. But there was a time before any people at all believed that to be the case."
That was clarified right there- when, HISTORICALLY, did people start to teach that.
I can SPECULATE as to where, when and why.
The following is pure speculations and ruminations on my part, and if you don't like them, feel free to
ignore them.
I've noticed that human nature has not changed through all of history. People NOW think of themselves as
more enlightened than previous centuries and millenia- while making new variations of the same old
mistakes they would criticize of others from long ago. Among the RELEVANT issues that touch the current
discussion is a tendency to INFLATE CLAIMS to match the Joneses, or to top the Joneses.
I think there's a rather ham-handed and awkward instertion into the account of the moment of Jesus'
death in Matthew. The text moves smoothly through the present, and remains consistent in doctrine,
all until the earthquake. Then we suddenly have 2 verses saying that saints' graves opened up, the saints
got up alive, and over the course of the next few days, a bunch of people saw them. Then we jump back
to the moment of the crucifixion and an eyewitness account of a number of things. The idea of ONE guy
out of his grave really is a big deal in the Gospels among the religious authority and the people.
NOBODY later even MENTIONS that "MANY" saw a BUNCH of people were out of their graves a few days BEFORE
that happened. (The idea of Jesus as the "first-fruits" from the dead, among other things, is all
flagrantly violated by these 2 verses that are NEVER mentioned again.) Neither those who believe, nor
those who don't know what to believe, nor those suppressing the accounts of Jesus' resurrection,
ever bring it up, not from any perspective-and we know from Acts that a LOT of things were a big deal,
and healing a blind man was a big scandal when Jesus did it.
Ok, so, WHY in the world was such a ham-handed insertion done?
That goes back to the contents, and a little knowledge of history- and keeping up with the Joneses.
The added parts were of the dead wandering the streets and lots of people seeing them.
WHY insert such an account? To keep up with the Joneses - or to top the Joneses.
It's not beyond conception to see some early Christians MEANING WELL and hoping to TOP the religions
of the time, even if it meant fudging something. In this case, what would they try to top?
The Roman state religion. In addition to all the gods of the people- many of them Greek gods that
were carried over to Rome, renamed, and worshipped afterwards, Rome had their own thing where
THE EMPEROR WAS WORSHIPPED AS A GOD- coincidentally, by order of the Emperor. So, every emperor
once that was established was seen to be both god and man-and was worshipped. We also can find
that Julius Caesar's assassination was seen as a big deal by some Romans, and that later accounts
of his assassination included claims that it was signaled by comet activity (traditional signaler
of an ill omen) as well as THE DEAD RISING FROM THEIR GRAVES, wandering around in their
graveclothes. (This was such a well-known report that it was taught in schools in England a millenium
later. We know THAT because a student in those schools-William Shakespeare- later used what he learned
in school in writing his plays- and this particular story was incorporated into his writing of the
text of the play "HAMLET."
I think the WHY of "why did Jesus START being God" is related both to this phenomenon, and to the
audience who received it and dropped their own preconceived notions, whether or not they were there
in the first place. This is ALSO human nature.
Anecdote: The English word "changeling" has at least 2 usages that continue to the modern day.
One is to refer to a shapechanger, something that can change its physical form
(like Constable Odo of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and other characters that can suddenly
become an animal and so on.) A different one is that of a baby who was exchanged in its
cradle- kidnapped by faeries who left a faerie in its place so the parents wouldn't know their
baby was kidnapped. (I can provide links for those, if anyone cares and can't find them
for themselves.) Both usages are common-if you're talking to the right audience, they can
all know exactly what you mean for one or the other.
I bring this up because the word for the faerie-folk definition was used in a game which
referred to (fictional) people who were part-human, part-faerie. Yes, yet another definition,
but based on the folklore version of faeries. The characters can be played in their own
stories, or interact with other stories in a shared setting- modern vampires, modern
werewolves, modern ghosts, etc. I was explaining the shared setting to someone some time
ago. He listened to me through a few seconds of describing the vampires and werewolves,
but was disinterested in hearing a few seconds of the "faerie changelings" (the term I
used). He interrupted me- insisting that he already knew what a "changeling" was and didn't
need a description of them for the game. So, I insisted HE describe them to ME.
