T-Bone

Let me clarify a few things I’ve said in that post…which was raw and unfiltered, and I understand how you could think that of me. I’ve already stated in another post dating the Bible and have also said elsewhere on Grease Spot ( here and here ) that I was aware of the Gospels being written as well as compiled much later than most of the letters. You can chalk up the anachronisms to my poor writing skills and not reviewing it for clarity. I wrote this: “the Gospels and Acts are like the real time process of the beginning of Christianity. the epistles were written much later and rather than being somewhat action-packed like the Gospels and Acts – they are more cerebral. Maybe they reflect a maturing in the faith…an evolving of the experiential learning from Gospels and Acts. The simple message got more complex – reinterpreting Old Testament stuff and branching off into new and different topics. To me the epistles are like a retrospective of Gospels/Acts. Like when someone writes a book about the 60s, it might show culturally how we got from there to here.” ~ ~ ~ ~ What I meant to convey was the idea that for US at this PRESENT TIME, READING the New Testament as a LINEAR storyline – we see the character arc – how over time the believers changed and matured in their faith…I did not mean to suggest the Gospels/Acts were WRITTEN in real time AS THEY HAPPENED. I thought I was pretty clear in saying “…to ME the epistles are like a RETROSPECTIVE of Gospels/Acts.” That’s me peering through the theologically concentrated filter of the letters to better understand the development of Christianity - "the origin story" narrative of Gospels/Acts …well…so much for my writing skills and unleashing a raw and unfiltered post. I agree with you on several points: the NT docs were not written in vacuum and that there were competing Christologies. Even in the Gospels there’s mention of some group driving out demons in Christ’s name, but they were not a part of the disciples – and it appears Jesus was cool with that Mark 9: 38 - 40 . I’m also with you on this point: “Did the Trinity doctrine help or hinder? Historically? I don't think it did either. I think it just won (and not fair and square).” I think the concept of the Trinity is one way many theologians have attempted to unpack the mysterious and complex relationship of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Why it’s the dominant term in nomenclature of most systematic theologies - who can say…maybe looking into historical ecclesiastical politics at the intersection of multiple cultures might be revealing.

Raf, that’s a very thoughtful post and thanks for getting back to exploring the consequences (good or bad) of Trinity doctrine. I agree, the first Christians were not Trinitarians. There were no Christian theologians. Christianity wasn’t a thing yet. I think deconstructing Christianity will take one back to the narratives of the Gospels – and in my opinion, to the Jewish people at the time it seemed to be an anomaly of their religion - centered around what we would refer to today as a cult of personality – and it was the person of Jesus Christ. The simple message in the evangelistic efforts in Acts was that this Jesus is the promised Messiah of the Jewish “Bible” i.e., the Old Testament, and that he was crucified, died and now resurrected and exalted as Lord. the Gospels and Acts are like the real time process of the beginning of Christianity. the epistles were written much later and rather than being somewhat action-packed like the Gospels and Acts – they are more cerebral. Maybe they reflect a maturing in the faith…an evolving of the experiential learning from Gospels and Acts. The simple message got more complex – reinterpreting Old Testament stuff and branching off into new and different topics. To me the epistles are like a retrospective of Gospels/Acts. Like when someone writes a book about the 60s, it might show culturally how we got from there to here. a millennial reading the book might not get as much a sense of the 60s as someone who grew up in the 60s…Maybe we’re missing a lot across the time/cultural divide of the 1st century. But wouldn’t God take that into account? How could He bridge the gap? Is that the purpose of the Holy Spirit? I don’t think Paul or any of the New Testament writers had formed Trinitarian concepts. I subscribe to the limited inspiration theory of how the Bible was written. God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. He gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. But God’s incommunicable attributes (like omnipotence, transcendence, omniscience, etc.) cannot be conveyed to us. But I think it is in our nature to try and make sense of everything. This was touched on earlier in this thread – wanting to have a deity we can manage. Perhaps the writers of the NT docs tried to do the best they could to articulate mind-blowing otherworldly stuff…heap superlatives upon superlatives when it comes to describing the exalted Christ. It says Christ is the image of the invisible God. What does that really mean? Historically theology just gets more and more complex by building on what came before. Nomenclature is a fascinating thing. What’s the relation of this to this to that? I don’t know. Let’s call it a Trinity. I’m used to thinking like a technician. Everything must be explainable. I get into these weird thoughtful fantasies – like if I were a technical consultant to a screenplay writer, what would the origin story of a God/man consist of? So if I’m trying to sell this to Marvel Studios – I say look God is gonna have a kid but not the normal way like we do – picture a being from another dimension having a one night stand with a cute Jewish girl. Everything about this child is kinda normal except there’s something different about his DNA. His brain is like a sponge but it can only hold so much data. The Omniscient Dad can give the kid updates on an as-needed basis by…let’s call it ether-net…or ether for short – it’s atmosphere – like air…wind…some trans-dimensional conduit. This is kind of the silly irreverent way I get myself to meditate on metaphysical stuff sometimes. Weird and dumb – I know. But that’s how I wrap my head around something this strange and otherworldly. Which brings me to how I relate to the Trinity. Which as you pointed out is a profound question. I appreciate the Lord Jesus Christ as a unique being – he’s even more different than me in his resurrected body. But he’s someone I can relate to – but he’s not God almighty to me. He’s my big brother. It’s funny when I was in TWI, I never thought much about Jesus Christ and God the Father seemed so far away. I was a kid separated from my dad and older brother. But having left TWI – I got back into enjoying the Gospels. It was like Jesus Christ was my older brother returning from Vietnam. He’s been through hell and back and he’s got so much to share with me and inspire me to be a good soldier. Unfortunately, dad is still far away. I just don’t know how to relate to my dad. He seems too big and maybe even a little terrifying. Why couldn’t He have made things more apparent…But my big brother – he’s cool. He understands me and I understand him. Don’t ask me how I know this – but I have a hunch that dad doesn’t mind me thinking a lot more about my older brother than Him. Where is the Holy Spirit in this arrangement? Don’t know. This is really weird cuz the Bible says the Holy Spirit dwells in me. Maybe that’s the ethernet connecting me to Jesus Christ and God. I want technical manuals…diagrams and flow charts that explain all this. I don't want a quicky Tik Tok...I want a full 8 hour You Tube WITH NO ADS explaining a few things...doesn't have to be everything...just the really really important stuff - like where the Easter Bunny came from.

