T-Bone

Development of the doctrine of the Trinity, part 1 In wierwille’s book JESUS CHRIST IS NOT GOD, the title for chapter one is THE ORIGIN OF THE THREE-IN-ONE GOD . In excerpts from pages 11&ff wierwille states: Long before the founding of Christianity the idea of a triune god or god-in-three persons was a common belief in ancient religions. Although many of these religions had many minor deities, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one supreme God who consisted of three persons or essences. The Babylonians used an equilateral triangle to represent this three-in-one god, now the symbol of the modern three-in-one believers… …Although other religions for thousands of years before Christ was born worshipped a triune god, the trinity was not a part of Christian dogma and formal documents of the first three centuries after Christ. Certainly, during this time, Church leaders spoke of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but they never referred to them as co-equal or of one numerical essence or as three in one… …Even such a conservative source as The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that trinitarianism became a part of Christ doctrine in the fourth, not the first, century: “It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity…. There is …recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma “one God in three Persons’ became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. …The dogmatic formula “one God in three Persons” …was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development.” There are, however, evidences of trinitarian concepts being introduced by Christians converted from paganism possibly as early as the last part of the first century. The gradual incorporation of pagan ideologies into Christian doctrine and practice came about by the interaction of four historical components: 1. The early apostles…had died… 2. The anticipation of the “speedy” return of Christ subsided… 3. Many pagans who were converted to Christianity still adhered to some of their previous beliefs and practices… 4. Due to the above three elements many people began anticipating a new revival or a new administration… …Clearly, historians of Church dogma and systematic theologians agree that the idea of a Christian trinity was not a part of the first century Church. The twelve apostles never subscribed to it or received revelation about it. So how did a trinitarian doctrine come about? It gradually evolved and gained momentum in late first, second and third centuries as pagans, who had converted to Christianity, brought to Christianity some of their pagan beliefs and practices. Trinitarianism then was confirmed at Nicaea in 325 by Church bishops out of political expediency. Its reaffirmation as thereafter needed and received at Constantinople in 381. Since that time the “God-in-three-persons” doctrine has been adhered to as though it were divine revelation… End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ While wierwille’s four elements are noteworthy, I think to a very limited degree those things were bound to happen in the early stages of Christianity. But I would question his assumption that the Trinity was a pagan idea assimilated into Christian doctrine. I think we should give the early church leaders some credit - not only for their historical proximity to the birth of Christianity – but for their efforts to reflect on Hebrew theology, familiarity with the words and works of Jesus and how it all relates to this new religious movement something I will get into in part 2)… …and just thinking out loud here – there’s probably a lot of factors that contributed to the spiritual, intellectual, social, and doctrinal growth of the church. As in any endeavor there had to be a learning curve…a process where people developed skills by learning from their mistakes…That’s not to exclude personal illumination of the Spirit…and epistles from church leaders …and there was also thoughtful discussions among faithful believers, new converts and even potential converts: Acts 6:1-7 Acts 15:2-7 Acts 17:17 Acts 19:8,9 Galatians 2:11-21 . Perhaps it’s difficult to set aside our affinity for the comfort and convenience of modern organized religions – and remind ourselves that Christianity did not start out as a fully conceived business model with a detailed doctrine of how to organize, inform, serve, and govern in any political, social, economic, or cultural setting. ~ ~ ~ ~ I am familiar with wierwille’s penchant for plagiarism as well as his flagrant disregard for intellectual standards – so I find it hard to trust his philosophical, historical, and biblical examination of the Scriptures…his analysis and speculation about themes and concepts involved in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity are highly suspect. wierwille’s simplistic, biased, and biblically illiterate rationalization leads me to think he has an ax to grind. It’s hard to say what motivated a harmful and controlling cult-leader. Perhaps his poaching the intellectual property of others was more than just laziness and incompetence. Was there a strong desire to be admired by others? Reflecting on his manner of grandstanding in the PFAL class and the Advanced Class - he often drew upon controversial and even speculative or conspiratorial theories of others. It seemed to me that was his way of distinguishing himself as a cut above other Christian leaders and mainstream Christianity. It’s probable he may have thought his shallow and iconoclastic book JCING would boost his distinctiveness even further among devoted followers. Before I go much further in disputing wierwille’s book JCING, I must say it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. The most difficult task is getting devoted followers of wierwille to see through his duplicity. After all, love is blind. There are several deceptive and manipulative long-standing practices of wierwille that one should be aware of: 1. claiming to hear from God audibly that God would teach him “The Word” 2. obtaining the title of “doctor” from a degree mill 3. insisting that followers always address him as Doctor wierwille 4. plagiarizing the works of others – and claiming he had God’s guidance to improve the accuracy and Scriptural coherency of it all 5. in open meetings I’ve heard wierwille state one must be devil-possessed to truly believe in the Trinity 6. in the Advanced Class wierwille has often stated those born of the seed of the serpent are the top leaders in denominations that promote the Trinity 7. to suit his agenda wierwille often portrayed an alternate view of history – like emphatically denying the Holocaust and falsely characterizing the controversy over Trinity doctrine following the Apostolic Age as political intrigue 8. unbeknownst to most TWI-followers wierwille was a big follower of the far-right group John Birch Society and would often express their paranoid and conspiratorial views as if God revealed it to him personally. wierwille’s fearmongering and conspiratorial tropes came into play big time during his Anti-Trinitarian rants. Imagine showing those practices to any scholar or any serious Bible student (who is NOT enamored with wierwille’s man-of-God persona) – or for that matter, show the list to any street-smart person having the experience and knowledge necessary to deal with the potential difficulties or dangers of scam artists. Now imagine asking them “would you trust this guy?” I would be very surprised if anyone said they would. In part 2 I will get into a more honest portrayal of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. ~ ~ ~ ~ That’s all for now, folks. Ta-ta, Grease Spotters

