Most of you know by now that I'm not a bible believer. I believe that some of the bible was written as a genuine expression of the writer's desire to share their vision or interpretation of God, while other parts were tracts promoting their own particular theology as against others who they saw as heretics. So you've got different people not necessarily working in concert in putting this collection of books together.
There are parts of the gospels and epistles that seem to say that Jesus is God, or at least as some attributes that are thought to be exclusively God's. There are a small handful where he is explicitly called God. There are a large number of places where Jesus is contrasted with God and it is pointed out that he is different from God.
How did early theologians make it "fit"? If they believed that the bible was God's word, then it had to fit then, didn't it? The whole concept of the Trinity was an attempt to get the pieces to fit together. Did they cover all the inconsistancies and contradictions? Obviously not if people are still finding them. Likewise unitarian groups like TWI developed their theology as a way to make it "fit" also. Wierwille in particular focussed on the fact that the term "God the Son" is not used and zeroed in on the verses where Jesus' difference from God is discussed, deeming them the "clear verses" while the ones that seemed to call him God were "unclear" or forgeries.
With that in mind, your questions:
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
The Trinity is a doctrine whereby Jesus, while fully a man, is also an aspect of God. God's other aspects, or persons, are The Father and the Holy Spirit.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
There are arguments that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be a Christian, just as one must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I find neither argument to be persuasive.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
I think that neither side is perceiving the whole truth about Jesus. I don't think that there is "another Jesus", just different understandings and emphasis.
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I don't have a copy these days, but if I remember correctly he misrepresents what Trinitarians actually believe, setting up a strawman. He also calls several groups of three pagan gods/goddesses trinities when they are not. He tries to make a case that pagan trinites prove that Christian trinitarian is false, but fails to make the same connction with several other Christian tenets, like the sacrificed god, the virgin birth etc.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
I grew up Catholic and believed the Trinity, was in TWI and did not. Now I'm a pagan and don't think about it much
Chockfull, your questions are well considered and valuable, but I hope you will permit me to free-form on the subject.
The Trinitarian controversy really started as a question of whether Jesus was Divine ("God") or not. After that, the "Holy Spirit" was added as the "Third Person" of the Trinity. Personally, in my own desire to know the nature of God and the person of Jesus Christ, I have come to believe that God Himself visited "us" (the fallen world) in the Person of His Son. His Son, Jesus, is really the only "person." God Himself is not a Person, and "the Holy Spirit" is not a Person. But Jesus most definitely was.
“Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time. And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent [him]away empty. And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated [him] shamefully, and sent [him] away empty. And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast [him] out. Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence [him] when they see him. But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours. So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed [him]. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard [it], they said, God forbid. And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.” (Lu 20:9-19 AV)
No man has seen God at any time, remember? But the onlybegotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known. And "he who has seen me has seen the Father."
Again, I emphasize that speaking only for myself, my adoption of DrW's "unitarian" stance resulted in my forsaking Jesus as truly Lord. Following his teachings, I relegated Jesus to no more than a "brother" (which, the Scriptures say, he truly is.... but also "lord," and that's a Biggie. Shades of Joseph.)
The Trinitarian formula is problematic. CES's "one God one Lord" exposition does little to clarify the "one Lord" perspective, and that is the essence of Salvation.
"surely they will respect him" (the son)
The Way simply didn't get it. Oak (bless his heart) doesn't get it. I ask myself (because I stand in doubt of myself) do I get it?
My thinking of late has been seeing some aspects of Trinitarian doctrine as a convenient but limited theological construct trying to plumb the bottomless depths of an infinite being. I'm a study bug and a technician – with a penchant for analyzing the life outta something! My approach to the Trinity has evolved from trying to get a bigger glimpse of God [usually I come away with the feeling that I'm STILL missing something], to I dunno…settling for what I think God wants me to do with my life.
John 14, 15 & 16 is a target-rich environment for checking out how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit relate to a believer. At least that's what I'm getting out of those chapters. Ya know, The Holy Spirit never gets top billing – His role seems to be more of a facilitator in this whole thing of how I relate to the Father and the Son. That's what really strikes my interest in all this. What does it all have to do with ME?
I'm not trying to be evasive in my response – just honest. Out of any biblical topic – for me this one is the most fun to explore – and I mean explore. I'm not looking to accumulate enough ammunition to annihilate any Unitarian. I'm not claiming to be right or that I've got it all figured out. I see Unitarians as pointing out the disparity between the Father and the Son – I don't argue with that. Maybe where some of the differences lie is in the way Trinitarians and Unitarians believe God works.
