Remember in PFAL(filmed in 1967) how VPW was teaching about the second coming and he finished the teaching with "He's coming back as King of King and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty!!"?
In the instructors manual(circa 1971 or 1972) there were instructions to gloss over it and "spin" it by saying "He was so wrapped up in the emotion of the subject, he simply made a mistake." That's not the exact wording but it IS the general instruction we were given to deal with the situation.
I recall someone asking why, if he made a mistake he didn't just redo the session once it was realized.
The answer was that the teaching was a special one-time event and could not be duplicated "spiritually".
I'd be interested in knowing the history of this doctrine in TWI too.
As concerning intentions, having an opinion about someone's intentions is a lot easier than proving the same opinion.
In my experience it's easier to have a doctrinal opinion if the effects of that opinion also line up with a prefered response in other people. Having a doctrinal opinion to your own hurt is always noteworthy. IMO
There's no doubt that Wierwille decided to make it a very "up front" issue. He knew it would be controversial and probably BECAUSE of that, he pushed it so hard...I think it was the roa 1976 when the book came out and everyone was encouraged to buy it and "master" it...(the book itself was sophmoric at best...sorta like a high school term paper)...
I tend to believe that Wierwille's decision to become anti trinity was very calculated and related to his desire to seperate his group from other churches...it was his schtick...he played it like a violin and marketed the hell out of it. It created (besides revenue), an "us versus them" mentality towards other churches...which in turn, kept the sheep in the fold...
The implication of course, is that Wierwille knew he was creating a cult...unless of course, he actually believed what he taught...and at this point, thats very doubtful.
Wierwille never came up with anything original...he stole everything he ever claimed was his own. Where did he get his anti trinitarian views?...and when did this happen?....don't know.
The story that I remember from the old days is that Dr. Wierwille tried to document the Trinity in God's Word and then ended up discovering that God's Word did not teach the trinity.
IMO it is very telling that the bible does not specifically mention the trinity. I know that this shouldn't become a doctrinal discussion. I just said that to point out that on the surface it gives a non-trinitarian viewpoint some credence, and so it also gave Dr. Wierwille the same credence as he taught this point in the PFAL class; to me anyway.
I remember just getting into the ministry about that time......I thought it very "coincidental" (at the time) that Josh McDowell had just published a book on Who Jesus Christ was and the book was about the trinity. I get into The Way and Here's the JCNG book being promoted. Timely? I have no idea about what was going on at the time.
Since it's been proven that VP lied about the gas pumps story and God talking to him, which was a plagerism from someone else's story, I have to take everything else he said about his "discoveries" in God's Word with a grain of salt. A leopard doesn't change its spots overnight, once a liar....
So what he said about himself studying to document the Trinity and seeing the oposite proven, doesn't hold water with me, I question how much he ever studied once he founded TWI.
I do know he read other's works and copied them word for word, and plagerized what other's preached as well.
The story that I remember from the old days is that Dr. Wierwille tried to document the Trinity in God's Word and then ended up discovering that God's Word did not teach the trinity.
You know, I never thought about this until just now, but "scripture build up" was one of the "keys to the Word's interpretation". IIRC, you would have to look at all verses on a subject to get the full story, e.g. four crucified, six denials of Peter, 2 entries into Jerusalem, etc. You won't find "four crucified" mentioned anywhere, nowhere are there more than two mentioned, but you take apparent contradictions and resolve them in a manner that adds up to four. True, there is no one place where the word "trinity" is used, but there are places where Jesus apparently is refered to as God, credited with the characteristics of God, or equated with God. Yet we don't attempt to use scripture buildup in this instance, but just assume that the verses that support the trinity are "unclear" or forgeries. Just a thought (or two)
As well as JCNG, here is another little beauty that looks plagiarized by yours untruly:
HOLOCAUST TOMORROW, in light of God’s Word. Holocaust puts to silence all teachings to the contrary relative to nuclear warfare in the near and distant future, covering subjects of interest such as war on the moon, combat in outer space, nuclear warfare in all its varied aspects, on land, at sea and in the air. A must for every thinking person TODAY! (LIMITED SUPPLY)
In PFAL VPW does say, "there will be blood on the moon" or "men killed on the moon" - just says it real quick and moves on. No discussion. Always seemed a little odd to me, as the verse quoted (Joel 2:31) says that "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and moon into blood..." which is clearly figurative (it's not going to be real blood, as in that which flows through the human body) and the "space race" had been going on for a long time when PFAL was recorded, still Cold War stuff. I don't know that this means that men will be physically fighting ON the moon so much as ABOUT (alleged ownership of) the moon. So perhaps this was a plagiarism too.