Good questions...and I don't have any answers. who knows what really motivates a person. Why would he want to associate with anyone who would be a grease spot by midnight? Makes you wonder why anyone starts an offshoot of TWI. Maybe wierwille’s ideology is so virulent it really screws up one’s perspective. LCM might think everyone is a grease spot who doesn’t follow him. So, Grease Spotters are grease spots…TWI-followers are grease spots…R and R group are grease spots. And why would the ex-Way people want to be associated with a disgraced preditor? who knows what spiritual-sounding-bull$hit he tells his group…with the power of the microphone he can spin something any way he wants…On a smaller scale I’ve witnessed the “magic” of spiritual-sounding-bull$hit work many times during my TWI involvement…one time this way corps branch coordinator squelched complaints over his dishonest business practices by doing several teachings on murmuring. But, since Craig is now included in the grease spot crowd, is it possible he realized he was spewing nothing but BS, and only wanted to instill fear in people if they were contemplating leaving? Can malignant narcissism be taught or caught? I don’t know…but LCM was wierwille’s top student…and if one is delusional maybe they don’t realize they’re spewing out bull$hit. He must have to wrestle in his mind with all the lies he has told and the lives he has ruined. You’re assuming he has a conscience like you or me.

Good post, Nathan! And this one line of yours is a gem: If one has to whine about others standing for him, one doesn't deserve the gesture of respect. Whining about such a thing tips one's hand to one's illegitimacy. What immediately came to mind was wierwille always demanding everyone address him as “Doctor”.