I dunno…maybe some of why I'm attracted to Trinitarian doctrine is out of rebellion to the TWI mindset – that was only comfortable in rigidly categorizing theology in bite-size details for mass consumption. Maybe PFAL wasn't so bad in that it got some folks to read the Bible. It was sort of a systematic approach – too bad folks treated it as the touchstone for truth. There's some good stuff in PFAL, and it might have evolved into something way different if there would have been honesty, humility and a concern to improve intellectual standards…No system is perfect – theological, political, technological…whatever…so, I figure Trinitarians & Unitarians both have some strong points and weaknesses. I'm into exploring.
I read a very interesting book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. One of the biggest things I got out of it was looking at the multi-personal aspect of God in the Old Testament – I cited a bunch from the book on this thread:
Anyway…is everyone confused over my understanding of the Trinity now? Good – so am I.
[and you should all be thankful...this is my short answer]
~~
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
Nope.
~~
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
As a confused Trinitarian, I would have to say I don't know. What if it's the same Jesus – in a different format. Maybe a Trinitarian looks at Jesus in High Definition. How does a High Definition broadcast of the news change the content of the news? The stories are still the same – but a viewer in front of an HD TV may notice more details on the news set or film clip. My point is - it doesn't change the message and both broadcasts originate from the same program.
~~
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
Yeah, what Oakspear said. I'd also add – while strong on pointing out the disparity between the Father & Son – it failed to address Scripture that showed the divinity of Jesus or suggested any sense of equality.
~~
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to the Trinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
Please refer to my answer for question # 1. I'm all talked out now.
This above is a GREAT post. I am glad you are working things out for yourself. Great is the mystery of Godliness huh? I think maybe you have something in the high def thing, but I would just add this. What about those who say He was a good moral man and teacher--does that matter? It does, because of the ressurection. In TWI we didn't reject the human part of Jesus--or the ressurection, we rejected the divinity. Either way--it is still a rejection and not an acceptance of who we are calling Lord. A conscious rejection, not a limited understanding, but a full out Jesus Christ is NOT God rejection. He did not come in the flesh? All men come in the flesh don't they? The gnostics of the day said Jesus was a spirit and had no flesh--much like some groups today. We said He had flesh, was a man, and rose from the dead. So, does that count for us? Some thoughts. Did we deny it was God come in the flesh? Is it still a rejection and not an acceptance of Jesus's claims of being God? Only if you can talk away His claims!!Can you reject Him and be saved? Some seem to think so.
I love to read C.S. Lewis on this topic. He was an agnostic for awhile --Josh Mcdowell does a great work up on this topic. If He wasn't God and just some man--He was a nut--we just made Him into a "Superman" Our version didn't even make sense!
Jesus' distinct claims of being God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Him as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profoundthings. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process.
The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
C. S. Lewis, who was a professor at Cambridge University and once an agnostic, understood this issue clearly. He writes:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic ‑ on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg ‑ or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse."
Then Lewis adds:"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
In the words of Kenneth Scott Latourette, historian of Christianity at Yale University: "It is not His teachings which make Jesus so remarkable, although these would be enough to give Him distinction. It is a combination of the teachings with the man Himself. The two cannot be separated."
Jesus claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious consideration.
Jesus' question to His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15) has several alternatives.
First, suppose that His claim to be God was false. If it was false, then we have only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false.
We will consider each one separately and examine the evidence.Was He a Liar?
If, when Jesus made His claims, He knew that He was not God, then He was lying and deliberately deceiving His followers.
But if He was a liar, then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the cost, while He himself taught and lived a colossal lie. More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being God that led to His crucifixion.
Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of His teaching ‑His own identity? You would have to conclude logically that He was a deliberate liar. This view of Jesus, however doesn't coincide with what we know either of Him or the results of His life and teachings.
Wherever Jesus has been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have changed for the better, thieves are made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become just.
William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, writes:
"It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character which through all the changes of 18 centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice.... The simple record of these 3 short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."
Historian Philip Schaff says:
"How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter ‑ that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man ‑ have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age?"
If Jesus wanted to get people to follow Him and believe in Him as God, why did He go to the Jewish nation?
Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering the undivided unity of God?
Why didn't He go to Egypt or, even more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?
Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar.
Was He a Lunatic?
If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then couldn't He actually have thought Himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be both sincere and wrong.
But we must remember that for someone to think himself God, especially in a fiercely monotheistic culture, and then to tell others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no light flight of fantasy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense.
Was Jesus Christ such a person?
Someone who believes he is God sounds like someone today believing himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self‑deceived, and probably he would be locked up so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else.
Yet in Jesus we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if He were insane.
Noyes and Kolb, in a medical text, describe the schizophrenic as a person who is more autistic than realistic. The schizophrenic desires to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God would certainly be a retreat from reality.
In light of the other things we know about Jesus, it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals from mental bondage.
Clark H. Pinnock asks:"Was He deluded about His greatness, a paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic? Again, the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!"
A student at a California university told me that his psychology professor had said in class that "all he has to do is pick up the Bible and read portions of Christ's teaching to many of his patients. That's all the counseling they need."