The quote's lifted from the BG Leonard website that Waysider noted above.
You know, I never thought about this until just now, but "scripture build up" was one of the "keys to the Word's interpretation". IIRC, you would have to look at all verses on a subject to get the full story, e.g. four crucified, six denials of Peter, 2 entries into Jerusalem, etc. You won't find "four crucified" mentioned anywhere, nowhere are there more than two mentioned, but you take apparent contradictions and resolve them in a manner that adds up to four. True, there is no one place where the word "trinity" is used, but there are places where Jesus apparently is refered to as God, credited with the characteristics of God, or equated with God. Yet we don't attempt to use scripture buildup in this instance, but just assume that the verses that support the trinity are "unclear" or forgeries. Just a thought (or two)
Wow, Oakspear - that is a tremendous point!!!!......I mean....that is simply amazing...I always appreciate the clarity and critical thinking you bring to every thread...thanks a million!
thanks for starting this topic, little white bunny...
i had never really thought about this before, but i'm getting the impression that vpw made this one of his most important doctrines just for effect...
a calculated, marketing move... probably based on some jehovah's witness stuff he read... hmmmm...
the thing i find most sad about all of this is that people still cling to the JCNG doctrine (without taking a second look at it) because "scripture build-up" would indeed show that Jesus is God...
Wow, Oakspear - that is a tremendous point!!!!......I mean....that is simply amazing...I always appreciate the clarity and critical thinking you bring to every thread...thanks a million!
I've always thought that trinitarian logic and the various unitarian explanations were each attempts to reconcile something that is not consistantly addressed in the bible. Is the lack of consistancy because the bible was written, not by a god, but by different people who held a spectrum of opinions about Jesus, or is it because Jesus' nature is not either/or, but some "other" that we do not fully grasp?
My opinion is that Wierwille's explanation of why Jesus couldn't be God, with all of his examples of what God 'would have' done or how if Jesus was God such-and-such word would've been used, is pretty poorly thought out and has enormous holes in it. He makes much of pagan "trinities" as the origin of "the" Trinity (getting some of them wrong in the process) but ignores the pagan origin of the sacrificed king/god as a redeemer for his people.
I see it as completely plausible that JCING was just a marketing ploy, and not a sincerely held belief.
LCM got more into the blood on the moon and speculated that our government may have covered up something during the moon landings. I think that was inthe WAP class but it might have been his Adv WAP class.
Good point Paw, I wonder if there are any posters here who are/were JW's?
It just seems mightly fishy that old vp actually really studied something other than memorizing certain verses. Since his delivery is shallow and not very well fleshed out, it stands to reason he did plagerize his JCNG stuff. I wonder if the LDS church's viewpoint of JC our brother was part of what was plagerized too?
In addition to Jehovah's Witnesses(shouldn't it be Yahweh's Witnesses?) and Leonard, George Lamsa's Nestorian background(and possible Islamic conversion) are strong influences. Also include Meggido Missions(now called Ministires), Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, Unitarian/Universalist, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, Scientology, Later Day Saints/Mormons. John Schoenheit attempts to improve on Jesus Christ is not God/ JC Our Passover/JC Our Promised Seed in Spirit and Truth Fellowship's book One God and One Lord(Christian Education Services). Whether he and John Lynn suceed or not is up for debate. Let's say for me the jury is still out(don't mean to be a waffler sitting on the fence), but acknowledge that both positions just might be equally true or to use a Christian concept of paradox. But hey, your mileage might vary greatly.
The Bible verse that describes VP's life is 2 Tim 4:3-4: "Men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
VP wasn't concerned about truth or sound Bible interpretation. He just wanted things that were new, different, out of the ordinary because his ears itched. If the Church had been unitarian, he would have become Trinitarian. If the Church taught soul sleep, he would have written a book "The Dead Are Alive Now." If the Church taught 4 crucified, he would have come up with two. If the Church taught athletes of the spirit, he would have come up with warriors. Being the MOG, no one could correct him or reign him in. There's a tape of Cummins "teaching" athletes and you can hear VP rooting him on in the background. He loved stuff that scratched his itch.
If VP had lived longer, he would have come up with more "discoveries in the Word," which likely would have become more bizarre as years passed. Joe Smith of the Mormons (and any cult leader with absolute power) made the same progression, coming up with Jesus as Satan's brother, polygamy, etc. They have to constantly come up with "new" stuff to prove that they are the ONLY place anyone can find truth and that EVERYONE else is wrong.
