I get what you're saying. I ask myself why all these christian denominations? Perhaps because of man's ego ultimately?
I remember when my friend (a humble young lady) encouraged me to take the RCIA class (the Rite of Christian Initiation for adults in the Roman Catholic Church) as sort of a 'beginning my journey back to the RC church', she told me in passing that she wished Luther had stayed in the RC church. I've been thinking about that for years and agree with that. As the story goes, he couldn't because he was very focused and dogmatic on what he perceived as RC errors in doctrine and practice that he believed cost people time, money and maybe even their own salvation. He could have stayed and ministered to his flock and encourage change privately and individually, and eat some crow in the process. Had he done that, I certainly do not think it would have cost him his eternal salvation. What do you think?
Luther wasn't the only reformer although I imagine that's not what Catholics call them. Heretics? Idk.
Of course, before that were the Anabaptists and I don't know who else.
I don't personally feel a need for all Christians to be gathered together in this way. My personal pursuit is Acts-type Christianity with miracles and "revival"...outreach...conversions...
I want to be a part of the body of Christ really getting it right and welcoming anyone who wants to come along.
There is much I could say along these lines but the potential to experience Jesus in our day, in this day...I won't try to say anymore about all Ive seen and heard. I've talked about it some already. Real, living, powerful(!?), supernatural, Azusa Street Christianity... Yeah, that's where it's going.
I'm listening to the audio tape about William Barlow again and around the 19:00 mark, he talks about vpw's book "Jesus Christ is Not God" and how bad the explanation of John 1:1 was. He went on to list others who had researched both for and against the trinity doctrine and ended up writing a manuscript called "The Only True God." This was before he went into the corps.
(Barlow tried to submit the ms through twi's process of doing research but it was rejected; sent it a year later to a former fellowship coordinator that he was still friends with who sent it off to the Ohio State coordinator who reproved Barlow for not following proper procedure [which he had actually done the year before] and yelled at him for an hour, calling him arrogant for thinking he knew more than "dr." w. The SC also said he wanted to talk about the ms with Barlow's branch coordinator first before discussing it with him. What eventually happened with the ms wasn't mentioned at this part of the tape.)
Anyway, I'm wondering if there was ever an update done to JCING to improve vp's book. I know John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark H. Graeser wrote their own book called "One God and One Lord " which is 650 pages and is FAR better than JCING. I doubt very much twi is making that book available in their bookstore.
So if twi is still sticking with this one original book on the topic of the trinity, it shows either laziness on their part to improve/update it and/or some need to keep vpw front and centre. Either way, way followers are missing out on what others have learned on this topic - so much for them being a research ministry.
I'm listening to the audio tape about William Barlow again and around the 19:00 mark, he talks about vpw's book "Jesus Christ is Not God" and how bad the explanation of John 1:1 was. He went on to list others who had researched both for and against the trinity doctrine and ended up writing a manuscript called "The Only True God." This was before he went into the corps.
(Barlow tried to submit the ms through twi's process of doing research but it was rejected; sent it a year later to a former fellowship coordinator that he was still friends with who sent it off to the Ohio State coordinator who reproved Barlow for not following proper procedure [which he had actually done the year before] and yelled at him for an hour, calling him arrogant for thinking he knew more than "dr." w. The SC also said he wanted to talk about the ms with Barlow's branch coordinator first before discussing it with him. What eventually happened with the ms wasn't mentioned at this part of the tape.)
Anyway, I'm wondering if there was ever an update done to JCING to improve vp's book. I know John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark H. Graeser wrote their own book called "One God and One Lord " which is 650 pages and is FAR better than JCING. I doubt very much twi is making that book available in their bookstore.
So if twi is still sticking with this one original book on the topic of the trinity, it shows either laziness on their part to improve/update it and/or some need to keep vpw front and centre. Either way, way followers are missing out on what others have learned on this topic - so much for them being a research ministry.
Some of THE best teachings I've heard on these subjects were by men after they had left twi...Wayne Clapp's 'Hell is not a place of eternal torment' and John Nessles 'Who is this Jesus Christ' were/are absolutely skillful' brilliant, impactful....
Outside of TWI, I would recommend Anthony Buzzard's book "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound."