Jesus Christ is immeasurably greater than what wierwille taught! On page 8, in the Introduction of JCING, wierwille states: Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say Jesus Christ is not God in my mind does not degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God. End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ ~ I appreciate that wierwille revealed his feelings about the subject. But one can have good intentions and still be way off the mark. In Colossians 1:15-20 Paul speaks of the supremacy of Christ – elevated to a unique, exalted, and unparalleled position: 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. These passages lend support to the idea that Jesus Christ is indeed unique – human AND divine – the only begotten son of God - a hybrid - one of a kind – as I mentioned in a previous post – here . Let me ask some simple questions: Is wierwille’s view of Monotheism unbiased or simplistic? Is his talk of scaling back Jesus Christ’s singularity and centrality to Christianity supported by Scripture? Why do passages like Col. 1:15-20 speak of Jesus Christ in such superlative terms that they seem to raise him to godlike status? ~ ~ ~ ~ I’m still analyzing wierwille’s argument about titles in JCING, and continuing with more excerpts from Wright / Bird’s book - this is from pages 219 & 220: Addressing the question of who Jesus was and is cannot simply be a matter of listing, and assessing, all the ‘titles’ tributed to him. This route has been favoured by some, but it is often surprisingly inconclusive. ‘Who Jesus is’ is not, then, merely the sum of the titles attributed to him: Messiah, son of man, son of God, rabbi, lord, and so on. In many ways, it is actually Jesus’ actions and words that provide the best materials to try to discern the precise role he was trying to perform and the agenda he was trying to champion. Jesus’ career characterized by announcing the kingdom, warning of judgment, speaking in parables, healing the sick, dining with sinners, teaching about the seduction of wealth, urging people to pray in a certain way, and criticizing the Temple – all these were part of his kingdom ‘programme’. This programme was rooted in the promises and hopes in Israel’s sacred traditions about the day when God would finally and fully deliver Israel from the effects of exile, where forgiveness, blessings, and peace would reign over a renewed Israel in a renewed covenant with a new Temple. It would be a mistake to think that Jesus was a prophet merely pointing towards God and God’s kingdom. Jesus’ message was astoundingly self-referential. One’s place in the kingdom would be determined by one’s reception or rejection of Jesus. Jesus would sit on a throne in the kingdom with his twelve disciples judging a reconstituted Israel… …That Jesus saw himself as the primary agent and actor of the kingdom’s arrival is underscored by a saying common to Luke and Matthew, where he claims, ‘If it is by the Spirit of God/finger of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you’… …the stories that Jesus told also indicate that he did not see himself simply as a prophet entrusted with a task simply for his own generation, one member of a long, continuing line, but as more than that. He was ‘the’ prophet, a final envoy, a beloved son, one greater than the Temple, wisdom vindicated, a new David, sent to warn, gather, and restore Israel as YHWH had promised to do himself… …Jesus stands out all the more precisely because the role he assigned himself was married to an apparently unique sense of purpose in God’s plans. In the same way that Jesus spoke of John the Baptist as ‘more than a prophet’, he also said and did things that pointed away from the prophetic role towards a more dramatic and world-changing role for himself in the climactic story of God’s coming kingdom. As such, Jesus’ peculiar self-designation as ‘son of man’ and his veiled and secretive intimations of messiahship point in this direction and must be factored into an account of his identity and intentions… From: The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ Regarding the self-referential term in the above excerpt, it bears repeating what I said in an earlier post - here - noting in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount ( Matthew 5:21-48 ) – he assumes he is equal to the author of Scripture – God – his Father…this is evident in the way he reinterprets…revises the law – using himself as the authoritative basis to modify the law saying a number of times “But I tell you” to emphasize a divergence from the existing law. ~ ~ ~ ~ That’s all for now…I’m working on a post on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity – actually I have it all together, but it’s been taking me a couple of weeks to trim the fat of verbosity and to further clarify some ideas.

not to brag, but I can hack any system...or any hairball - even in my sleep.

Did I forget to charge my robot last night?

Did I forget to feed the cat this morning?

BecomingMe, thanks for being so open and honest ! Something I rarely think about is how complicated and painfully tedious it can be to unpack the baggage we travel with as we continue on in our journey forward…occasionally I feel compelled to circle back to the past - review - reinterpret - and maybe sometimes regurgitate (maybe that’s a Kool-Aid hangover) …but I am always encouraged by what other Grease Spotters share on their journey onward. This may be an odd thing to say but I don’t harbor any hatred, resentment or ill will toward LCM…in some ways I think of him as being a victim of a cult too…What I mean is that I relate it to my own extreme adoration for wierwille …part of why I went into the corps was I wanted to become the ideal believer like I thought wierwille was…it was that misplaced trust and inappropriate admiration I had toward him that was probably a big factor in me being willing to sacrifice my true self by allowing the way corps program to pulverize that and hoped it would reconstitute me into wierwille’s idea of a true believer…I think LCM was one of his best students. I can’t even begin to imagine the unique and complicated issues you have had or may still have because of your family ties…I wish you the best.