Psychiatrist J. T. Fisher states:"If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene ‑if you were to combine them and refine them, and cleave out the excess verbiage ‑ if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount.
And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly 2,000 years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here ... rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimism, mental health, and contentment."
C. S. Lewis writes:
"The historical difficulty of giving for the life, sayings and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity ... of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non‑Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment."
Philip Schaff reasons:
"Is such an intellect ‑ clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self‑possessed ‑ liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!"
Was He Lord?
I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The only other alternative is that He was the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed.
When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they respond. They usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright, religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Jesus made about Himself and then this material on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord).
When I ask if they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "No!"
Then I ask, "Do you believe He was a lunatic?" The reply is, "Of course not." "Do you believe He is God?" Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a resounding, "Absolutely not."
Yet one has only so many choices. The issue with these 3 alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all 3 are possible.Rather, the question is, "Which is more probable?"
Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice.
"But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and" ‑ more important ‑ "that believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31).
The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. Some people, however, reject this clear evidence because of moral implications involved. They don't want to face up to the responsibility or implications of calling Him Lord.
What I think is very interesting, is that so many people in TWI who were Christians and left, is that most of them over the years have become Trinitarian, and have seen (by God's enlightening of them I believe) that Christ was divine. He had a divinity.
VP's trashing of Christ's divinity did TWI people a massive disservice. Mainly, because reading JCING, you realize VP had no concept of the trinity, which he mocked many times in his teachings. All he could do is mock - which is what the followers do today. TWI followers blindly believe this one book, over any other book VP ever wrote.
Christ was "Emmanuel" - God with us.
Just as God dwelt upon the earth with Israel in the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, so, Christ was the LIVING Tabernacle, on earth. He was the Holy of Holies.
He was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily." He was the fullness of God walking, dwelling among men, on earth.
He was the Logos of the universe, the Word, made flesh.
He created the world and everything in it, and remarked on this in John to his disciples, yet, he was rejected by Israel.
Those who saw him have seen the Father.
VP denied that Christ [Emmanuale - God with us] was "come in the flesh." He warped that scripture.
Christ talked about he glory he had with the father before his incarnation in the "body thou hast prepared me" when on earth.
Peter, John, and James saw him in his amazing, glory at the transfiguration and fell down.
Does a Christian need to believe Christ had a divinity? No. But, I believe they will never see the greatness of what was done for them.
I've seen enough of this touched on in other threads in this forum and others that I felt the urge to start a current discussion on the elephant in the room. Here's some questions related:
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
Hi Again,
I just wanted to add. On this question 2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
I would pose it as-- Can one flat out reject the deity of Christ and be saved? After being informed and making a conscious choice--will one be saved?
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.
They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error
Sunesis point that many of us who have left and believed in Christ deity is right on. VP was a false teacher according to scripture--this verse talks about being against Christ. Not confused or unsure, but actually anti-Christ. Can you be saved if you are against Him? Can we accept and deny at once?
On another Jesus, again 2Cor11 says:
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a
different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. . . . . . .
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
Can a false teacher preach another version of Jesus and another gospel and it be unto salvation? If VP fits the bill as a false teacher--and we recieved "another Jesus' would it be a Jesus preached unto salvation? Does the true Jesus the Apostles preached matter? Does it make a difference to be saved? Seems it does.
Also, if these men who preach "another" Jesus--man only--spirit only--disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, but we know them by their lives-fruit--What were we involved in with VP? Highly suspect IMHO As would be His version of Jesus according to scripture.
We have to consider "different spirit"--when we consider what we learned in TWI-Big H little h--that too might be a denial of the true Holy Spirit? Makes that whole SIT very suspect as well. Doesn't mean we didn't accept a version of the Holy Spirit--or manifest that version, just means it may have been a different one.
The thing that is so telling about this --is that Jesus transforms lives--in TWI many of us just traded in one form of sin for another--getting down and dirty and really examining it--I just stopped one behavior and adopted other sinful ones. NO transformation.
Just some thoughts. How can we make Him Lord(Obey and keep His commandments) if we are rejecting who He is--How can we call on His name as Lord if we are calling on another Jesus?
I'm mostly in the same boat with Oakspear. I don't much dig into the bible anymore except for maybe the Psalms/Proverbs/Ecclesiastes 'trinity' once in a while.
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
--three co-equal, co-eternal beings who in combination make up what mainstream Christianity today refers to as God.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
--Who knows? But I would think if the answer to this was affirmative, the bible would explicitly say such. It doesn't. I can't imagine God would make salvation dependent on a doctrine so biblically ill-defined and conceptually obtuse.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
--Who knows? It probably depends on your answer to question 2.