It's cult leader mentality. The difference between Joe Smith and VP is that in the Mormon system, you come up with new teachings by "revelation" direct from God (which adds more revelation in addition to the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon), while in the TWI system, you have to "find" it in the Word (VP said he taught by "revelation," but he still felt he had to prove it in the Word).
I've always thought that trinitarian logic and the various unitarian explanations were each attempts to reconcile something that is not consistantly addressed in the bible. Is the lack of consistancy because the bible was written, not by a god, but by different people who held a spectrum of opinions about Jesus, or is it because Jesus' nature is not either/or, but some "other" that we do not fully grasp?
My opinion is that Wierwille's explanation of why Jesus couldn't be God, with all of his examples of what God 'would have' done or how if Jesus was God such-and-such word would've been used, is pretty poorly thought out and has enormous holes in it. He makes much of pagan "trinities" as the origin of "the" Trinity (getting some of them wrong in the process) but ignores the pagan origin of the sacrificed king/god as a redeemer for his people.
I see it as completely plausible that JCING was just a marketing ploy, and not a sincerely held belief.
Some more great points there, Oak!...Trinitarian/Unitarian issues are complex. Laying aside vp's dishonesty [plagiarism and flair for fabrication], intellectually he was way out of his league on this and most theological topics [addressing ideas with little thought and gaps of logic, like you were saying].
But the strength of his marketing ploy was controversy. Four crucified, the day Christ died, JCNG, etc, were used like selling points to distinguish vp's ministry from "the competition" – often referred to as the churches or churchianity. Like infomercials that fabricate a need: "Is your Bible falling to pieces because only two were crucified with Jesus? Have you ever wondered how to get back to the original God-breathed Word? Are you worshipping the one true God?" A grand assumption was sold in his infomercials: "I'm the only one rightly dividing the Word."
Controversy was used to polarize sides. Little things became big issues because "the integrity of the Word is always at stake." You were either on vp's side or on the outside [of TWI]!
I've always thought that trinitarian logic and the various unitarian explanations were each attempts to reconcile something that is not consistantly addressed in the bible. Is the lack of consistancy because the bible was written, not by a god, but by different people who held a spectrum of opinions about Jesus, or is it because Jesus' nature is not either/or, but some "other" that we do not fully grasp?
I've concluded, using Occam's Razor, that neither of the majority positions is correct, and the answer transcends both somehow.
Beyond that, I freely admit that the nature of God is beyond my intellect.
I hope to learn something someday that helps me get past this particular "logjam" in my thinking.
Controversy was used to polarize sides. Little things became big issues because "the integrity of the Word is always at stake." You were either on vp's side or on the outside [of TWI]!
Ain't that true! He (and TWI) did specialize in black or white. It was a way of cutting us off. Turning off our thinking skills. There are better (more scholarly) books than JCING around to make the point.
I guess the best that can be said is that he got us to think about it at all, after a fashion.
it's not really a lack of consistency in the bible...
the problem is one of human logic...
the bible consistently teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine...
(and that is a hard concept to grasp logically)
so people like to pick one over the other, and focus on one to the exclusion of the other...
as wordwolf pointed out, we cannot fully understand the nature of God (it is beyond our intellect)...
however, the bible does reveal the nature of God (and the nature of Jesus)...
i think the problem is that people have a hard time accepting all of what God has revealed about His nature... (becuz it is beyond their logic)
so people pick and choose parts that make the most sense to them, and form various sects around their own ideas...
personally, i accept the fact that i cannot fully comprehend the nature of God, and i am quite content to believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine...
hey... and i'm not gonna form a sect around that either... LOL
Recommended Posts
waysider
Remember in PFAL(filmed in 1967) how VPW was teaching about the second coming and he finished the teaching with "He's coming back as King of King and Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty!!"?
In the instructors manual(circa 1971 or 1972) there were instructions to gloss over it and "spin" it by saying "He was so wrapped up in the emotion of the subject, he simply made a mistake." That's not the exact wording but it IS the general instruction we were given to deal with the situation.
I recall someone asking why, if he made a mistake he didn't just redo the session once it was realized.
The answer was that the teaching was a special one-time event and could not be duplicated "spiritually".
HUH???
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I'd be interested in knowing the history of this doctrine in TWI too.
As concerning intentions, having an opinion about someone's intentions is a lot easier than proving the same opinion.