Is the Trinity idolatry? wierwille’s most vehement attacks on the Trinity, were inflammatory and galvanizing remarks made at open meetings - and were never committed to written works . One memorable diatribe of his used a mathematical argument - saying if you moved the decimal point in a fraction, you change the numerical value of the fraction. To the best of my recollection his position seemed to go along the lines of comparing the attributes of Jesus Christ to God’s - there’s obviously some differences - and like moving the decimal point - Jesus Christ can’t be God. wierwille’s other more familiar mathematical argument against the Trinity was using addition : 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 …but I say - why limit oneself to addition? 1 X 1 X 1 = 1 so take that, Mathletes of the Spirit! …well… anyway…according to wierwille’s numerology-theology-demonology-psychology of nonsense when it comes to worshipping the one true God and idolatry he surmised that no matter how close something resembled the one true God it was still idolatry. On the other hand, if one cares to consult a reputable source that holds to logic and intellectual standards - one might find there’s other ways of thinking of the inseparable oneness of the Trinity - such as in the article below. Take note near the end of the article - I think wierwille’s excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible would qualify as bibliolatry….anyway check out this article: idolatry, in Judaism and Christianity, the worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God. The first of the biblical Ten Commandments prohibits idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before me.” Several forms of idolatry have been distinguished. Gross, or overt, idolatry consists of explicit acts of reverence addressed to a person or an object—the sun, the king, an animal, a statue. This may exist alongside the acknowledgment of a supreme being; e.g., Israel worshiped the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai, where it had encamped to receive the Law and the covenant of the one true God. A person becomes guilty of a more subtle idolatry, however, when, although overt acts of adoration are avoided, he attaches to a creature the confidence, loyalty, and devotion that properly belong only to the Creator. Thus, the nation is a good creature of God, but it is to be loved and served with an affection appropriate to it, not with the ultimate devotion that must be reserved for the Lord of all nations. Even true doctrine (e.g., true doctrine about idolatry) may become an idol if it fails to point beyond itself to God alone. the same time, Christian thought has insisted upon the principle of mediation and has rejected the charge that attachment to a mediating agency is automatically idolatrous. The Christian scriptures are called “the Holy Bible” not because they have an intrinsic holiness or are themselves the source of such holiness but because the God who alone is holy is mediated and disclosed to humans through the words of the Bible. Christians are not in agreement about the agents of mediation—e.g., about the role of the Virgin Mary and of the other saints. But where such mediation is acknowledged to be present, it is also acknowledged that reverence shown toward it applies not to the agent of mediation in and of himself but to the one for whom the agent stands. A special instance is the human nature of Jesus Christ (which is worthy of divine worship because of its inseparable union with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) and the consecrated Host in the Eucharist (which may properly be adored because it has been changed into the very body of Christ). Although the accusation of idolatry is thus a part of the polemic of Christian against Christian, so that Protestants are accused of bibliolatry and Roman Catholics of Mariolatry, the fundamental meaning of the term is the direct moral corollary of the Jewish-Christian avowal of the oneness of God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” From: Britannica: idolatry

Oh brother…now I’ve got a decision to make…do I follow what Paul said - or do I follow wierwille’s example? hmmmm decisions, decisions… Maybe I’ll ask the pendant…yes…no…yes… oh wait - can I use the pendant for either / or questions?

Skyrider, great analysis of wierwille’s modus operandi. Your post got me thinking of the huge difference between wierwille’s bait-and-switch tactics to entrap Christians compared to the freedom that Christ and genuine shepherds afford to Christians. In the following passages I see that Jesus Christ himself was NOT concerned with all followers being united in one group…I see Paul was not as concerned with what motivated preachers as much as he was concerned that Christ was preached - and NOT a counterfeit like some stupid PFAL class that takes the place of Christ! …and I see in II Peter 2 that harmful and controlling cult-leaders will create destructive heresies to get many to follow their evil teachings and shameful depravity to get hold of their money and their souls: 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us… Mark 9: 38-40 ~ ~ ~ ~ 15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, …Philippians 1: 15-18 ~ ~ ~ ~ But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. 3 In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed…II Peter 2:1-3 NLT

Get ready to rummmmmble those purse strings! We’re talking Unbelief Annihilation Back again for a brief excommunicated moment the Prevailing Turd WOW Smack Down MMA - Mixed Marked and Avoided (offshoot class division…why division? why not) The one the only - Renewed Mind Wrecking Machine Even now the parking lot around the WOW Auditorium is already shaking!

I think TWI’s strategy for awhile now has been business as usual - carry on despite the failures and disturbances …in the world of scams , it conveys the idea to the minions that there’s still something there even though we at GSC know there’s never been anything there to begin with…and if that doesn’t make sense to you than “just renew your mind.”

Skyrider I agree with Rocky - your detail analysis of TWI stuff and especially all the social dynamics often reads like something a sociologist would write - but it’s not bookish - more like your specialty was cults from a practical experience - like Stephen Hassan’s work

cool, Mark that's some great insight for back then

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage Philippians 2:6 NIV wierwille does handle Philippians 2:6 in the same chapter – but he gets into it over the word equality – “equal” in the KJV and compares verses like John 14:28 and I Corinthians 11:3 where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” and Paul says “the head of Christ is God” – and John 5:18 about the Jews all in a huff because Jesus said God was his Father making himself equal with God the problem I see with wierwille tackling these verses is that he seems so intent on disputing the divinity of Christ, he keeps mischaracterizing the doctrine of the Trinity…I have no problem understanding the Father is greater than the Son even though in some ways the Father and the Son share common characteristics – like being divine...well wierwille acted like a know-it-all and so he may have felt compelled to explain everything - whether he could or not. how about I’ll let you and other Grease Spotters use the Bible Hub hyperlinks I’ve given to look at parallel Bibles, commentaries, Greek text, etc., for some extra credit.