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
--I always thought the JCNG book was mostly lame. For such an important subject, it wasn't very well written nor did it have very much detail. I kind of saw it as a hinderance and never openly lent it to anyone. The book from CES was much better, as far as books are concerned.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
--None, actually. The trinity, along with the dead being dead, are about the only things I think TWI was right on. I still think that if you just sat down and read the bible without preconceptions, you would never come to the conclusion that God exists as a trinity.
Beyond that, not only do I believe you wouldn't see it, you also wouldn't need it. Every work and benefit of God can be understood without the concept of a trinity. Can you think of any verses that absolutely depend on Jesus being God? I can think of none. Being the 2nd Adam and then further exalted by God for doing His will covers all the bases.
Just some thoughts from an ex-wayfer turned agnostic...
Sunesis brought up the mocking aspect of TWI teaching. I concur. Even though I was convinced during my TWI sojourn that Jesus was not God, I was always very uncomfortable with the mocking attitude that many wayfers, including especially the top dogs, had toward Trinitarians. And the simplistic platitudes (that's redundant ain't it? ) like "There's one God, not three", "Jesus must have been talking to himself when he prayed" ad nauseum, betrayed a real lack of understanding about what Trinitarians actually believed. I would be embarrassed at some of my fellow wayfers who tried to witness to people and bring up the Trinity. :unsure:
These days, even though I'm not a Christian, I have no problem understanding the concept of one God in three persons (the Latin was the persona, which actually communicates to me better than the English "person"). There the old Irish legend about St. Patrick explaining the Trinity using the illustration of the shamrock: three leaves on one plant; but the pagan Irish had no problem understanding such a concept and didn't need his explanation: many Irish gods & goddesses were manifest in three aspects, or forms, and modern paganism honors the goddess in her three aspects of maiden, mother & crone. Heck, Moorcock's "Eternal Champion" is a multi-aspect being!
It almost sounds like you're moving from Trinitarianism into modalism(sabellianism, oneness, triunitarianism)... Mother, maiden, and crone.. Yup, that's more triunitarian rather than trinitarian, which is what the old water and its three forms, 3 leaf clover, egg yolk and shell analogies more aptly define and is considered a heresy to those who hold to the 'orthodox view' (Whatever that means...... lol)
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
One being, 3 separate but equal persons, Each being 100% fully God and God being 100% the person. (God being fully Jesus and Jesus being fully God, God being fully Father, and Father being Fully God, yet there three separate persons since the Father is not the Jesus!). And to try and give it more detail, it's just a mystery that no one can define, and to try to would only delve into the modalism and other non-Trinitarian views. Of course the Trinitarian view has changed somewhat from the days of Tertullian to now.. As Tertullian's view did fit more the modalistic view.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
No... No one scripture defines the Trinity, it's an amalgamation of scriptures, and as such is promulgated as a synthesis of scriptures required to define it. And since many other "different" synthesis of scriptures can say something contrary, I don't believe God would require any one to have a view on a subject that must be synthesized by man to understand.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
Depends on your definition of "Jesus".
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I would say it is a very poorly written book. It made up things to fit into holes that wasn't understood by the author. Take John 1:1.. His take on it was completely inaccurate. Didn't even take into account anything from the Greek, but rather had their own idea of this word meaning this here, but means this in the next sentence. Gee, a first grader could do that. If we did that to the whole Bible, this word means this here, but this over here, it could say what we wanted! Well, that's what VPW did anyways!
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
I was a Trinitarian growing up. Started studying scripture prior to meeting those in the Way. Realized the Trinitarian belief was man synthesized and didn't hold any more ground than some alternate views. Joined the way, and kept my view, left the way, studied the Trinitarian subject in depth. And still hold somewhat the same view. Jesus has always been my Lord. I serve Him. And He serves His Father, our God. And I don't nit pick and get into these fights about trinitarian/non-trinitarian unless asked. Doesn't make as much difference as people make it out to be (That view was changed, since TWI era was the most Biblical Fundamental viewpoint of it's what does the Word say.. Nahh. Know God, spend time with Him, He'll lead you in the right direction..). ust get to know them both!
TWI and S&TF seem to say that Jesus is what all human beings would have been had there been no sin(Adam is a son of God, not God in human flesh). John Schoenheit in One God, One Lord treats church history better than Wierwille. What JS misses is Kurios(Kyrie) does not simply mean master/lord but is used for a being who is deity. Most Unitarians accept Jesus having "divinity" but not "deity", that is "holy spirit" as a thing or it like a computer having electricity rumming through it(not counting laptops with batteries only) but until you turn it on, click the mouse to the internet/world wide web to talk to God(who Is Holy and Spirit, and is Father/Parent). Interesting that the Ebionites believed Jesus was not god but Joseph's biological son/ or a Roman Centurion who raped Mary impregnating her, started by Paul of Samosota. VPW and JS believed Jesus was not God(stuck in heaven and CS Lewis was nuts), nor Michael nor Gabriel, nor sinful human being, but true perfect human(not capable of sin and had no free will or by superstrength mind over matter chose not to sin), therefore He is not like us at all but human alien(Doctor Who maybe?) created within Mary's womb, not unlike Adam's creation. No fall or sin, Adam, Eve and all of us perfect with out sin just like Jesus. Still searching and delibtating the issue. ps, Wierwille thought Lewis' arguement stupid and not convincing because of Son of God never equals God the Son or God disguised in human flesh without perverting God's character of holiness, making Yaweh sinful like all of us.