Rather than a description of a faerie left in a crib, he began describing shapeshifters
(using the Star Trek example, as both the term and the show were current.)
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.
How does this affect the beliefs of the early Christians and their converts?
Well, both BEFORE and AFTER Constantine made Christianity the state religion, there were
plenty of Greeks and Romans who came along with Greek and Roman religious ideas.
So, the Jews who followed the Torah for centuries had some notions, and the Christian Church
that came later often had notions that clashed with them greatly- not in the sense of
"this was fulfilled" but in the sense of "this was never true".
There were Greco-Roman concepts of the dead persisting, semi-conscious, as shades in the
land of the dead, and humans that became gods, and humans that were part-god,
and so on. Let those people loose on a doctrine that says the opposite of what they say,
and eventually SOME of them will insist it says exactly what they were used to.
That's independent of Constantine's very deliberate attempts to merge Christianity with
the Roman style of living by inserting all sort of connections he could manage.
Human nature would do that- but he made it official and sped up the process considerably.
==============================
All of that goes to say, there were people who taught some of these things in ignorance
because they never bothered to correct their own preconceived notions. There were people
who felt themselves in competition with Greek and Roman religions, and felt the need to
top them even if it meant lying, and there were those who merged the religions for
political advantage or because they were ordered to by those who sought political
advantage. Looking back from now, I can't unsnarl exactly who was responsible for
which. Perhaps some scholar with better resources and the skills to read the
Latin and Greek of the time could do so, but I really don't care enough to pin
down things more finely than that, certainly not so many centuries later.
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
Human without the bean
Thanks Mod Cat5. I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not necessarily what most folks already believed, but because it was/is essentially impossible to understand the Trinitarian doctrine.
Well, it simply made so much more sense.
I agree. It's not that hard to overlook (once you decide to.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yup. An important point worth putting in bold letters, and repeating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Just going off of what I heard quite often (That folks claim they never believed in the Trinity). I will easily believe that a lot of people said that just to fit in with the group.
Is there a reason that the Trinity needs to be understood?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Bigger than it should have been, no doubt. But I actually think a much better (and more significant) question to ask (at least, doctrinally speaking) should be, "When did Jesus become more like God?" Because I think of lot of the confusion over who he is stems from a failure to see or account for the change that occurred with his resurrection.
Honestly speaking, I don't think it can be understood. Matter of fact, I'm inclined to think it may have been intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia of the day to suppress and subject (to their control) any and all folk deemed to be of "lessor intellectual ability."
edit:
To clarify my perspective, I do not believe in the Trinity. However, by and large, even though certain things are rather clear in my own understanding of the issue, I now mostly avoid discussions or debates on the issue - especially with anyone that views or holds it as being a fundamental and necessary part of salvation. Viewed strictly from a sense knowledge perspective, I really do get how or why people see and think of Jesus Christ as being God, and I don't fault them for it. He is, after all, the visible image of God. But from a more spiritual perspective, I see and think of him as being distinctly different from God. So, I think of it as all boiling down to the perspective he's viewed from.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I wasn't looking for whether or not The Trinity can be understood. I was asking why it should be understood. Accepting something doesn't mean anyone anywhere understands the matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Okay, then maybe this will better communicate what I think. Given that I suspect that it was intentionally devised and propounded by the intelligentsia (for reasons stated in the previous post), I not only see no other sane or sensible reason for it (or for trying to understand it), I also can't find any real reason or benefit to accept it (or, as some might say, try to believe it.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think motives in this case are more telling than reasoning. I'm atheist, so I don't care whether the Christion God is Jesus or a Lizard. You're very clear on your view that The Trinity was devised as part of some greater conspiracy theory, as opposed to maybe a joke by the ruling class on the plebes. My understanding is that this would have happened thousands of years ago. So today, who cares? That was a long time ago.