Thanks Bolshevik! good tie in - thanks again for those links

So, it’s gone from About the Way forum to doctrinal forum…now we need a Kool-Aid testimonial forum…whatever. it’s hilarious how much diehard-wierwille-fans keep pushing that idle idol. There’s no use in logical debate of doctrine and Scripture interpretation with them cuz if wierwille said it – they believe it – that settles it. What’s up with that? I wonder if that’s why diehard-wierwille-fans change the topic when the discussion deviates from the PFAL-script. Maybe it’s that love is blind principle. Perhaps some folks love wierwille so much, they’re blind to his crimes against logic, Scripture, and morality. I think wierwille’s teaching on anything was dubious. What a shyster! I wouldn’t believe anything he had to say about salvation cuz he lived like the devil – and was proud of it. wierwille was probably the foremost authority on cheap grace…easy-believism…Think about it – wierwille was an unabashed plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sexual predator, a money-grubbing-fame-hound, a megalomaniac, a malignant narcissist, a chain-smoking, Drambuie-guzzling, delusional closet-Gnostic, a master at pontification, with a God-complex. Actions speak louder than pulpiteering. for anyone interested there’s a much more thoughtful, deep discussion that looks at all of Scripture and not just wierwille’s proof-texting – it’s a thread by Grease Spotters in doctrinal > Can salvation be lost also see: Got Questions: easy believism Got Questions: cheap grace Why is it diehard-wierwille-fans have to keep bringing up this comparison: “David was called a man after God’s own heart and think about some of the bad stuff he did!” oh please…did you ever wonder why David could be considered a man after God’s own heart? two things that stand out real big – Scripture shows David to be genuinely repentant and he was always gung-ho to do what God wanted him to do. see Man after God’s own heart ~ ~ ~ ~ Let’s compare: Was wierwille repentant? There is beaucoup of anecdotal evidence that wierwille was an unabashed plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sexual predator, a money-grubbing-fame-hound, a megalomaniac, a malignant narcissist, a chain-smoking, Drambuie-guzzling, delusional closet-Gnostic, a master at pontification, with a God-complex. Maybe he could be considered the exact opposite of someone who was repentant or a godly leader like David…wierwille was a repeat offender on a wide variety of willful violations of Scriptural and moral principles. Did wierwille do what God wanted him to do? Let’s think about that in light of what he said to Whiteside in the TWI-authorized book “The Way: Living in Love”… on page 178 wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.” And on page 209 of Whiteside’s book wierwille comments on the content of what he teaches: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit – that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn’t, I dropped.” All this is nonsensical delusions of grandeur as well as an outright admission of bigtime plagiarism. it is worth noting that Christians back in the 1st century had no Bible…the New Testament had not been written and the Septuagint was not circulated. See Wikipedia – dating the Bible There’s beaucoup threads on Grease Spot that have analyzed many aspects of PFAL. If God taught wierwille “the word” why are there so many errors, contradictions, unscriptural ideologies and logical fallacies in PFAL? also see: actual errors in PFAL More blatant errors in PFAL PFAL errors even deeper do do The subtle thread which runs throughout pfal Is PLAF theopneustos god-breathed? The "Second Wave" of returning to PFAL has started Power for Abundant Living Today™ Amazing some diehard-wierwille-fans still believe wierwille’s bull$hit… I wonder why they think it carries any weight in doctrinal? Oh well, enjoy it while they can.