In my experience it's easier to have a doctrinal opinion if the effects of that opinion also line up with a prefered response in other people. Having a doctrinal opinion to your own hurt is always noteworthy. IMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
There's no doubt that Wierwille decided to make it a very "up front" issue. He knew it would be controversial and probably BECAUSE of that, he pushed it so hard...I think it was the roa 1976 when the book came out and everyone was encouraged to buy it and "master" it...(the book itself was sophmoric at best...sorta like a high school term paper)...
I tend to believe that Wierwille's decision to become anti trinity was very calculated and related to his desire to seperate his group from other churches...it was his schtick...he played it like a violin and marketed the hell out of it. It created (besides revenue), an "us versus them" mentality towards other churches...which in turn, kept the sheep in the fold...
The implication of course, is that Wierwille knew he was creating a cult...unless of course, he actually believed what he taught...and at this point, thats very doubtful.
Wierwille never came up with anything original...he stole everything he ever claimed was his own. Where did he get his anti trinitarian views?...and when did this happen?....don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I would like to know more specifics.
The story that I remember from the old days is that Dr. Wierwille tried to document the Trinity in God's Word and then ended up discovering that God's Word did not teach the trinity.
IMO it is very telling that the bible does not specifically mention the trinity. I know that this shouldn't become a doctrinal discussion. I just said that to point out that on the surface it gives a non-trinitarian viewpoint some credence, and so it also gave Dr. Wierwille the same credence as he taught this point in the PFAL class; to me anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
newlife
I remember just getting into the ministry about that time......I thought it very "coincidental" (at the time) that Josh McDowell had just published a book on Who Jesus Christ was and the book was about the trinity. I get into The Way and Here's the JCNG book being promoted. Timely? I have no idea about what was going on at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Since it's been proven that VP lied about the gas pumps story and God talking to him, which was a plagerism from someone else's story, I have to take everything else he said about his "discoveries" in God's Word with a grain of salt. A leopard doesn't change its spots overnight, once a liar....
So what he said about himself studying to document the Trinity and seeing the oposite proven, doesn't hold water with me, I question how much he ever studied once he founded TWI.
I do know he read other's works and copied them word for word, and plagerized what other's preached as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
I bet if you study some Jehovah's Witnesses stuff, you will find the orgins of the book
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I know Leonard's position wasn't the traditional Trinitarian one.
IIRC, previous discussions mentioned his book titled "The Godhead" and subtitled
"the Water in the Bottle."
(I may not recall the title correctly.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here is a link to that book as well as other B.G. Leonard materials
http://www.ctcoftexas.com/books.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Slightly off topic:
As well as JCNG, here is another little beauty that looks plagiarized by yours untruly:
In PFAL VPW does say, "there will be blood on the moon" or "men killed on the moon" - just says it real quick and moves on. No discussion. Always seemed a little odd to me, as the verse quoted (Joel 2:31) says that "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and moon into blood..." which is clearly figurative (it's not going to be real blood, as in that which flows through the human body) and the "space race" had been going on for a long time when PFAL was recorded, still Cold War stuff. I don't know that this means that men will be physically fighting ON the moon so much as ABOUT (alleged ownership of) the moon. So perhaps this was a plagiarism too.
The quote's lifted from the BG Leonard website that Waysider noted above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hmmm... this is a very interesting thread...
thanks for starting this topic, little white bunny...
i had never really thought about this before, but i'm getting the impression that vpw made this one of his most important doctrines just for effect...
a calculated, marketing move... probably based on some jehovah's witness stuff he read... hmmmm...
the thing i find most sad about all of this is that people still cling to the JCNG doctrine (without taking a second look at it) because "scripture build-up" would indeed show that Jesus is God...
thanks for the thread, folks... :)
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I've always thought that trinitarian logic and the various unitarian explanations were each attempts to reconcile something that is not consistantly addressed in the bible. Is the lack of consistancy because the bible was written, not by a god, but by different people who held a spectrum of opinions about Jesus, or is it because Jesus' nature is not either/or, but some "other" that we do not fully grasp?
My opinion is that Wierwille's explanation of why Jesus couldn't be God, with all of his examples of what God 'would have' done or how if Jesus was God such-and-such word would've been used, is pretty poorly thought out and has enormous holes in it. He makes much of pagan "trinities" as the origin of "the" Trinity (getting some of them wrong in the process) but ignores the pagan origin of the sacrificed king/god as a redeemer for his people.
I see it as completely plausible that JCING was just a marketing ploy, and not a sincerely held belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
LCM got more into the blood on the moon and speculated that our government may have covered up something during the moon landings. I think that was inthe WAP class but it might have been his Adv WAP class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Good point Paw, I wonder if there are any posters here who are/were JW's?