It is also my understanding that VPW went against the grain in adopting a non-Trinitarian view. So, in leaving TWI, and remaining a Christian, wouldn't there be a benefit to adopting The Trinity? You'll connect easier with billions of people. Unless maybe that's not a motive to be considered?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Many Christians (not all, but it's likely a majority), and most denominations of Christianity incorporate it (in some form or fashion) as an essential part of church doctrine, and to a somewhat lessor extent, an essential part of salvation. (Or else you might, as I've heard it put, "have the wrong Jesus.") So, there certainly can be - and is at times - a very "caring" aspect to it.
Well, that's sure not the kind of "benefit" I would categorize as being a genuine or godly benefit. And if that's not a "compromise the truth just to fit in" with the masses of other people proposition, I don't know what is. Aren't you familiar with these scriptures from Matthew 7?
[13] Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there at:
[14] Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Sometimes the arguments for or against Jesus being God hit me as a litmus test by one side or the other to determine who is a genuine Christian. I get the thing about concerns over heresy and a counterfeit Jesus – but I often wonder if there is a possible practical aspect to keeping a certain "duality" of Jesus in mind; where he is both Lord and Savior.
In Phil.2:6 & 10 it speaks of Jesus being in the form of God but he did not regard being equal with God as something to be asserted, but humbles himself and became a servant; therefore God exalted him so that at Jesus' name every knee should bow. We also find out in Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus is not like some elite high priest who holds himself far above the congregation as one out of touch with the rest of us puny humans, unable to empathize with our weaknesses – but he was tempted just like we are.
I think the duality of Jesus being a servant, being human, and now is exalted – has significant relevance to the Christian; we acknowledge the absolute authority of his lordship, his words, his example but we also can look to him when we are weak and falter and in confidence draw near to the throne of grace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Hi T-Bone,
I've read elsewhere on GSC, a number of posters have said something to this effect . . . my understanding being that VPW, starting with the Christian faith as his initial framework, needed to push Jesus and the role he filled aside . . . creating a void for someone VPW had in mind to conveniently fill. This was a way to sidestep compassion, empathy, and other items which certain individuals may have been lacking already.
You're saying it's not an argument of identity (Trinity V. non-Trinity), that's a red herring. It's about roles to play?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Might another very significant question to ask be related to what people believed and did before Christianity, and before Judiasm?
That is, why are we parsing the difference between trinitarianism and JCING anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
probably largely because of this:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You put the "caring" in quotes, not sure why.
I remember in TWI it was said if you can SIT you are born again and that can never be taken away.
So constant searching for just the right, correct doctrine is liking digging for gold in a gold rush. It's motivated by greed and a lot folks end up with less than they started with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Because I was quoting you. Did you forget that you had asked me a question?
The following, however, is another matter entirely, discussed elsewhere:
And this makes no sense at all to me:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Okay, let's try this (related) question. When did Jesus START being God?
From a historical writing standpoint, that is. I get that the bible says he was with God in the beginning. But there was a time before any people at all believed that to be the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
ha! . . . okay we'll try and slow it down a bit.
1. Victor Paul Wierwille had a purpose for writing Jesus Christ is Not God and making it a central TWI doctrine.
2. Those reasons were for evil.
3. Ex-Wayfers can't seem to let that doctrine go. 3b. Many of those who have let the doctrine go can admit it was one of the bigger hurdles.
4. A lot of folks create excuses for clinging to that doctrine. 4b. Usually they use a lot of deflective tactics.
5. That is interesting . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, you omitted a word. (Intentionally, I suppose.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks Steve - that's some good insight in my opinion; where you nailed it on VP i marked in bold red; and that first part about the economic & ontological doctrines is something i want to think about some more; i think you've shared stuff along those lines in doctrinal too - thanks for your input;
two thoughts from PFAL keep running thru my mind right now "tell me what you think of Jesus and i'll tell you how far you're going to go spiritually" ....and ..."the word takes the place of the absent Christ."....in PFAL class it's like Jesus was just some window dressing in a store front display window - advertising Jesus is sold here - but you get inside and like bait and switch - VP sells you on the word (or rather the words of VP) takes the place of the absent Christ.