While my overall mindset has changed and I no longer believe scripture speaks with one voice on this issue, I think Buzzard presented a strong case for the view Wierwille tried to espouse.
By the way, if you're interested in that kind of thing, Dan McClellan has a number of videos where he tears the Trinity to shreds as a Biblical concept. McClellan is a Mormon and a Bible scholar who appears to be quite honest about history (for example, he dismisses a lot of the claims the LDS church makes about Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the golden plates, etc. He has repeatedly called the story of Mormonism's founding "ahistorical" and admitted the data do not support the Book of Mormon's history of the Western hemisphere. I bring all this up to say just because he's a Mormon doesn't mean he's being dishonest with the history of the church).
Outside of TWI, I would recommend Anthony Buzzard's book "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound."
While my overall mindset has changed and I no longer believe scripture speaks with one voice on this issue, I think Buzzard presented a strong case for the view Wierwille tried to espouse.
Outside of TWI, I would recommend Anthony Buzzard's book "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound."
While my overall mindset has changed and I no longer believe scripture speaks with one voice on this issue, I think Buzzard presented a strong case for the view Wierwille tried to espouse.
Thx Raf just ordered it from Amazon... looking forward...
Well, I did reference his best days and in PFAL, he couldn't do enough to emphasize the Word and not Time, Look or Life.
This would be a great topic to explore. If he got off the Word and made it exclusively about his teaching of the Word, when did that turn take place?
As I mentioned, another church doing the same thing this morning. Probably a pattern problem
Before you ever heard of him.
It comes as a shock to a lot of people when they see many of the details that were kept out of the public eye. (It certainly was a shock to me, long ago!)
According to vpw's own account, before he went into the ministry/church work, he considered a few different careers- business, entertainment, and ministry. He decided on ministry. (No, it wasn't a calling.) One of the more shocking things, for me, was right in "the Way- Living in Love." That was when vpw admitted that he had gone to divinity school, had been assigned a congregation, and had been giving weekly sermons FOR ABOUT A YEAR... BEFORE EVER BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD. Furthermore, in his first 2 years as a pastor, he TWICE considered just giving up. Ever hear how he spoke about OTHER people who thought about giving up? He said they weren't worthy to be Christians.
It continues from there. He made decisions consistently purely on the financial sense. When he heard about BG Leonard's class, he contacted Leonard, who told him a class was already in progress, and to contact him after it ended. vpw immediately traveled to where he was teaching the class, and demanded to be allowed to join the current one. He retook it a few months later. Then vpw asked for permission to teach Leonard's class on "the Gifts of the Spirit" on a one-time basis, locally. Leonard agreed. A few months later, Leonard received a photo of the grads of "his" class, and was told it went well. The end. As for vpw, when he began the class, he told all the students it was his OWN class on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." After that, vpw continued to teach Leonard's class, calling it his own. He continued to change it, and called it PFAL. He added a lot of material from Bullinger, primarily from "How to Enjoy the Bible."
vpw also took Stiles' book on "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" and repackaged it as the White Book, "Recieving the Holy Spirit Today." Later editions of the book include a changed introduction- with the change making it sound like it was all a book that was the result of vpw and God and nobody else's work- but the earlier editions mentioned an anonymous man vpw found eventually who could teach him this subject. That man was Stiles- who taught him face to face, and whose book vpw ripped off entirely. BTW, the reason the definitions of the manifestations sound so cumbersome is that vpw kept changing them to make them sound different from Leonard's, but never changed them to reflect a deeper understanding of them, or even a clearer explanation.
The little group grew very slowly. When vpw heard about the House of Acts Christians, he rushed over there. He performed his full act, and managed to convince many of the kids there that himself was some great one. He took a new, vibrant movement of God's people and strangled it, diverting many of the early people into becoming the sales force for twi. Many of them taught new people, who taught other new people. This was an unintended consequence- they were just supposed to sell people on pfal and twig and tithing. Ever have a really blessed time at twi? That was the accidental result of those people teaching others, and those people teaching still others.