It just seems mightly fishy that old vp actually really studied something other than memorizing certain verses. Since his delivery is shallow and not very well fleshed out, it stands to reason he did plagerize his JCNG stuff. I wonder if the LDS church's viewpoint of JC our brother was part of what was plagerized too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
In addition to Jehovah's Witnesses(shouldn't it be Yahweh's Witnesses?) and Leonard, George Lamsa's Nestorian background(and possible Islamic conversion) are strong influences. Also include Meggido Missions(now called Ministires), Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, Unitarian/Universalist, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, Scientology, Later Day Saints/Mormons. John Schoenheit attempts to improve on Jesus Christ is not God/ JC Our Passover/JC Our Promised Seed in Spirit and Truth Fellowship's book One God and One Lord(Christian Education Services). Whether he and John Lynn suceed or not is up for debate. Let's say for me the jury is still out(don't mean to be a waffler sitting on the fence), but acknowledge that both positions just might be equally true or to use a Christian concept of paradox. But hey, your mileage might vary greatly.
Edited by Thomas Loy BumgarnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
The Bible verse that describes VP's life is 2 Tim 4:3-4: "Men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
VP wasn't concerned about truth or sound Bible interpretation. He just wanted things that were new, different, out of the ordinary because his ears itched. If the Church had been unitarian, he would have become Trinitarian. If the Church taught soul sleep, he would have written a book "The Dead Are Alive Now." If the Church taught 4 crucified, he would have come up with two. If the Church taught athletes of the spirit, he would have come up with warriors. Being the MOG, no one could correct him or reign him in. There's a tape of Cummins "teaching" athletes and you can hear VP rooting him on in the background. He loved stuff that scratched his itch.
If VP had lived longer, he would have come up with more "discoveries in the Word," which likely would have become more bizarre as years passed. Joe Smith of the Mormons (and any cult leader with absolute power) made the same progression, coming up with Jesus as Satan's brother, polygamy, etc. They have to constantly come up with "new" stuff to prove that they are the ONLY place anyone can find truth and that EVERYONE else is wrong.
It's cult leader mentality. The difference between Joe Smith and VP is that in the Mormon system, you come up with new teachings by "revelation" direct from God (which adds more revelation in addition to the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon), while in the TWI system, you have to "find" it in the Word (VP said he taught by "revelation," but he still felt he had to prove it in the Word).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Some more great points there, Oak!...Trinitarian/Unitarian issues are complex. Laying aside vp's dishonesty [plagiarism and flair for fabrication], intellectually he was way out of his league on this and most theological topics [addressing ideas with little thought and gaps of logic, like you were saying].
But the strength of his marketing ploy was controversy. Four crucified, the day Christ died, JCNG, etc, were used like selling points to distinguish vp's ministry from "the competition" – often referred to as the churches or churchianity. Like infomercials that fabricate a need: "Is your Bible falling to pieces because only two were crucified with Jesus? Have you ever wondered how to get back to the original God-breathed Word? Are you worshipping the one true God?" A grand assumption was sold in his infomercials: "I'm the only one rightly dividing the Word."
Controversy was used to polarize sides. Little things became big issues because "the integrity of the Word is always at stake." You were either on vp's side or on the outside [of TWI]!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I've concluded, using Occam's Razor, that neither of the majority positions is correct, and the answer transcends both somehow.
Beyond that, I freely admit that the nature of God is beyond my intellect.
I hope to learn something someday that helps me get past this particular "logjam" in my thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
johnj,
you is one smart cookie... :~)
vpw is a prime example of the "itching ears" of that verse...
i wonder if he was ever born again...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Ain't that true! He (and TWI) did specialize in black or white. It was a way of cutting us off. Turning off our thinking skills. There are better (more scholarly) books than JCING around to make the point.
I guess the best that can be said is that he got us to think about it at all, after a fashion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi oak,
it's not really a lack of consistency in the bible...
the problem is one of human logic...
the bible consistently teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine...
(and that is a hard concept to grasp logically)
so people like to pick one over the other, and focus on one to the exclusion of the other...
as wordwolf pointed out, we cannot fully understand the nature of God (it is beyond our intellect)...
however, the bible does reveal the nature of God (and the nature of Jesus)...
i think the problem is that people have a hard time accepting all of what God has revealed about His nature... (becuz it is beyond their logic)
so people pick and choose parts that make the most sense to them, and form various sects around their own ideas...
personally, i accept the fact that i cannot fully comprehend the nature of God, and i am quite content to believe that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine...
hey... and i'm not gonna form a sect around that either... LOL
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.