... What JS misses is Kurios(Kyrie) does not simply mean master/lord but is used for a being who is deity...
But you have to admit at the same time of Kurios being used for a deity, it is also used for non-deity, just as Theos is used for humans and non alike. Also, the term and understanding of a "deity" is not a Jewish understanding. It comes from polytheists. Whether people want to bring it into Christianity is up to them.. I'd rather leave it out...
VPW and JS believed Jesus was not God(stuck in heaven and CS Lewis was nuts),
ps, Wierwille thought Lewis' arguement stupid and not convincing because of Son of God never equals God the Son or God disguised in human flesh without perverting God's character of holiness, making Yaweh sinful like all of us.
Hi Thomas,
That just makes CS Lewis all the more dear to me. :) :) :)
Amazing man-Amazing thinker--Wonderful Christian--They would think him nuts I guess. That makes perfect sense! :)
This is a hot button issue, so, no trashing, bashing or character attacking allowed. This is meant to be a place where we can come together, discuss our points of view and change perspectives.
Ok, I'll start....
I've view the Trinity as three parts. God, Son and Holy Spirit. Each has their own job. God the decision maker and judge, Christ the Savior of the world and Holy Spirit the comforter and advisor.
Although God can be viewed as the head, I believe it's more like the ultimate team. Each part loving the other completely. There is no division in the ranks. Decisions are made collectively. It is the example of servant leadership. The Holy Spirit bowing to the Son, the Son to the Father, and around we go.... As great leaders go, each submits and serves the other in love; thereby, no one part is greater than another servanthood. Each part is seperate. God is God, Jesus his Son and the Holy Spirit. I do not believe Jesus is God, just like I don't believe the Holy Spirit is God. I believe they are one in thought, but seperate parts.
Onto Muslims, they seem willing to accept this explanation. I also do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Christians, during the Crusades, have been just as guilty of converting people by the sword as Muslims. Here in Afghanistan, terrorists are not considered Muslims. They're often hated and viewed as trash.... Many true Muslims fight alongside our forces over here, giving their lives for this country. Often those who are against terrorism place their own lives at risk. I admire these people, as share frequent converstaions with them.
This is a hot button issue, so, no trashing, bashing or character attacking allowed. This is meant to be a place where we can come together, discuss our points of view and change perspectives.
Ok, I'll start....
I've view the Trinity as three parts. God, Son and Holy Spirit. Each has their own job. God the decision maker and judge, Christ the Savior of the world and Holy Spirit the comforter and advisor.
Although God can be viewed as the head, I believe it's more like the ultimate team. Each part loving the other completely. There is no division in the ranks. Decisions are made collectively. It is the example of servant leadership. The Holy Spirit bowing to the Son, the Son to the Father, and around we go.... As great leaders go, each submits and serves the other in love; thereby, no one part is greater than another servanthood. Each part is seperate. God is God, Jesus his Son and the Holy Spirit. I do not believe Jesus is God, just like I don't believe the Holy Spirit is God. I believe they are one in thought, but seperate parts.
Onto Muslims, they seem willing to accept this explanation. I also do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Christians, during the Crusades, have been just as guilty of converting people by the sword as Muslims. Here in Afghanistan, terrorists are not considered Muslims. They're often hated and viewed as trash.... Many true Muslims fight alongside our forces over here, giving their lives for this country. Often those who are against terrorism place their own lives at risk. I admire these people, as share frequent converstaions with them.
Ok, now it's your turn.
Nice post Ben. I am glad you drew a distinction between Muslim and terrorist. I am sure you have been welcomed at times with incredible hospitality. My sister-in-law was in Kabul 2 years ago and she was just so awed by the welcoming and kindness displayed by everyday people.
Have you ever read Prisoners of Hope--about the two girls held by the taliban at the start of the war? That is the heart we are to have towards Muslims. One of love.
I would ask you one thing--who does the bible say is to judge all things if not God?
I enjoyed your explanation, but see it just a bit differently. Either way-it was nice to read. Have you ever listened to Ravi Zacharias on this topic?