WHEN THE CAMERAS WERE ON, vpw was a humble man who didn't care about his own name, and was entirely about God's Word. WHEN THE CAMERAS WERE OFF, it was either his way or the highway. He kicked out an entire year of the corps, then the next day allowed them to rejoin- if they'd swear allegiance to him personally. He considered twi his personal piggy bank, and its belonging as his own belongings.
So, he never GOT ON The Word. What he "got on" was making a display of being about The Word.
What's the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Anyone should be able to tell you. Someone who is sincere means what they say, and someone who is insincere does not mean what they say. So, a man intentionally selling shoddy material, and knowing it is shoddy, can make an impassioned diatribe about how fine the products are- but he would not be SINCERE. He would be FAKING by making a FALSE DISPLAY resembling sincerity.
vpw spoke a number of times on what sincerity was, including from the ROA main stage, where the microphones recorded him for posterity. He said that the man who tries to sell you a toothbrush with only one bristle on it has to be REALLY sincere.
Why do I make a point of this? it's simple once you look at it.
To vpw, for him to be "sincere" was a matter of THE APPEARANCE of sincerity, and NOT THE REALITY of sincerity, NO SUBSTANCE to his "sincerity."
vpw carried on, in effect, as 2 people. When in private, he was a petty, venal, greedy man, an alcoholic, a plagiarist, a molester and a rapist. (And so on.) When he was in public, he stepped into character as if he was performing on stage. When the cameras were on, he was a humble servant of God, who cared only about what God cared about, and knew that a man should neither molest nor rape women. (It was IMPLIED in CFS.)
That's why the real vpw made it mandatory for all pfal students to begin by studying the booklet on why they should tithe, and came up with "abundant sharing" and pushed that a lot, and why he was unique in all of Christendom and came up with "plurality giving", which was his term and concept- where you figure out exactly what you need for day-to-day living, and donate ALL THE REST OF YOUR MONEY to twi. No saving, no investing, no putting aside to buy newer or nicer things.
vpw never "turned from" a humble, dedicated service to God because he never began on that path. He began by looking for a career with the least work and the most possible benefit that he could manage. From there, he used people and used up people, and found financial and temporal benefits in doing so- at their expense. Perhaps there will be a place for him in the special hell- where they send child molesters and people who talk in the theater.
Does anyone know if vpw plagiarized someone's work for the Jesus Christ if Not God book?
To be bluntly honest, out of all the books carrying vpw's name, that one was so shoddy I would expect it to be the one most written by him, and least written by others. I think he may have used some basic reference books in the beginning, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but that seemed to be it.
JCOP and JCOPS were well-written- and were done by the research department. vpw came along later, added the intros, and put his name on the covers. The Studies in Abundant Living were basically typewritten sermons- transcripts of some teachings he did, later edited as well. Those read like sermons. (Some of their content was obviously plagiarized, also.) The Orange Book and the White Book had contents directly taken from Leonard, Stiles and Bullinger, mixed and matched a bit here and there. But JCING was almost a vanity project. (He left signed copies at church doors once.)
You and George Carlin! I still laugh hysterically while listening to "Class Clown".
"...it's not even a sin to eat meat on Fridays anymore..... but I bet there's still guys in hell on a meat rap! 'I thought it was retro-active! I ate a baloney sandwich. This guy had a beef jerky.' How'd you like to do Eternity for a beef jerky?"
To be bluntly honest, out of all the books carrying vpw's name, that one was so shoddy I would expect it to be the one most written by him
This.
I was raised with a unitarian theology - not the denomination. It was not reactionary doctrine. It was never anti-trinitarian. There was no axe to grind. It was just obvious for plenty of reasons.
I didn't think the idea radical. I didn't need to be sold, but was reproved and corrected anyway for not being meek, for thinking I already knew something when how else could I learn unless I was taught!
Exhausting.
I couldn't even get through all of JCING, it was so weak, so embarrassing, so cringe.
WW glanced by a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating.
I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart. In tribute to Mike's thesis about how Wierwille hid great truths in plain sight and we all missed it: He declared himself to be all but atheist after studying the Bible. He no longer believed the words Holy or Bible on the cover (which is grammatically and rhetorically stupid, but you get his point). Being educated about the Bible cause him to all but lose his faith. He said so!
What if he never regained it?