Interesting – this may qualify as another one of those bait-and-switch threads. I thought it was going to be a thoughtful discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity and its relevance to the end times …but after considering the actual content of these posts I’m inclined to think it’s more of a wierwille-PFAL-fan-club-thread – a cool excuse to rehash wierwille’s ideology - whoopee !!!!

Good morning, Twinky! Your recent posts got me thinking about a takeaway from one of my fav books “7 Habits of Highly Effective People”. I re-read that book every few years…anyway one concept that fascinated me from the book is where Covey talked about a “commerce of hearts”. The idea is like a bank or business transactions. There’s different types of transactions. In “good commerce” there’s a win/win thing – one person does something genuinely kind & loving for another – and there are intangibles that are exchanged in the process – love and kindness investments fatten up a range of portfolios. A good & honest commerce of hearts is great “business” for all involved. On the dark side – there’s scams, toxic and abusive relationships, etc. They’re one-sided – only one side benefits - whether it’s financially or some other advantage or enjoyment. My involvement with TWI is a good illustration of that. Not like I was always the victim – as a starry-eyed dupe of a facilitator for TWI, there were times when I shortchanged those I genuinely love – like close family because I wanted to devote more emotional energy to my ministry responsibilities – cuz of the big payback to my ego – recognition, given more responsibility blah de blah blah – lots of counterfeit currency being exchanged there...fyi counterfeit currency has very little if any value - and some folks can spot it a mile away and will not accept it. I have been fascinated by genuinely kind and charitable folks ever since Having a daughter with special needs . It can be very taxing emotionally at times. Probably sounds selfish – but sometimes – not often – but sometimes I feel drained. Like the commerce of hearts is one-sided – but I usually have to push myself to be more aware…sensitive to the ways in which my daughter reciprocates my love since it’s often less obvious. Our love and concern for her wellbeing extends to the vigilance we have in checking out any camp counselors, day hab staff that we trust her into their care. Again I am fascinated by what motivates these people – it’s not a profession that would interest me. Invariably our getting-to-know-them routine involves a friendly chat about why they wanted to be a camp counselor or staff in a special-needs service. Usually the person has had some sibling, friend, or someone close to them that was handicapped – and I guess they liked the commerce of hearts. I can tell when someone really loves what they do. Someone at a Down syndrome conference said something like one of the gifts of special needs people is that they draw good things out of others. I believe that’s true. Makes me think of all the charitable work you do for the homeless. Maybe there's some divine business slogan for a good commerce of hearts - "genuine love is big business"...sounds silly. that's the best I can come up with on short notice. I’ll tell you what – your posts bolster my faith in good people. It’s like you’re opening the books for an audit – puts you in a very vulnerable position. You must be very strong and confident to do that…Hang in there…squeeze the cat for me… I have high hopes for your concerns. Folks like you are a godsend! ps - our daughter wanted a cat so bad…we finally got her a cat 3 years ago…I usually have to fight her for the cat - since I like playing with him too!

Very funny Bolshevik! Maybe they should send that water off to the lab for testing…oh here it is – we’ve got the results back: *** TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION*** we regret to inform you that the sample you sent in has a high concentration of rancid Kool-Aid, sewer waste, 95 feces of cult-leader's theses, Gnostic-waste, waste-of-time waste, ectoplasm, hookie-pookism juice, Liquid-Paper, Plagiarism Lubricant, 3-in-1 Oil, tinges of Drambuie and minute particles of Roofies *** *** TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION*** DO NOT INGEST IN ANY AMOUNT *** *** DO NOT SHARE WITH ANY OFFSHOOT MUNICIPALITY *** ***OFFICIALS FROM THE CDC ARE IN ROUTE EVEN AS YOU READ THIS TO ENSURE THIS SOURCE IS TERMINATED *** *** MAKE SURE TO TUNE IN FOR THE NEXT EXCITING EPISODE OF X-FILES WHERE THIS STORY WILL INVOLVE BIBLE MUTILATIONS AND WOW ABDUCTIONS ***