To me, the trinity makes it so much clearer--and displays the most amazing gift in Jesus Christ. I am often moved to behave a bit more--due to this understanding-LOL
Nice post Ben. I am glad you drew a distinction between Muslim and terrorist. I am sure you have been welcomed at times with incredible hospitality. My sister-in-law was in Kabul 2 years ago and she was just so awed by the welcoming and kindness displayed by everyday people.
Have you ever read Prisoners of Hope--about the two girls held by the taliban at the start of the war? That is the heart we are to have towards Muslims. One of love.
I would ask you one thing--who does the bible say is to judge all things if not God?
I enjoyed your explanation, but see it just a bit differently. Either way-it was nice to read. Have you ever listened to Ravi Zacharias on this topic?
To me, the trinity makes it so much clearer--and displays the most amazing gift in Jesus Christ. I am often moved to behave a bit more--due to this understanding-LOL
Nice Post-I thank-you
I agree with you, God is judge. It's scripture. Christ acts on our behalf as, shall we say, our defense lawyer and the Holy Spirit comforts and advises (shares wisdom).
6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
There's the six and you being the seventh being witnessed to.
My earlier posts should not be construed that I reject the trinity, but that I was trying to explain how I understood Wierwiile's and Schoenheit's reasoning. Other Unitarians are Unitarian Universalist, Christian Science, Unity School, Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, Worldwide Church of God(Armstrong), in addition to TWI, S&TF,CFFM,C&RF,COF,etc.
One of the things that inclined me towards Trinitarianism while I was still involved with TWI was coming to recognize what I later learned is referred to theologically as perichoresis, circumincessio (circumincession), or coinherence.
In John’s gospel, Jesus Christ declares that he is in the Father and that the Father is in him. What is he saying? He is revealing that he and the Father mutually indwell one another. That the Father and the Son are distinct, yet they interpenetrate one another. That they are inseparable.
Is it the Holy Spirit who comes and dwells in Christians? Is it Christ himself abiding in them? Is it God the Father who makes a habitation for himself in them? There are scriptural indications of each of these things, yet there seems to be in Scripture the particular indication of the Holy Spirit being sent by the Father and the Son to indwell Christian believers and glorify the Son who has glorified the Father. With one of the three divine persons, however, are the other two -- all three interpenetrating, dwelling with and in one another.
Most of you know by now that I'm not a bible believer. I believe that some of the bible was written as a genuine expression of the writer's desire to share their vision or interpretation of God, while other parts were tracts promoting their own particular theology as against others who they saw as heretics. So you've got different people not necessarily working in concert in putting this collection of books together.
There are parts of the gospels and epistles that seem to say that Jesus is God, or at least as some attributes that are thought to be exclusively God's. There are a small handful where he is explicitly called God. There are a large number of places where Jesus is contrasted with God and it is pointed out that he is different from God.
How did early theologians make it "fit"? If they believed that the bible was God's word, then it had to fit then, didn't it? The whole concept of the Trinity was an attempt to get the pieces to fit together. Did they cover all the inconsistancies and contradictions? Obviously not if people are still finding them. Likewise unitarian groups like TWI developed their theology as a way to make it "fit" also. Wierwille in particular focussed on the fact that the term "God the Son" is not used and zeroed in on the verses where Jesus' difference from God is discussed, deeming them the "clear verses" while the ones that seemed to call him God were "unclear" or forgeries.
With your kind indulgence, I shall use Oakspear's post as a comparison.
I do this not because I want to criticize it, but rather since I thought it was well-written,
and I could clearly indicate what I agreed with and what I didn't agree with.
Disclaimer: All of this is me speaking for ME and no other party.
This is my OPINION. Feel free to disagree all you want.
First of all,
Oakspear and I disagree in our basic belief systems in a fundamental way.
(We agree on mutual respect.)
I am a Bible believer, and I DO believe the Bible is God's Word,
that is, the deliberate intent of God Almighty to communicate directly to us.
That having been said, if you begin from one position- Jesus is God the Son,
or begin from the other position-Jesus is The Son of God but not God,
you will find verses that seem to support your position, and verses that seem
to OPPOSE your position.
I find it particularly noteworthy that most of the Bible verses with the most
tampering- the end of Matthew, and I John 5 are what I'm thinking of here
mainly- are demonstrated to have been FORGERIES- people came along
later and ADDED doctrine to them-doctrine which just happens to push the
Trinitarian position. (There's a few other verses, but those are the most
egregious examples.) That's enough to get me suspicious of the Trinitatian
position-a position where some people felt it was significant enough to alter
the Bible to insert their beliefs into it. Now, when the Samaritan Pentateuch
is a fair representation of the Pentateuch, but suddenly includes a few verses
that elevate Mount Gerezim-the place of Samaritan worship- far above its
previous position, we can accept those verses were forgeries, skip them,
and skip their doctrine. We can't QUITE do that with these verses here,
since some people will dogmatically oppose that-they WILL scream, call names,
and label anyone trying to honestly arrive at the truth of the verses,
if that truth disagrees with theirs.