Bear with me: what if, from that moment forward, it was never about getting God and His Word right, but getting while the getting was good? He got money. He got adoration, He got fame (relative to most of us). He got attention. He got sex. He got power.
How much of what he did makes more sense if he didn't believe a word of it but knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted from them? Every time he discovered a niche, he exploited it. "This book is not some kind of Johnny come lately idea just to be iconoclastic..." [if someone has the correct wording, please let me know. I'll be happy to fix]. Oh it WASN'T? Because it was so shoddy I would think that you were selling a title rather than a book. You have a doctorate. You know how to present and defend a thesis (stop laughing, you in the back row. @#$%ing Snowball Pete).
But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started.
The funny thing is, it doesn't negate anything he taught. Just his motives. If McClellan and Ehrman are right, the first Christians really weren't Trinitarians. They weren't what Wierwille espoused either, though some were. Jehovah's Witnesses actually got it right, if McClellan and Ehrman are correct. But even that conclusion presupposes a unified message from the New Testament writers. And they weren't unified.
Here's the problem Wierwille exposed that a lot of Christianity still gets wrong. There WAS NO FIRST CENTURY CHURCH. There were first century churches. Tons of them. And they disagreed with each other about EVERYTHING.
Another topic for another time.
Bottom line, I'm increasingly coming to believe that Wierwille's rise and ministry can best be explained by the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever from the moment before he became relevant.
Recommended Posts
JoyfulSoul
Luther wasn't the only reformer although I imagine that's not what Catholics call them. Heretics? Idk.
Of course, before that were the Anabaptists and I don't know who else.
I don't personally feel a need for all Christians to be gathered together in this way. My personal pursuit is Acts-type Christianity with miracles and "revival"...outreach...conversions...
I want to be a part of the body of Christ really getting it right and welcoming anyone who wants to come along.
There is much I could say along these lines but the potential to experience Jesus in our day, in this day...I won't try to say anymore about all Ive seen and heard. I've talked about it some already. Real, living, powerful(!?), supernatural, Azusa Street Christianity... Yeah, that's where it's going.
Edited by JoyfulSoulLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I'm listening to the audio tape about William Barlow again and around the 19:00 mark, he talks about vpw's book "Jesus Christ is Not God" and how bad the explanation of John 1:1 was. He went on to list others who had researched both for and against the trinity doctrine and ended up writing a manuscript called "The Only True God." This was before he went into the corps.
(Barlow tried to submit the ms through twi's process of doing research but it was rejected; sent it a year later to a former fellowship coordinator that he was still friends with who sent it off to the Ohio State coordinator who reproved Barlow for not following proper procedure [which he had actually done the year before] and yelled at him for an hour, calling him arrogant for thinking he knew more than "dr." w. The SC also said he wanted to talk about the ms with Barlow's branch coordinator first before discussing it with him. What eventually happened with the ms wasn't mentioned at this part of the tape.)
Anyway, I'm wondering if there was ever an update done to JCING to improve vp's book. I know John Lynn, John Schoenheit and Mark H. Graeser wrote their own book called "One God and One Lord " which is 650 pages and is FAR better than JCING. I doubt very much twi is making that book available in their bookstore.
So if twi is still sticking with this one original book on the topic of the trinity, it shows either laziness on their part to improve/update it and/or some need to keep vpw front and centre. Either way, way followers are missing out on what others have learned on this topic - so much for them being a research ministry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Some of THE best teachings I've heard on these subjects were by men after they had left twi...Wayne Clapp's 'Hell is not a place of eternal torment' and John Nessles 'Who is this Jesus Christ' were/are absolutely skillful' brilliant, impactful....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Outside of TWI, I would recommend Anthony Buzzard's book "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound."
While my overall mindset has changed and I no longer believe scripture speaks with one voice on this issue, I think Buzzard presented a strong case for the view Wierwille tried to espouse.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, if you're interested in that kind of thing, Dan McClellan has a number of videos where he tears the Trinity to shreds as a Biblical concept. McClellan is a Mormon and a Bible scholar who appears to be quite honest about history (for example, he dismisses a lot of the claims the LDS church makes about Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the golden plates, etc. He has repeatedly called the story of Mormonism's founding "ahistorical" and admitted the data do not support the Book of Mormon's history of the Western hemisphere. I bring all this up to say just because he's a Mormon doesn't mean he's being dishonest with the history of the church).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joe Maslow
Awesome Book! JCING pales in comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Does anyone know if vpw plagiarized someone's work for the Jesus Christ if Not God book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not aware of any such allegation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thx Raf just ordered it from Amazon... looking forward...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Before you ever heard of him.
