Raf

So, you're going out with my daughter, eh? Well, make sure you use protection!

Need a little science knowledge to get this one. Or you need to be bilingual. If you get the second and third, the first is unmistakable.

Six pics. Four word title.

Can't see the second pic, but I can guess based on the first, third and fourth pics... Jake and the Fatman

Idi Amin Vin Diesel Chin/Lift Goat/Kid The DaVinci Code ?

Sorry I neglected this. Yeah, googling is cool if enough time passes. Steve Zahn, by the way, is one terrific actor.

Well, it's pouring in Fort Lauderdale, but we need the rain further upstate, where Lake O is. Otherwise, we're going to make New Orleans look like a minor inconvenience.

WTH makes the assertion that Wierwille's critics called him a Johnny come lately. I say he/she made that up too. I know, WTH read it in an old piece of literature he can no longer find. WhatEVER. Calling him a Johnny come lately does NOT imply that Wierwille was ALWAYS anti-trinitarian. It only implies that he was anti-trinitarian at the time he wrote the book, which, best as I can tell, he was.

Oh my GOD! Poor reading comprehension skills at work AGAIN! YOU made the claim that VPW's critics accused him of always being anti-trinitarian. your "johnny come lately" discussion does not support your case. You have failed to provide a single example of anyone claiming that VPW was always anti-trinitarian. Quoting his comment that he's not some johnny come lately has NOTHING TO DO with your claim. Can you even READ?

I'm saying that you have not proven your point that they claimed he was always an anti-Trinitarian. Your analysis of "johnny come lately" doesn't address that issue in the slightest. I'm saying you have poor to non-existent reading comprehension skills, are dishonest in your handling of this discussion and unworthy of another pixel.

Unable to prove any point, WTH resorts to namecalling. Very mature.

Can I jump in on this question? John 8: 31 Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, "If you remain in my word, you will truly be my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." 33 They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. 16 How can you say, 'You will become free'?" 34 Jesus answered them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 A slave does not remain in a household forever, but a son always remains. 36 So if a son frees you, then you will truly be free. 37 I know that you are descendants of Abraham. But you are trying to kill me, because my word has no room among you. 38 I tell you what I have seen in the Father's presence; then do what you have heard from the Father." 39 They answered and said to him, "Our father is Abraham." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. 40 But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God; Abraham did not do this. 41 You are doing the works of your father!" (So) they said to him, "We are not illegitimate. We have one Father, God." I don't know what translation that is, so forgive me. But here's the point: reading the substance of the argument, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that "they" were accusing Jesus of being illegitimate. Jesus had just challenged their legitimacy by accusing them of having a father other than Abraham. Going after Jesus' parentage would not answer his accusation against them. Their comment is defensive, not accusatory. They said exactly what they meant: they were not born of fornication.

No need.

Honestly, I think most in TWI read it and tried to memorize it, but I wonder how many really tried to digest it and critique it. I daresay few. I tied to line my thinking up to it, supposing it to be a stronger argument than it was. Once I realized it was not that strong a presentation, I changed my approach. I don't think a vast majority of members of TWI were being dishonest. But I do think the vast majority were being uncritical. Who are they, after all, to say the MOG could have done a better job on John 1? We were living in a distorted little world where this guy was a pre-eminent scholar. Plagiarism? Why, other authors should have been HONORED to be plagiarized by VPW! So I don't think the John 1 presentation was effective at all. And I think that its "success" is not up for a vote. It's an individual opinion, no more disputable than someone saying they like the taste of organges.

Didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding you. iwas just explaining why I wasn't going into further detail on my point here. :) If, however, what he set out to do was provide a logical and Biblically sound explanation of what John 1 is trying to communicate, he did not succeed (in my opinion). In dealing with this issue, I found very quickly that using JCING's explanation of John 1 was practically useless and involved logical leaps that were unsupported by the text itself. The other books make much better arguments, though Trinitarians will, of course, disagree with them.