I've come to the conclusion that I have NOT heard the CORRECT position yet-
that both positions that are popular fail to completely account for everything,
and so they're both right to a point and WRONG to a point.
Naturally, I can get flak from both sides about that.
I consider it childish and petty that some of my fellow Christians can waste their
time doing that- and labelling both ME and EACH OTHER as non-Christians,
but I can't stop them, either.
Mind you, outside of the ex-twi community, I've had Christians know my positions,
and some have said I wasn't a Christian, some have said I was, and the positions
range between a respected, beloved brother in Christ, and being yelled at in the
street. That the ex-twi community should know better and STILL can't rise above
that is a little sad to me, but I can't affect that, either.
Since I do not believe the verses clearly make the case one way or the other,
I do not believe God considers this issue to be the make-or-break, and thus
spurns one side while embracing the other. I believe he considers them all Christians,
no matter what labels we down here insist on using AGAINST each other.
With that in mind, your questions:
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
The Trinity is a doctrine whereby Jesus, while fully a man, is also an aspect of God. God's other aspects, or persons, are The Father and the Holy Spirit.
I would also add that "co-equal" is a necessary part of the doctrine, IMHO.
Since it's Three-in-One and One Unity of Three, that's how it seems to
be represented mathematically, anyway. No part of the Trinity any less than another.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
There are arguments that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be a Christian, just as one must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I find neither argument to be persuasive.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
I think that neither side is perceiving the whole truth about Jesus. I don't think that there is "another Jesus", just different understandings and emphasis.
I agree with everything so far.
I will clarify the last point, however-
if one believes Jesus of Nazareth is not The Son of God, unique in birth,
prophesied, The Messiah, The Atonement, He Who Will Return As King of Kings
and Lord of Lords, who shall Judge the Earth in righteousness,
who lived a physical life on Earth for some 30 years, was crucified,
died, buried, and resurrected,
THEN you're talking "another Jesus."
I consider "another Jesus" to be "any Jesus who is not The Messiah, The Son of God,
who is not unique in all of the history of man, and The Redeemer."
There's people who claim that one, but they're not in THIS discussion claiming
to be Christians. (Unless I missed them posting-in which case, my apologies.)
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I don't have a copy these days, but if I remember correctly he misrepresents what Trinitarians actually believe, setting up a strawman. He also calls several groups of three pagan gods/goddesses trinities when they are not. He tries to make a case that pagan trinites prove that Christian trinitarian is false, but fails to make the same connction with several other Christian tenets, like the sacrificed god, the virgin birth etc.
JCNG is a poorly-written work. If the argument is made, it is NOT made with that book.
If all the strength of that side was purely from JCNG, then it WOULD be fair to say
"all non-Trinitarian Christians are silly and illogical."
As it is, that does a grave disservice to those who say "it's true in spite of that book"
as well as all the Christians throughout history who were devout Christians who did
not believe in a Trinity. I am NOT prepared to call Sir Isaac Newton silly, illogical,
or a less-than-devout Christian.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
I grew up Catholic and believed the Trinity, was in TWI and did not. Now I'm a pagan and don't think about it much
I was raise with Catholic dogma, and told to believe in the Trinity. By the time I was a
teenager, I had discarded what I'd been taught as insufficient answers. To this day, I
believe those answers were incorrect. Since I'd been taught that Roman Catholics had
all the answers, I wrongly generalized that ALL Christians were wrong and NONE had
the answers I sought, and the Bible was an outdated set of books with no authority.
I found twi teaching superior to what I personally had been taught in general.
So, I believed the Trinity to be an incorrect doctrine. I did NOT, however, villainize
the Trinitarians as I was taught in twi-I still considered them fellow Christians even if
they had incorrect doctrines (including praying to saints, praying the Rosary, etc.)
I do believe that, if I hadn't left twi when I DID leave, I would have found increasing
problems with twi doctrine and twi dogma. Having left, I've had a number of years
to examine a lot of it, and agree with some and disagree with some.
I STILL don't believe this is THE make-or-break, "You're not a Christian" doctrine.
I've seen good examples of Christians on both sides. (Poor examples, too.)
I've seen sufficient evidence to convince me that God answers prayers for both,
and miracles deliver both equally. I'm convinced the arguments we have on Earth
are petty squabbles that waste the limited time we have here, and divide the
Having questions about something is different than having doubts about it. We all have questions. That does not preclude us from being accepted by Christ. Never.
It is a journey and none of us have all our doctrines in order even after we accept Him and He us.
A doubt can be different--we are unsure something is the way it is--a commitment doesn't spring from doubt. Giving ones life to Christ is a commitment.