It comes as a shock to a lot of people when they see many of the details that were kept out of the public eye. (It certainly was a shock to me, long ago!)
According to vpw's own account, before he went into the ministry/church work, he considered a few different careers- business, entertainment, and ministry. He decided on ministry. (No, it wasn't a calling.) One of the more shocking things, for me, was right in "the Way- Living in Love." That was when vpw admitted that he had gone to divinity school, had been assigned a congregation, and had been giving weekly sermons FOR ABOUT A YEAR... BEFORE EVER BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD. Furthermore, in his first 2 years as a pastor, he TWICE considered just giving up. Ever hear how he spoke about OTHER people who thought about giving up? He said they weren't worthy to be Christians.
It continues from there. He made decisions consistently purely on the financial sense. When he heard about BG Leonard's class, he contacted Leonard, who told him a class was already in progress, and to contact him after it ended. vpw immediately traveled to where he was teaching the class, and demanded to be allowed to join the current one. He retook it a few months later. Then vpw asked for permission to teach Leonard's class on "the Gifts of the Spirit" on a one-time basis, locally. Leonard agreed. A few months later, Leonard received a photo of the grads of "his" class, and was told it went well. The end. As for vpw, when he began the class, he told all the students it was his OWN class on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." After that, vpw continued to teach Leonard's class, calling it his own. He continued to change it, and called it PFAL. He added a lot of material from Bullinger, primarily from "How to Enjoy the Bible."
vpw also took Stiles' book on "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" and repackaged it as the White Book, "Recieving the Holy Spirit Today." Later editions of the book include a changed introduction- with the change making it sound like it was all a book that was the result of vpw and God and nobody else's work- but the earlier editions mentioned an anonymous man vpw found eventually who could teach him this subject. That man was Stiles- who taught him face to face, and whose book vpw ripped off entirely. BTW, the reason the definitions of the manifestations sound so cumbersome is that vpw kept changing them to make them sound different from Leonard's, but never changed them to reflect a deeper understanding of them, or even a clearer explanation.
The little group grew very slowly. When vpw heard about the House of Acts Christians, he rushed over there. He performed his full act, and managed to convince many of the kids there that himself was some great one. He took a new, vibrant movement of God's people and strangled it, diverting many of the early people into becoming the sales force for twi. Many of them taught new people, who taught other new people. This was an unintended consequence- they were just supposed to sell people on pfal and twig and tithing. Ever have a really blessed time at twi? That was the accidental result of those people teaching others, and those people teaching still others.
WHEN THE CAMERAS WERE ON, vpw was a humble man who didn't care about his own name, and was entirely about God's Word. WHEN THE CAMERAS WERE OFF, it was either his way or the highway. He kicked out an entire year of the corps, then the next day allowed them to rejoin- if they'd swear allegiance to him personally. He considered twi his personal piggy bank, and its belonging as his own belongings.
So, he never GOT ON The Word. What he "got on" was making a display of being about The Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
What's the difference between sincerity and insincerity? Anyone should be able to tell you. Someone who is sincere means what they say, and someone who is insincere does not mean what they say. So, a man intentionally selling shoddy material, and knowing it is shoddy, can make an impassioned diatribe about how fine the products are- but he would not be SINCERE. He would be FAKING by making a FALSE DISPLAY resembling sincerity.
vpw spoke a number of times on what sincerity was, including from the ROA main stage, where the microphones recorded him for posterity. He said that the man who tries to sell you a toothbrush with only one bristle on it has to be REALLY sincere.
Why do I make a point of this? it's simple once you look at it.