The Four Verses…not to be confused with the Four Horsemen… ...if there’s any confusion it’s probably from wierwille horsing around Below are the four verses that wierwille listed…after rereading the entire chapter today just to review the explanations he gave for discounting the 4 verses as being a reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ – I will forego copying and pasting his gobbledygook here and will instead list the 4 verses and refer to online commentaries – copying and pasting from reputable sources…Grease Spot Readers take note of the hyperlinks to Bible Hub below – a convenient resource for Bible Study – for instance click on this hyperlink of II Timothy 2:15 and it will take you to the parallel verses for II Tim.2:15; the website is user friendly – by clicking on the 3 letter Translation or below it the category like commentary, Interlinear, sermon, etc. you can be pretty thorough in your study...with any of the Bible Hub hyperlinks i give below - you can go on all kinds of tangents for hours just by clicking on the various tabs / buttons - you can check out other translations, Greek text, definitions of biblical words, commentaries...so remember to have fun Anyway…the 4 “supposed problem” verses that wierwille lists in chapter 4 Who is the Word? in Jesus Christ is Not God are: 1. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. I Timothy 3:16 KJV wierwille points out it’s questionable if the Greek text has the word “God” …while that certainly may be so if you look at the interlinear of I Timothy 3:16 - however even with the word being instead “who” a pronoun – the passage still seems to allude to the divinity of Christ – such as in other versions: Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. I Timothy 3:16 NASB A few study Bibles that I’ve checked say this is part of a Christian hymn that starts off emphasizing Christ’s incarnation. Ever thought about that word “incarnation”? I don’t ever remember that word being used in TWI. I wonder why. Definition of Incarnation - a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality…In I Tim. 3:16 Paul affirms the humanity and divinity of Christ. The mystery of godliness may refer to the Old Testament symbolic truths in sacrifices that foreshadowed the salvation and righteousness of Christ which produces holiness in believers. In a manner of speaking Christ was like God with skin on – what better way to relate to His people…I don’t have a beef with wierwille offering his opinion of God and Jesus Christ. I think the real treachery was wierwille’s self-assuming role as TWI’s high priest… In the Old Testament, the high priest served as a mediator between God and the people and was the only one who had close contact with the Holy of Holies…uhm…in case anyone missed it Jesus Christ took over the job of high priest Hebrews 2:17 Hebrews 4:14 I won’t get into deep theological and philosophical musings over the concept of God – but given the individuality / uniqueness / nurture / nature aspects of people, I’d venture to say – for those who profess to believe in a higher power – that everyone will probably have a concept of God / some higher power that differs more or less from everyone else…even if we factor in the experience of those who believe they interact with God / some higher power (through prayer, meditation, inspiration, illumination, etc.) there would probably be even more diverse impressions of God / some higher power even with all “believers” doing their best to articulate the experience…just as siblings in a large family would each have their own thoughts and feelings for their parents…just reflect on the dynamics of interacting with another sentient being - it's not a one-way form of communication - interacting is reciprocal - there is something shared...perhaps even transforming to both parties. My intent in this digression is to point out the audacity of wierwille to dictate to followers the orthodox concept of God…and Jesus Christ. Regarding the other 3 “problem verses” I will let some reputable commentaries counter wierwille’s nonsense. ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8 wierwille states Heb 1:8 is quoting Ps 45:6 and basically says it's referring to an earthly king Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom Psalm 45:6 But Benson’s commentary on Ps. 45:6 says it speaks to more than an earthly king: Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, &c. — It is evident that the speech is still continued to the same person whom he calls king, Psalm 45:1; Psalm 45:11; and here God, to assure us that he doth not speak of Solomon, but of a far greater king, who is not only a man, but the mighty God, Isaiah 9:6. For though the name Elohim, or God, be sometimes given in Scripture to some creatures, yet, in those cases, it is always clogged with some diminishing expression, signifying that they are only made, or called gods, and that only for a certain time and purpose; (see Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6; and it is nowhere put simply and absolutely for any person but him, who is God, blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. Is for ever and ever — Namely, properly, and in thine own person, in which, as he lives for ever, so he must necessarily reign for ever; whereas David, whose throne was said to be established for ever, 2 Samuel 7:16, was a mortal man, and therefore that promise was not intended of, nor could be fulfilled in, his person, without including his seed, and especially the Messiah. And, as he here gives to the Messiah the name of God, which was never given to David nor Solomon, so he ascribes an everlasting kingdom to him, in such a sense as was never given to them. So Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre — The sceptres of earthly princes are often swayed with great injustice and manifold iniquities, which lay the foundation of their overthrow; but thou rulest with exact righteousness and equity, and therefore thy throne is established, Proverbs 16:12. From Psalm 45:6 Benson commentary ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28 Ellicott’s comments on this are short and to the point: My Lord and my God.