I think most municipalities rely on much more than just filtration – according to CDC: Water comes from a variety of sources, such as lakes and wells, which can be contaminated with germs that may make people sick. Germs can also contaminate water as it travels through miles of piping to get to a community. To prevent contamination with germs, water companies add a disinfectant—usually either chlorine or chloramine—that kills disease-causing germs such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, and norovirus. Chlorine and chloramine are the major disinfectants used in public water systems. You can find out whether there is a disinfectant in your water, what kind of disinfectant is used, and how well your utility has followed the rules about disinfection by obtaining a copy of your utility’s consumer confidence report . from: CDC.gov public drinking water disinfection Also, you can send a sample of your drinking water to a reputable lab that is certified for testing water – and find out what’s in it…I’ve worked for some pretty persnickety CEOs and ranch owners who do that on a periodic basis…about all I’ve done for our family is test our tap water myself using a pool chemistry test kit from Leslie’s – same thing I use to check our pool water for chlorine and pH levels…no big whoop – I'd say it’s about 1 to 2 ppm… ( hey, long term that stuff ain’t good to put in my body - but it's better than not treating the water and getting really bad $hit inside me – but I might as well fess up to all the heavy metals, processed food, carbonated drinks (beer & coke) I ingest…not to mention what’s in the environment…don’t get me started on allergies…Thought I had covid around first of the month even though I’ve been vaccinated and boosted – I had no fever but lots of congestion/coughing. But I tested negative – so did my wife. And I’m still dealing with congestion and hawking up big ugly lungers. Saw my doc yesterday – it’s just a new phase of how my body is dealing with allergies. Oh the glories of getting old!) … for emergency purposes I’ve also purchased some LifeStraws and water purification tablets from Amazon…during the BIG FREEZE last year we were without power for 3 days – but fortunately we had running water…until one of those big-a$$ water pumps that brings in water from some “out-of-town-aquifer” froze – then we got a city-wide alert to boil our tap water cuz they were concerned about the low water pressure and who knows what “cooties” that might dredge up from towers getting low… something that’s scary to think about – imagine an apocalyptic event that leaves you without power and water – but maybe just as important - no sanitation! As a city dweller, what am I gonna do with all my trash, poop and pee, empty beer bottles and coke cans? Then when I least expect it – there’s zombie rats, cats, and stray dogs raiding my piles of trash. Come Lord Jesus.

Hey, I don’t mean to be snarky, Johniam – but when I asked for chapter and verse, I assumed you would offer a passage that actually supports your point. If you click on this hyperlink > II Corinthians 2:11 you’ll see many versions use the word “schemes” instead of “devices”. To spare you the atrocity of my verbosity I’m not going to get into the Greek - and since the English words convey something close to the same idea I’ll just expand on these two English words - NEITHER of which supports YOUR idea that we know what Satan WANTS…what MOTIVATED him…his MOTIVES…“Device” – gadget, an explosive weapon, a plan, a method, a design…“Scheme” – strategy, program, plan, plot, conspire, a combination of elements that are connected, adjusted, and integrated by design. I love thriller movies where the investigation or court proceedings get into the trinity-of-pointing-fingers award: means, motive and opportunity. See articles in Psychology Today: Means, Motive, and Opportunity , City Security Magazine: Cyber security: motive, method, opportunity and Criminal Justice 101: Means, Motive, and Opportunity . But I will grant you this - your citation of II Cor. 2:11 would best be used to show MEANS…an action, system, or process, financial resources – but NOT MOTIVE. If I had to make a case for Satan's MOTIVE, I’d use something like Isaiah 14: 12 -14 - note willful intent is mentioned five times in the following: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” I think that’s pretty good evidence to prove MOTIVE. If I may beg the court’s indulgence, I’d like to revisit my previous post > here the devil plagiarizing the Trinity, the resurrection, the use of lying signs and wonders as the MEANS to make himself like the Most High. Jesus may have referenced Isaiah 14: 12, when he said in Luke 10:18 I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven and Revelation 12 may also allude to that catastrophic event - “Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.” ~ ~ ~ ~ Now about your statement “The reason you don't believe that us "lowly Christians" can do the works Jesus did is because you think He's God!” … Geez what a pontificating thing to say! Let’s break that down with more questions: 1. HOW do YOU know the reason? 2. HOW do YOU know what I believe and don’t believe? 3. WHEN did I ever make reference to “us lowly Christians”? 4. WHAT gave YOU the impression that I think He’s God? 5. HOW do YOU know what I think? If I may beg the court’s indulgence one more time by referencing my first post on this thread > here – under point # 7 where I tried to express some of how I understand the Trinity “ For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence.” Not there nor anywhere outside this thread have I ever said I think Jesus Christ the Son of God is the same as or identical to God the Father. That may be how YOU mischaracterize the doctrine of the Trinity. That’s YOUR problem and NOT mine. And as far as the greater works of John 14:12 I don’t think Jesus meant greater works referring to power but in SCOPE. Believers would become witnesses to ALL THE WORLD through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – reaffirmed by his words in Acts 1:8.