Bolshevik i should have mentioned this before (but i side-tracked myself
when i started posting) - anyway - i think you made a very interesting point here; Ezekiel 14:3 talks about leaders who set up idols in their hearts....the way PFAL was sold - it held the promise of answering all your questions about life, about God or anything that mattered. PFAL appealed to folks wanting to make sense of it all....a one stop, all of life's mysteries revealed shop.
maybe there was somewhat of a red herring device in VP's anti-Trinity doctrine that was misleading or distracting... perhaps more of a sales ploy to differentiate himself from mainstream Christianity;..... just a goofy thought here - VP had to have realized he'd step on a lot of toes / turn people off with his JCING teaching - but was he hoping it would galvanize those who already thought he was the man of god for this day and time and hour...
....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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Which word would you have preferred be inserted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
And that's the very part I chose to disagree with. Imagine that!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
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.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
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."
================
It's obvious, reading vpw's really old stuff, that vpw was teaching the Trinity
for some time. He was doing it long after his supposed 1943 promise which supposedly
began twi (despite him working full-time at his church for several years following
and not using "The Way" publickly for anything), and it seems he was using it
all the way into the end of the 1960s, because he was claiming that when he
suborned part of the House of Acts and hijacked the hippies. His taped version
of pfal included that as well- end of the 1960s.
As one poster pointed out, it was THE SUMMER OF 1970 when vpw started teaching this,
because it was the Summer School of 1970 where vpw began to dwell on this, and
speculate that Bullinger wasn't REALLY a Trinitarian, and so on- and research
and writings followed that chronologically. So, in-house, vpw began teaching it
that Summer, with more things to follow.
Separate questions would include WHY he taught it, and what he meant to accomplish-
with several answers all possibly being true at the same time, and some possibly
being added as time went on and he discovered possible further benefits
(i.e., hey, I can grab new converts among young people who actually disapprove of
the Trinity doctrine.)
==============================
A separate question was also raised:
"When did Jesus START being God?
From a historical writing standpoint, that is. I get that the bible says he was with God in the beginning. But there was a time before any people at all believed that to be the case."
That was clarified right there- when, HISTORICALLY, did people start to teach that.
I can SPECULATE as to where, when and why.
The following is pure speculations and ruminations on my part, and if you don't like them, feel free to
ignore them.
I've noticed that human nature has not changed through all of history. People NOW think of themselves as
more enlightened than previous centuries and millenia- while making new variations of the same old
mistakes they would criticize of others from long ago. Among the RELEVANT issues that touch the current
discussion is a tendency to INFLATE CLAIMS to match the Joneses, or to top the Joneses.
I think there's a rather ham-handed and awkward instertion into the account of the moment of Jesus'
death in Matthew. The text moves smoothly through the present, and remains consistent in doctrine,
all until the earthquake. Then we suddenly have 2 verses saying that saints' graves opened up, the saints
got up alive, and over the course of the next few days, a bunch of people saw them. Then we jump back
to the moment of the crucifixion and an eyewitness account of a number of things. The idea of ONE guy
out of his grave really is a big deal in the Gospels among the religious authority and the people.
NOBODY later even MENTIONS that "MANY" saw a BUNCH of people were out of their graves a few days BEFORE
that happened. (The idea of Jesus as the "first-fruits" from the dead, among other things, is all
flagrantly violated by these 2 verses that are NEVER mentioned again.) Neither those who believe, nor
those who don't know what to believe, nor those suppressing the accounts of Jesus' resurrection,
ever bring it up, not from any perspective-and we know from Acts that a LOT of things were a big deal,
and healing a blind man was a big scandal when Jesus did it.
Ok, so, WHY in the world was such a ham-handed insertion done?
That goes back to the contents, and a little knowledge of history- and keeping up with the Joneses.