—These words are preceded by “said unto him,” and are followed by “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed;” and the words “my Lord” can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. John 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God. from John 20:28 Ellicott’s commentary ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 it's noteworthy Ellicott’s commentary says the Hebrew word for God is only used in reference to deity: His name shall be called Wonderful.—It is noticeable that that which follows is given not as many names, but one. Consisting as it does of eight words, of which the last six obviously fall into three couplets, it is probable that the first two should also be taken together, and that we have four elements of the compound name: (1) Wonderful-Counsellor, (2) God-the-Mighty-One, (3) Father of Eternity, (4) Prince of Peace. Each element of the Name has its special significance. (1) The first embodies the thought of the wisdom of the future Messiah. Men should not simply praise it as they praise their fellows, but should adore and wonder at it as they wonder at the wisdom of God (Judges 13:18, where the Hebrew for the “secret” of the Authorised version is the same as that for “wonderful;” Exodus 15:11; Psalm 77:11; Psalm 78:11; Isaiah 28:29; Isaiah 29:14). The name contains the germ afterwards developed in the picture of the wisdom of the true king in Isaiah 11:2-4. The LXX. renders the Hebrew as “the angel of great counsel,” and in the Vatican text the description ends there. (2) It is significant that the word for “God” is not Elohim, which may be used in a lower sense for those who are representatives of God, as in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 28:13, but El, which is never used by Isaiah, or any other Old Testament writer, in any lower sense than that of absolute Deity, and which, we may note, had been specially brought before the prophet’s thoughts in the name Immanuel. The name appears again as applied directly to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21; Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18; Nehemiah 9:32; Psalm 24:8; and the adjective in Isaiah 42:13. (3) In “Father of Eternity,” (LXX. Alex. and Vulg., “Father of the age to come “) we have a name which seems at first to clash with the formalised developments of Christian theology, which teach us, lest we should “confound the persons,” not to deal with the names of the Father and the Son as interchangeable. Those developments, however, were obviously not within Isaiah’s ken, and he uses the name of “Father” because none other expressed so well the true idea of loving and protecting government (Job 29:16, Isaiah 22:21). And if the kingdom was to be “for ever and ever,” then in some very real sense he would be, in that attribute of Fatherly government, a sharer in the eternity of Jehovah. Another rendering of the name, adopted by some critics, “Father (i.e., Giver) of booty,” has little to recommend it, and is entirely out of harmony with the majesty of the context. (4) “Prince of Peace.” The prophet clings, as all prophets before him had done, to the thought that peace, and not war, belonged to the ideal Kingdom of the Messiah. That hope had been embodied by David in the name of Absalom (“ father of peace “) and Solomon. It had been uttered in the prayer of Psalm 72:3, and by Isaiah’s contemporary, Micah (Micah 5:5). Earth-powers, like Assyria and Egypt, might rest in war and conquest as an end, but the true king, though warfare might be needed to subdue his foes (Psalm 45:5), was to be a “Prince of Peace” (Zechariah 9:9-10). It must be noted as remarkable, looking to the grandeur of the prophecy, and its apparently direct testimony to the true nature of the Christ, that it is nowhere cited in the New Testament as fulfilled in Him; and this, though Isaiah 9:1 is, as we have seen, quoted by St. Matthew and Isaiah 9:7, finds at least an allusive reference in Luke 1:32-33. from Isaiah 9:6 Ellicott’s commentary ~ ~ ~ ~ I think wierwille pitting 50 verses that say Son of God to 4 verses that refer to Jesus Christ as God is like comparing apples to oranges after you mix all of them together in a blender. As I explained in a previous post What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean? - see here - In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social, and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons…There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.” In my opinion wierwille tended to water down…and worse obfuscate the unique, exalted, and divine characteristics of “the Son of God” which obviously refers to a literal physical relationship between Jesus Christ and God. How he downgraded it was by equating it with the adoption of sons Romans 8:15 Galatians 4:5 . An adopted son does not have a literal physical relationship with his father…and to add to the confusion wierwille’s fundamentalism interpreted being born again of incorruptible seed as something that was literally true - I have presented counterarguments to wierwille’s literalism earlier on this thread - here - and here - so I don’t see the need to rehash that again.