When I was working on my degree in architectural design one of my professors had an indirect way of belittling me in class. While gazing at my blueprints he’d say, “Hmmmm…I don’t know if this will work - some of you should really think about changing careers.” I’d say, “Professor Maison is there a problem with my design?" He’d just sigh and move on to the next student’s set of prints while saying “If the shoe fits wear it.” I swore that one day I would show him. And one day I did. The CEO of RockRooster Footwear hired me to design his home.

I was wondering about the same thing…you should ask the baker – it’s his house

In light of the doctrine of the Trinity, there’s also another way to analyze this “game plan”. Your statements are in bold red: 1. “Prior to the day of Pentecost, he wanted God's people to believe that Jesus was evil. Since the day of Pentecost, he NOW wants God's people to believe that Jesus is God. Why would he change like that? He did a 180.” There are some misconceptions in your statement. One, you’re assuming you know what the devil wanted. Two, you’re ignoring the more obvious reason for what changed people’s perception of Jesus Christ...it was his resurrection! ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. “Prior to the day of Pentecost… Since the day of Pentecost…” your time reference is close…but sorry, no cigar…From his birth to the cross, Jesus Christ’s divinity was not fully revealed. But AFTER the resurrection is a whole other story: 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20: 24 - 28 …and for good measure I refer Grease Spotters to Bible Hub Commentaries: John 20:28 where at least 12 exegetical and expository commentaries concur that the natural meaning of Thomas’ exclamation “My Lord and My God” was a bold confession that his Lord was also his God. see also: The divinity of Christ in the Gospels and Jesus’ Divinity in the Gospels ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. It seems logical that the devil might want to imitate the “resurrection factor” because that is what changed people’s perception of Jesus Christ (see point 2) . In Revelation 13 that appears to be the devil’s game plan: 11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. Most commentaries seem to be in agreement that the "Satanic trinity" is: Satan himself A man called Antichrist A figure called The False Prophet see also: Bible.org: Satan's trinity Bible Helps: Satanic trinity in final conflict Got Questions.org: what is the unholy trinity in the end times? In my humble opinion, there is a literary trinity of sorts with John 14 , John 15 , and John 16 …three concentrated and consecrated chapters that are like a doctrine of the Christian life…unfolding in the outworking of the Holy Trinity. Conclusion: sometime in the future, the devil plagiarizes the Trinity, the resurrection, and with lying signs and wonders fools a lot of people. I tend to think a believer submitting to the outworking of the Holy Trinity would have an advantage in the end times – since yielding to God’s purpose, ways and means would put one on God’s side...He will help believers discern the counterfeit unholy trinity ...and He will also strengthen them for the battles ahead…to remain neutral in the fight is to lose! ...so to circle back to answering the question in the thread title: The Holy Trinity is an asset if you’re on Team Holy Trinity…the unholy trinity is a liability if you’re on Team 3 Bad Amigos.

Good question. Could be. There’s different ways to look at it. When I first left TWI, I would read verses like this and figure well maybe TWI wasn’t all that bad – at least they’re preaching Christ. But over time - the more I analyzed TWI doctrine the more I realized that Christ is essentially absent in their ideology. So, I don’t think Paul was addressing pseudo-Christian cults here. I think he may have been speaking to the issue of ambitious leaders who wanted to make a name for themselves. I get the idea they were still preaching Christ – which is the priority. Maybe this is getting into shades of gray with motives. Setting aside the issue of TWI’s twisted doctrine for a moment: I knew a lot of good leaders in TWI – clergy who were salaried by TWI and they did a good job from the heart – they genuinely cared about people – you could tell. They truly were good shepherds but didn't know they worked for ravenous wolves. I also knew a few career-clergy. Salaried by TWI – and their service was all about building their reputations and selfish ambitions. 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. Philippians 1

Okay, so there were these three Trinitarians who started a business working out of their home. It was a cottage industry. Their stock tripled in value by the third quarter, and they became trillionaires. Now they have their own office building.

Being curious about the local baker who claimed he made all those exquisite upside-down cakes at home ... I decided to follow him and see where he lived.