The added parts were of the dead wandering the streets and lots of people seeing them.
WHY insert such an account? To keep up with the Joneses - or to top the Joneses.
It's not beyond conception to see some early Christians MEANING WELL and hoping to TOP the religions
of the time, even if it meant fudging something. In this case, what would they try to top?
The Roman state religion. In addition to all the gods of the people- many of them Greek gods that
were carried over to Rome, renamed, and worshipped afterwards, Rome had their own thing where
THE EMPEROR WAS WORSHIPPED AS A GOD- coincidentally, by order of the Emperor. So, every emperor
once that was established was seen to be both god and man-and was worshipped. We also can find
that Julius Caesar's assassination was seen as a big deal by some Romans, and that later accounts
of his assassination included claims that it was signaled by comet activity (traditional signaler
of an ill omen) as well as THE DEAD RISING FROM THEIR GRAVES, wandering around in their
graveclothes. (This was such a well-known report that it was taught in schools in England a millenium
later. We know THAT because a student in those schools-William Shakespeare- later used what he learned
in school in writing his plays- and this particular story was incorporated into his writing of the
text of the play "HAMLET."
I think the WHY of "why did Jesus START being God" is related both to this phenomenon, and to the
audience who received it and dropped their own preconceived notions, whether or not they were there
in the first place. This is ALSO human nature.
Anecdote: The English word "changeling" has at least 2 usages that continue to the modern day.
One is to refer to a shapechanger, something that can change its physical form
(like Constable Odo of Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and other characters that can suddenly
become an animal and so on.) A different one is that of a baby who was exchanged in its
cradle- kidnapped by faeries who left a faerie in its place so the parents wouldn't know their
baby was kidnapped. (I can provide links for those, if anyone cares and can't find them
for themselves.) Both usages are common-if you're talking to the right audience, they can
all know exactly what you mean for one or the other.
I bring this up because the word for the faerie-folk definition was used in a game which
referred to (fictional) people who were part-human, part-faerie. Yes, yet another definition,
but based on the folklore version of faeries. The characters can be played in their own
stories, or interact with other stories in a shared setting- modern vampires, modern
werewolves, modern ghosts, etc. I was explaining the shared setting to someone some time
ago. He listened to me through a few seconds of describing the vampires and werewolves,
but was disinterested in hearing a few seconds of the "faerie changelings" (the term I
used). He interrupted me- insisting that he already knew what a "changeling" was and didn't
need a description of them for the game. So, I insisted HE describe them to ME.
Rather than a description of a faerie left in a crib, he began describing shapeshifters
(using the Star Trek example, as both the term and the show were current.)
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.
How does this affect the beliefs of the early Christians and their converts?
Well, both BEFORE and AFTER Constantine made Christianity the state religion, there were
plenty of Greeks and Romans who came along with Greek and Roman religious ideas.
So, the Jews who followed the Torah for centuries had some notions, and the Christian Church
that came later often had notions that clashed with them greatly- not in the sense of
"this was fulfilled" but in the sense of "this was never true".
There were Greco-Roman concepts of the dead persisting, semi-conscious, as shades in the
land of the dead, and humans that became gods, and humans that were part-god,
and so on. Let those people loose on a doctrine that says the opposite of what they say,
and eventually SOME of them will insist it says exactly what they were used to.
That's independent of Constantine's very deliberate attempts to merge Christianity with
the Roman style of living by inserting all sort of connections he could manage.
Human nature would do that- but he made it official and sped up the process considerably.
==============================
All of that goes to say, there were people who taught some of these things in ignorance
because they never bothered to correct their own preconceived notions. There were people
who felt themselves in competition with Greek and Roman religions, and felt the need to
top them even if it meant lying, and there were those who merged the religions for
political advantage or because they were ordered to by those who sought political
advantage. Looking back from now, I can't unsnarl exactly who was responsible for
which. Perhaps some scholar with better resources and the skills to read the
Latin and Greek of the time could do so, but I really don't care enough to pin
down things more finely than that, certainly not so many centuries later.
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.