that cat's pajamas are the cat's pajamas!

a Purrito FYI - I stole this idea from someone on reddit who said they had to swaddle their cat to calm it down at the vet...they had a picture of their cat wrapped in a towel and called it a purrito...I thought it was so funny I had to plagiarize it!

for good companionship, nothing beats a well-rounded pet

theory # 768: if you can train a cat to use the toilet, I bet you can train a cat to use a spa

a different kind of holy roller

Nathan, thanks for bringing some personal experience into this discussion. I forget how important that is in order for other folks to find common ground. I’ll do the same in a bit – but first wanted to mention reasons why I’ve been a bit bookish on this thread (and a few other threads in About the Way forum) – not only because it’s doctrinal but also in attempting to untangle some of wierwille’s nonsense I think it’s crucial to get into the nitty-gritty of each strand to properly untwine the whole bundle of wierwille-ideology. And in analyzing the nuts and bolts, my go-to method is using logic, getting familiar with the lay of the land (identifying key points of a particular doctrine), referencing the work of reputable scholars, review stuff I’ve accumulated from my own prayerful studies, and of course listening to other thoughtful posters on Grease Spot Café. Not saying I’m perfect or always right – rather I’m even upfront about some of my ideas being tenuous - but at least I try to adhere to some honest / legitimate standards which is FAR MORE than wierwille ever did! I’m the farthest thing from being a know-it-all - I don’t have a dog in this fight – cuz this is just a hobby and I’m having lots of fun! I can’t think of a better reason offhand – other than I don’t put a lot of stock in anything that plagiarizing incompetent con artist put out. ~ ~ ~ ~ On a personal note: I grew up in a good Christian home – Roman Catholic was our brand name. We never got into discussions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or doctrines. I do remember lots of little life lessons here and there from Mom & Dad about appreciating God’s creation through observation, stewardship and the sciences…having respect for all people no matter what race or religion, and the Golden Rule – and that topic was covered a lot. I never really gave any thought to the Trinity – because in my mind the Trinity was mysterious stuff about God that goes beyond what our brains can handle…even today I still think of the Trinity as nothing more than a mental construct that might help orient me to how God works. When I prayed, I never felt the need to focus on God the Father or Jesus Christ – I imagined my thoughts and prayers were being heard by God in general rather than a specific department of God the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit … I’ve shared this before on Grease Spot, there’s only one time in my life when I distinctly remember calling on Jesus Christ to help me – and that was during a bad acid trip. Thank God he did! After I took PFAL I was so excited that I would finally begin to learn more about God and Jesus Christ through wierwille’s “ministry”…bear in mind back in ’74 the Roman Catholic Church was not real big on encouraging congregants to read and study the Holy Bible. While I do credit PFAL for piquing my interest in stuff like systematic theology, philosophy of religion and hermeneutics, it was like taking swimming lessons from some lifeguard wannabe who can’t even tread water but thought the image would make him a chick magnet…wierwille’s PFAL was “the Word” that took the place of the centrality of Christ. After I first took the class, I would read and reread the Gospels like crazy and would have tons of questions for my Twig coordinator – and he would direct me to stick with the PFAL reading plan – review, review, review the PFAL material and get in the next class. + zzzzZZZZ ZZZZzzz My prayer life didn’t change much while in TWI – as far as who I was praying to – it was like before TWI – I imagined I was praying to God in general – no specific department …well, actually there was a “degradation” in my prayer life after PFAL – there was a decline in mindful prayer – prayer in my understanding, since SIT was the big deal. And after 12 years of it – when I left TWI I started questioning everything wierwille taught me – I realized I faked SIT. In summary, like every other topic that wierwille handled – his teachings on God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit …and holy spirit were rife with inconsistencies, fundamentalism, spiritualism, Gnosticism and…well…wierwille-isms. When I read the New Testament now – I see that Jesus Christ is a really big deal – and it seems like he often gets more attention than God the Father. And since I don’t find any passages that warn me to reign in that intense fascination I have with His son I figure God the Father is okay with that. Personally I don’t get hung up in trying to nail down certain subjects because they’re too big and way beyond my pray-grade .