Keeping with the theme of this thread: The prodigal son lived large and squandered his assets. His older brother was outraged and called him a liability. In the Bourne movies a highly trained assassin-for-hire is called an asset. But hiring the asset means money is flowing out – so then, the asset is a liability? A cult-leader might consider followers assets because they put money in his pocket on a regular basis. On the other hand, a cult-leader is a liability if his bad behavior is exposed…Note: exposing oneself is a whole other type of bad behavior.

Great points, Bolshevik ! Since having a supposedly superior knowledge was such a big deal to someone with gnostic tendencies like wierwille – I think he would have probably been very inclined to “demystify” God. I read a great book a few years ago that addresses stuff like that The Trivialization of God: The Dangerous Illusion of a Manageable Deity by Donald McCullough ... The title alone grabbed my attention – that says it all - and check out this one comment about the book on Amazon “This is a God who transcends our understanding and is unknowable except by divine revelation-the God described by the author of Hebrews as "a consuming fire." I tend to think wierwille’s posturing was typical overreach for a pseudo-Christian cult-leader…in effect he acted like the high priest who was the mediator between God and man. In the Old Testament the high priest was considered the highest religious position of all those who served at the temple. Only he could enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement to make atonement for the sins of the nation of Israel. The teachings of wierwille dictated how followers should think of and relate to God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit – and that is exactly the role of a mediator – one who attempts to make people involved in a conflict come to an agreement; a go-between…in case you forgot this, we already have a high priest – Jesus Christ, so we don’t need another middleman see Hebrews 4:15 & 16 . Isn’t it ironic? When wierwille declared in PFAL that “The Word takes the place of the absent Christ” – it actually happened in the opposite way from what students thought. With his twisted interpretation of Scripture – palmed off as “The Word” ... for all practical purposes wierwille acted as the middleman – the high priest…mediator between God and man, subverting the role of Jesus Christ… The Word of wierwille takes the place of Jesus Christ WWwS… or What Would wierwille Say.

That would also work in one of those plagiarism threads in About the Way forum...but don't get too excited it's been done many many many times before... plagiarism that is.

Pawtucket is of course the father…I have a tendency to be an a$$hole so I’ll be the son of a bi+ch, I guess mods are the holy ghost in the machine (website server)