To vpw, for him to be "sincere" was a matter of THE APPEARANCE of sincerity, and NOT THE REALITY of sincerity, NO SUBSTANCE to his "sincerity."
vpw carried on, in effect, as 2 people. When in private, he was a petty, venal, greedy man, an alcoholic, a plagiarist, a molester and a rapist. (And so on.) When he was in public, he stepped into character as if he was performing on stage. When the cameras were on, he was a humble servant of God, who cared only about what God cared about, and knew that a man should neither molest nor rape women. (It was IMPLIED in CFS.)
That's why the real vpw made it mandatory for all pfal students to begin by studying the booklet on why they should tithe, and came up with "abundant sharing" and pushed that a lot, and why he was unique in all of Christendom and came up with "plurality giving", which was his term and concept- where you figure out exactly what you need for day-to-day living, and donate ALL THE REST OF YOUR MONEY to twi. No saving, no investing, no putting aside to buy newer or nicer things.
vpw never "turned from" a humble, dedicated service to God because he never began on that path. He began by looking for a career with the least work and the most possible benefit that he could manage. From there, he used people and used up people, and found financial and temporal benefits in doing so- at their expense. Perhaps there will be a place for him in the special hell- where they send child molesters and people who talk in the theater.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
To be bluntly honest, out of all the books carrying vpw's name, that one was so shoddy I would expect it to be the one most written by him, and least written by others. I think he may have used some basic reference books in the beginning, including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, but that seemed to be it.
JCOP and JCOPS were well-written- and were done by the research department. vpw came along later, added the intros, and put his name on the covers. The Studies in Abundant Living were basically typewritten sermons- transcripts of some teachings he did, later edited as well. Those read like sermons. (Some of their content was obviously plagiarized, also.) The Orange Book and the White Book had contents directly taken from Leonard, Stiles and Bullinger, mixed and matched a bit here and there. But JCING was almost a vanity project. (He left signed copies at church doors once.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"...it's not even a sin to eat meat on Fridays anymore..... but I bet there's still guys in hell on a meat rap! 'I thought it was retro-active! I ate a baloney sandwich. This guy had a beef jerky.' How'd you like to do Eternity for a beef jerky?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Mmmph
This.
I was raised with a unitarian theology - not the denomination. It was not reactionary doctrine. It was never anti-trinitarian. There was no axe to grind. It was just obvious for plenty of reasons.
I didn't think the idea radical. I didn't need to be sold, but was reproved and corrected anyway for not being meek, for thinking I already knew something when how else could I learn unless I was taught!
Exhausting.
I couldn't even get through all of JCING, it was so weak, so embarrassing, so cringe.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WW glanced by a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating.
I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart. In tribute to Mike's thesis about how Wierwille hid great truths in plain sight and we all missed it: He declared himself to be all but atheist after studying the Bible. He no longer believed the words Holy or Bible on the cover (which is grammatically and rhetorically stupid, but you get his point). Being educated about the Bible cause him to all but lose his faith. He said so!
What if he never regained it?
Bear with me: what if, from that moment forward, it was never about getting God and His Word right, but getting while the getting was good? He got money. He got adoration, He got fame (relative to most of us). He got attention. He got sex. He got power.
How much of what he did makes more sense if he didn't believe a word of it but knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted from them? Every time he discovered a niche, he exploited it. "This book is not some kind of Johnny come lately idea just to be iconoclastic..." [if someone has the correct wording, please let me know. I'll be happy to fix]. Oh it WASN'T? Because it was so shoddy I would think that you were selling a title rather than a book. You have a doctorate. You know how to present and defend a thesis (stop laughing, you in the back row. @#$%ing Snowball Pete).
But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started.
The funny thing is, it doesn't negate anything he taught. Just his motives. If McClellan and Ehrman are right, the first Christians really weren't Trinitarians. They weren't what Wierwille espoused either, though some were. Jehovah's Witnesses actually got it right, if McClellan and Ehrman are correct. But even that conclusion presupposes a unified message from the New Testament writers. And they weren't unified.
Here's the problem Wierwille exposed that a lot of Christianity still gets wrong. There WAS NO FIRST CENTURY CHURCH. There were first century churches. Tons of them. And they disagreed with each other about EVERYTHING.
Another topic for another time.
Bottom line, I'm increasingly coming to believe that Wierwille's rise and ministry can best be explained by the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever from the moment before he became relevant.
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.