What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean? On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ? in the book Jesus Christ Is Not God , wierwille states: …we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident. End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ This confusing aspect in wierwille’s argument needs clarification. To me the thrust of his rationalization seems to go along the lines of pointing out the obvious - making a clear distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ as the Son. While I have no problem with that – I also sense he ignores the import of biblical imagery. I submit that besides the miraculous and inexplicable way Jesus was born – which alone sets him apart as otherworldly in my book – he also acted with all the confidence, authority, and compassion of his heavenly Father – something no ordinary human was capable or qualified to do. In Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, General Editors: Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, on pages 805 & 806 under the SON entry it says: In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons. Perpetuating Life. In the ancient way of thinking, the life of a father is continued in his son. A major ingredient in a father’s feeling that his life on earth has fulfilled its purpose is the presence of a son to perpetuate his lineage (Gen. 15:2-4)… …Christ as Son. There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.” End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ To be fair – wierwille has passed away so there’s no way to ask for clarification from him. I wonder if he equated Jesus Christ as being born of a woman as being less than divine. As I mentioned in a previous post – Jesus Christ was “one of a kind” a hybrid – human and divine. After I left TWI, reading the Bible without the wierwille-colored-glasses (aka the PFAL-mindset), a few sections of Scripture really got me to reflect on his heavenly parentage and the prerogative…the right or privilege exclusive to him alone, as the only begotten Son of God: Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So, he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.” Luke 5:18-26 ~ ~ ~ ~ In the account where Jesus walks on the water, it is fascinating to observe the reactions of the disciples witnessing this phenomenal event: 22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it. 25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. 27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” 28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” 29 “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” 31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” 32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” Matthew 14:22-33 ~ ~ ~ ~ The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible notes of verse 33 worshipped him – The miracle was so spectacular that otherwise monotheistic Jews actually worshipped Jesus. Son of God – Whereas in a Jewish context this could sometimes be a synonym for Messiah and not carry hints of divinity, this context doubtless implies a more awe-inspired declaration. ~ ~ ~ ~ Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matthew 28:16-18 ~ ~ ~ ~ The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible notes on verse 17: they worshipped him; but some doubted. Could also be translated “they worshipped but they doubted.” For such an unprecedented event as a resurrection, it is easy to envision any or all the disciples both acclaiming Jesus’ deity and being very perplexed as to what exactly had happened and wondering if all this was real. ~ ~ ~ ~ Read these next excerpts from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount – and note how he set himself on par with the author of Scripture – God – his Father, in the way he reinterprets…or perhaps even revises the law – I marked in bold red where Jesus introduces an idea that is in contrast to or perhaps even supersedes the existing law: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. End of excerpts from Matthew 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ In the book The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians by N.T. Wright & Michael F. Bird , in chapter 10 the authors ask the question Who Did Jesus Think He Was? : …The question of ‘Who is Jesus?’ goes back to the earliest days of Jesus’ ministry. When people heard the things that Jesus said, for example how he ‘taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law, ( Mark 1:22 Matthew 7:29 ) and when they witnessed his ‘miraculous powers’, they were forced to grapple with the question: who is this man? ( Matthew 13:54 ) Modern Christians often face the temptation at this point to short-circuit the question. For many in our world, the question comes down to this: was Jesus, or was he not, ‘the son of God’ in the sense of being ‘divine’, ‘the second person of the Trinity’?...It’s important that we approach these matters the way the early Christians did, in the context of the actual questions and concepts of the time… …The problem was that Jesus acted and spoke like several different leadership types: rabbi, prophet, healer, priest, sage, royal leader, exorcist, Cynic philosopher, and miracle-worker. Yet he was also unlike any of them. He had a unique sense of authority, an enigmatic form of self-reference as the ‘son of man’… End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ Put yourself in the disciples’ sandals. Try to lay aside any modern concepts - whether it’s wierwille’s notions of Jesus Christ, Trinitarianism, complicated theology…or whatever. What do the words and works of Jesus Christ - the Son of God - mean to you?

Wow STL, that’s the first I’ve heard of someone other than wierwille sitting through BG Leonard’s class. I imagine that would be an eye-opening experience. I tell you how indoctrinated I was – for my 12 years of involvement it never occurred to me wierwille had plagiarized Bullinger’s work…and I had bought Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible in TWI’s bookstore right after I took PFAL – and it was a fav of mine. Not like Bullinger was 100% right on everything – but at the time, comparing PFAL with How to Enjoy the Bible - my pea-brain saw it as two very intelligent people coming up with the same ideas…Guess it was a Kool-Aid inducement of great minds think alike. I’m glad you left! thanks for sharing such a revealing experience – and as always, I appreciate your thoughtful input.