nope - I'm not a moderator - more like a least common denominator

I just did

I can't - that's a moderator's job

This thread belongs in doctrinal forum. But for now, I’ll throw my 2 cents in while it’s hot off the press. note your words are in bold red 1. “Prior to the day of Pentecost, he wanted God's people to believe that Jesus was evil. Since the day of Pentecost, he NOW wants God's people to believe that Jesus is God. Why would he change like that? He did a 180. He looks fickle. What's going on???” This is a logical fallacy. How do you know what his motives were and how do you know what he wanted people to believe? Chapter and verse please. ~ ~ ~ ~ 2. “God NEVER intended for Jesus to be worshipped as an idol.” chapter and verse please...An idol is an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship…How do you know what God intended? Colossians 1: 15 – 20 seems to express the opposite of what you say. It speaks of the supremacy of Christ, and note in Colossians 1:15 it starts off by saying Christ is the image (“eikon” in Greek text) of the invisible God. We get our English word “icon” from that. In computer science icon is a graphic symbol (usually a simple picture) that denotes a program, command, or a data file in a graphical user interface – like when you click on the icon for your browser – that enables you to connect to the Internet. Christ is in effect - God's icon - because Christ represents exactly what God is like . Christ is how we connect to the Father John 14:6 . Everything we come to know and experience through Jesus Christ deepens our appreciation of the compassion and forgiveness of our heavenly Father John 14:9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. And let’s take into account WHEN the New Testament documents were written. (see Dating the Bible and chronology of Jesus ) . Since most of them were written well after Jesus Christ ascended into heaven – we see the huge learning curve of what the disciples thought of Jesus Christ, when comparing the simple narratives of the Gospels and Acts with the more “cerebral” epistles. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. In the Gospels the closest that comes to such big ideas about Christ is in John 1 (but then again most scholars say it was written between 90 and 110 AD – that is many years after Jesus Christ ascended) and like I said above, time-wise this reflects a very mature development of their faith and understanding of Christ. As a literary device John 1 is a fascinating prologue which serves to give the reader important information from the past that will have bearing on the future in the text that follows. It establishes the setting and introduces the protagonist and themes of the story. ~ ~ ~ ~ 5. Referring to Jesus Christ as the Logos is a big deal…even a secular source like Wiki recognizes the divinely profound implication: “The Gospel of John identifies the Christian Logos, through which all things are made, as divine (theos), and further identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate Logos.” From : Wiki - The Logos . There is so much information available on the Logos I will decline to get into it here – for those interested in a small sample of what I’ve looked into you can check out my profile, section # 12 I'll have a double Kool-Aid and make it dirty - and don’t let the section title throw you – my notes on the Logos is one of the many rebuttals to wierwille’s twisted theology, logical fallacies and slipshod interpretation of Scripture…if you manage to stay awake through my “dissertation-esque” review of a few scholarly works zzzzZZZZzzzZZZzzz I’d be happy to discuss the rich historical and philosophical significance of the Logos...we would have to have some common ground of definitions or concepts of The Trinity ...we'd probably make more headway than rehashing the same old worn out angry tirades of fluff and absurdity grounded in wierwille-isms – but I warn you if you resort to the same old wooden interpretations / proof texting of wierwille’s – I’ll probably find some excuse to bow out and watch God’s Favorite Idiot on Netflix …any PFAL grads reading this – please consider the nifty sleight-of-thought wierwille pulled off in the class – after his screwy redefinition of the Greek word pros in John 1:1 – he said it means “together with yet distinctly independent of” so far okay even though it’s a really clunky way to convey the idea of actually being in close proximity which is how it’s defined in Koine Greek. But then with the ease of a double-talking used car salesman wierwille goes on to say the ONLY WAY Jesus Christ could have been together with yet distinctly independent of God in the beginning was in the foreknowledge of God… huh? This idea of Jesus Christ was in the mind of God – and yet that idea was distinctly independent of God? Was God manifesting a huge personality split? or are we talking astral projection? just doesn’t make sense… and again I ask the simple question - can anyone provide the chapter and verse to support the idea that pros in John 1:1 means in the beginning Christ was ONLY IN GOD's FOREKNOWLEDGE ? One theologian said of pros: The preposition John uses here is quite revealing. It is the Greek word pros. It means “to be in company with someone”1 or to be “face-to-face.” It speaks of communion, interaction, fellowship. Remember that this is an eternal fellowship, a timeless relationship. Pros with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. See John 1:1 meaning and translation . Another perversion that wierwille came up with in light of his misinterpretation of John 1:1 is when he said, “the Word takes the place of the absent Christ”. Which if one cares to remove the PFAL-filter from their outlook they will realize for all practical purposes what wierwille was really suggesting was that PFAL is the only rule for faith and practice – Jesus Christ is not relevant nor immanent. A great book to get out of the cold clinical book knowledge Christianity of PFAL is Jesus: Lord & Savior by FF Bruce . Jesus Christ is alive and well and is very active and present in the world! ~ ~ ~ ~ 6. Concerning the title of this thread “the trinity: asset, or liability?” You need to define your terms. what is that in reference to? An asset is something tangible or intangible and is a resource that is owned or controlled by an individual, a company, a government, or an economic entity for accounting purposes with an expectation to produce positive economic value and benefit in the future. A liability is a business’s financial or service-based debt or obligation payable to another individual or business entity at the end of an accounting period to settle past transactions or events. It is one of the financial responsibilities of a business entity that requires the entity to sacrifice future economic benefits in the form of money, goods, and services. If we’re to understand you’re talking about the doctrine of the Trinity – that needs to be parsed out as to how YOU define the Trinity and what hermeneutical standards are used to interpret relevant passages. And then it’s debatable as to how valuable or how much of a detriment a book on the subject might be. wierwille’s book JCING is laughable coming from a supposedly research ministry – since in the book he mostly uses proof-texting and mischaracterizes the doctrine of the Trinity…it would be helpful to clarify YOUR concept of the Trinity. If on the other hand you have a polemic concern with the Trinity, it seems you’ve already attempted to stack the deck in your first post by using logical fallacies and fearmongering instead of logic and Scripture. In that regard – so far, it seems to me you consider acceptance of the Trinity as a liability. Well…you’re entitled to your opinion. A third alternative is that – laying aside doctrinal arguments - if indeed the Trinity is for real – I would think it’s an asset to the church – not that the church owns or controls the Trinity – but in a sense the Lord is ours and we are His – and I think there’s a lot of value in that with great promise of future benefits. ~ ~ ~ ~ 7. Also I don’t buy into the lowbrow arguments like wierwille used – saying “the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Scriptures” is rather narrowminded …and for that matter neither are a lot of other high concept words like theology (the study of the nature of God and religious belief), hamartiology (the biblical study of sin, it’s origin, the cause and effect, its consequences, repentance/forgiveness/reconciliation dynamic in the Christian life, etc.), eschatology (study of the end times), hermeneutics (science and art of the interpretation of Scripture) , soteriology (the study of salvation). I call these high concept words because they easily summarize big topics…For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence...Even in the Old Testament, prophets spoke of the “symmetry” of God. Like in Isaiah 57:15 “For this is what the high and exalted One says— he who lives forever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.” ~ ~ ~ ~ 8. “Once again, the trinity is both the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist. It is a perpetual reminder that..."haleluia, the antichrist is coming". No Christian should want anything to do with supporting something like that.” Seems like there’s a lot of fearmongering and hatemongering behind your statements...Can you walk me through your thinking on this? I don't see the correlation you made here > "the trinity is both the welcoming committee and the public relations machine for the antichrist" . that sounds awfully harsh and derogative to say about the Trinity. Can you provide chapter and verse to support that? I mean what Christian doesn’t have some fear or healthy respect and hatred for the antichrist. Your statements do have a certain Unitarian / fundamentalist appeal. But this stuff reminds me of wierwille’s galvanizing / polarizing tactics to manipulate folks to side with him on being anti-Trinity. I’ve heard him say in many open meetings “for someone to believe in the Trinity they’d have to be possessed by a devil spirit.” Holy crap!!! Or rather unholy crap! Whatever happened to challenging someone to cite chapter and verse when they saw something screwball like that? I never heard of the Trinity being such a galvanizing issue until I got in TWI. On a practical basis I never understood what the big deal was in wierwille’s anti-Trinity rants. If Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior – that should be the end of it - aren’t we all on the same team, then? I think wierwille's anti-Trinity "campaigns" were a gimmick to distinguish himself from mainstream Christianity. Didn’t Jesus say in John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." This blacklisting of Christians who accept the Trinity doesn’t seem to be a very loving thing to do... wierwille’s fearmongering and hatemongering sounds like a playbook from one of the characters in the Harry Potter movies. Psychologists say gaslighting is a form of manipulation that occurs in abusive relationships – where a bully…abuser…a cult-leader tries to get you to question your judgements and reality. Think about the practical aspects of wierwille’s anti-Trinity rants that would involve real situations and events and how you would interact with another person who may not have exactly the same concept of Jesus Christ as you do. That might be possible if we were living back at the time when Jesus walked the earth, and we were his close disciples. Intangibles like the concept of God, love, loyalty and creativity will probably be unique and different in everyone’s mind…It seems like a lot of followers of fundamentalist groups like TWI prefer having a litmus test on folks who follow in the spirit of Jesus Christ instead of following the letter of the dogma.