Well, this isn't the place to get into a "what does John 1 say" discussion: I was merely pointing out that Wierwille's explanation of it doesn't do the job he set out to do, and I offer that as my opinion. Others will vary. I'm not even saying I disagree with his overall conclusion. Another example is his explanation of the verse in Philippians (thought it not robbery to be equal with God). Wierwille's explanation proves/disproves nothing. It's downright silly. But that doesn't mean I disagree with his overall conclusion on the identity of Jesus. By the way, here's a link to what was once Christian Biblical Counsel. http://www.kingdomready.org

If you believe JCING and want a stronger book to explain it than Wierwille's, then I recommend the CES book and the Buzzard book (Google "Christianity's self-inflicted wound" and you should find it easily). I also recommend becoming familiar with the counterarguments to those books. While you may not agree with them, they will help you better understand what people believe and why. I would also recommend getting on the mailing list for Glad Tidings, which is put out by the group once known as Christian Biblical Counsel (I've lost track of what their name is now). Sean F, the son of a well-known TWI minister, has been writing some interesting pieces on the subject lately.

The thought that Wierwille's book could have some kind of ripple effect presumes that it was some kind of seminal work in the field. It was not. Despite his protestation, it really was a johnny come lately idea set forth to be iconoclastic. It was not revolutionary. It was not unique. The whole reason we have the word "Unitarian" in our language is that there were Christians who did not believe Jesus is God. "Either JCING is the word or it is not." Wrong. The book presents a thesis that is either correct or not. That doesn't mean it's "the Word" by any stretch. Its presentation of history is downright laughable; it misrepresents (by omission) the position of Arius; it draws false comparisons between the Christian Trinity and the deities of other religions; and it provides a tortured explanation of the first chapter of John's gospel that no one merely reading the Bible, in any language, can draw from the words alone. He could be correct in his thesis and still have written a shoddy book about it.

The best thing I can say about JCING is that it inspired the CES book.

I meant that the concept of arguing about how big a deal TWI was in relationship to how sinister Wierwille was. TWI was a wannabe cult, but it was never the big deal threat to orthodox Christianity Wierwille wanted to be. It was a piddling piece of nothing.

I was going to cry foul because it's The Tonight Show, not the Johnny Carson Show. However, there was a variety show called The Johnny Carson Show for a year in the 1950s.

It's WordWolf's fault.

Then we have that gem from WTH: WW asks you to prove that people have accused VPW of always being anti-trinitarian, and WTH replies with a quote from JCING that does not even remotely address the question. Then he goes on to pretend to cite the introductions to other books. Since it's so difficult to prove a negative, let's ask WTH to establish a positive: Can you name one book that claims VPW was always anti-Trinitarian? Your claim was that MOST of his critics made this claim. I'm not asking you to prove that. I'm asking you to prove that ANY of his critics made that claim.

A lot of fur flying here over nothing. VPW had a profound effect on a relatively tiny number of people. More people believe JCING because of what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach than because of Wierwille. They've got 6.7 million members (that's ONLY counting the people who go witnessing. Another 10 million are considered adherents, believers who don't go that extra step of door knocking). The above is cited from Wikipedia, so not rock hard facts. But they agree with numbers I've seen elsewhere. That's somewhere between 75 and 150 people currently in the JW's for every ONE person who ever took PFAL (whether or not they stayed). We think Wierwille was profound because he had an effect on our lives. But our perspective on that is distorted for precisely that reason. Now, let's look at TWI's status as a cult. Type "Top Ten Cults" into your Google search. Top item that comes up is this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-top10cults.html Please note what is NOT on that list. There was a time TWI was one of the fastest growing cults in America. That time was very, very short. Even looking at it as a 25-year phenomenon, its growth rate was not that impressive. Pick a 25 year span, and it will inevitably begin or end in a weak period. It simply was not a big deal. Ever. Books were written about cults, true. TWI was included in some of those books. The most influential of those books, Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults, mentions TWI on exactly one page. YAWN. For the effect that he had on our lives, we look at Wierwille's life and ministry. But let's try an experiment: go to 100 random people you've never met before and ask them if they've ever heard of The Way International. You'll be surprised how few have.