Well since we’re coming clean on old sins…I used to compose a poem or song by using someone else’s meter. As an example, I loved Carly Simon’s “You’re So Vain” which starts out: You walked into the party like you were walking onto a yacht Your hat strategically dipped below one eye Your scarf it was apricot ~ ~ ~ ~ Besides her voice and the incredible noodling of bassist Klaus Voormann, one of the things I loved about the song was the vivid lilting descriptions and I've always imagined it being said directly to the person. My poem had nothing to do with any of the content of Simon’s song – I just wanted to imitate that style of narrative and write about a long-distance runner. I used to be on cross country track in high school…the opening of my poem went as follows…and you might notice I have a flagrant disregard for meter…I’m such a rebel: There you were on the black track, after a race that you just won A mantle of sweat on your back was glistening from the sun ~ ~ ~ ~ In defense of inspiration and creativity or rather in my opinion there’s a huge difference between plagiarizing someone’s material and being inspired by someone’s material. Musically I’ve followed a similar pattern when I liked a tune. And every so often I get on a kick of creating a tune that sounds like something a famous band would write. When my goal is to write a tune that sounds different from the source of my inspiration but resemble the same style it usually turns out quite unique. However, I won’t lie…I have heard responses from my audience “I wish I could hear the original”. I love Heartbreaker by Led Zeppelin. So, I sped up John Paul Jones’ slow walking bass line…varied the scale and where I punched it…moved some notes around…and also came up with two distinct bridges…and voila – Led Zippo. It’s an instrumental – but to me it sounds like something Led Zeppelin would write…With my title, I usually give a tip of the hat to my inspiration and this particular title also alludes to my fascination with Zippo lighters back in my weed-whacking daze. Sorry for going off-topic…just thought I’d add what plagiarizing is NOT…it’s NOT being creative. (note I had to revise ...or recreate my poem - since I wrote it a long time ago...what I wrote in this post was from a memory - I lost the book I wrote it in. or rather I tossed the book after I took the class - deeming it "old man junk".)

There’s nothing like an honest preacher …and he was nothing like that ( I plagiarized the schtick of those 2 old farts in the balcony on the Muppet Show )