A rejection is the clear indication that we have accepted the doubt. Questions-doubt-rejection--these are all different animals--it is good to examine our doubts
before they become flat out rejections. Our questions we bring humbly to Him to be answered in His time. That is what makes the journey so fun.
Our questions we bring humbly to Him to be answered in His time. That is what makes the journey so fun.
What I find really interesting is that we can humbly bring our questions to Him and get so vastly different answers. I guess we each have our own paths and journeys to take in this life.
As a Christian, I find my extended family of brethren and sistern, including all those crazy cuz's out on the Left and Right coastal areas a fascinating bunch. Me included.
We're a funny bunch. We believe in Jesus Christ variously as a Redeemer, Messiah, Savior, Son of God, God the Son, Teacher, Shepherd and All Around One Bad Mothah who will get us through this Dark Valley of Time and upon whom we invest our highest and greatest hopes for this life and in fact all of eternity. JC is The Man for whom many, will finally bring down the Righteous Sword of Judgement for all and Kick Asz As Necessary, No Names required because perfect justice will be His purview.
Yet many of us have different understandings of who exactly He is, where He is, what He's done, is doing and will do, given the time.
Somewhere in all of this there has to be a very personal understanding of who it was that we went to, accepted, learned out, needed, liked, loved, wanted and ultimately determined to follow. What were we hearing, seeing, thinking, wanting, needing?
It's difficult to follow someone or something that's indistinct, faint, unclear. That may be where the challenge is, if there is one and I think there is one. I know of no other way than to keep at it. We all need and benefit from whatever help anyone else can give but ultimately it's our mind's eyes that see.
My earlier posts should not be construed that I reject the trinity, but that I was trying to explain how I understood Wierwiile's and Schoenheit's reasoning. Other Unitarians are Unitarian Universalist, Christian Science, Unity School, Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, Worldwide Church of God(Armstrong), in addition to TWI, S&TF,CFFM,C&RF,COF,etc.
There's also a Pentecostal branch - One God Apostolics
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
10
8
Popular Days
Aug 14
12
Aug 8
10
Jan 23
9
Aug 9
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Sunesis 7 posts
Oakspear 6 posts
geisha779 10 posts
chockfull 8 posts
Popular Days
Aug 14 2008
12 posts
Aug 8 2008
10 posts
Jan 23 2010
9 posts
Aug 9 2008
8 posts
Popular Posts
Mark Clarke
How is it God setting up man to fall? He defined what His rules were, and gave man the choice to obey or not. If you have children, and you tell them to do something, are you setting them up to fall
GarthP2000
Bingo cman! And more and more people are realizing that too. :B)
Sunesis
There can never be a reconciliation between one who believes and one who doesn't. As a believer, when God says man is fallen, and, as he tells us, he created us to be masterpieces, I think of fallen
Posted Images
Oakspear
Hey This is unique: a thread on the Trinity! ;)
Most of you know by now that I'm not a bible believer. I believe that some of the bible was written as a genuine expression of the writer's desire to share their vision or interpretation of God, while other parts were tracts promoting their own particular theology as against others who they saw as heretics. So you've got different people not necessarily working in concert in putting this collection of books together.
There are parts of the gospels and epistles that seem to say that Jesus is God, or at least as some attributes that are thought to be exclusively God's. There are a small handful where he is explicitly called God. There are a large number of places where Jesus is contrasted with God and it is pointed out that he is different from God.
How did early theologians make it "fit"? If they believed that the bible was God's word, then it had to fit then, didn't it? The whole concept of the Trinity was an attempt to get the pieces to fit together. Did they cover all the inconsistancies and contradictions? Obviously not if people are still finding them. Likewise unitarian groups like TWI developed their theology as a way to make it "fit" also. Wierwille in particular focussed on the fact that the term "God the Son" is not used and zeroed in on the verses where Jesus' difference from God is discussed, deeming them the "clear verses" while the ones that seemed to call him God were "unclear" or forgeries.
With that in mind, your questions:
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
The Trinity is a doctrine whereby Jesus, while fully a man, is also an aspect of God. God's other aspects, or persons, are The Father and the Holy Spirit.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
There are arguments that one cannot believe in the Trinity and be a Christian, just as one must believe in the Trinity to be a Christian. I find neither argument to be persuasive.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
I think that neither side is perceiving the whole truth about Jesus. I don't think that there is "another Jesus", just different understandings and emphasis.
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I don't have a copy these days, but if I remember correctly he misrepresents what Trinitarians actually believe, setting up a strawman. He also calls several groups of three pagan gods/goddesses trinities when they are not. He tries to make a case that pagan trinites prove that Christian trinitarian is false, but fails to make the same connction with several other Christian tenets, like the sacrificed god, the virgin birth etc.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
I grew up Catholic and believed the Trinity, was in TWI and did not. Now I'm a pagan and don't think about it much
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Chockfull, your questions are well considered and valuable, but I hope you will permit me to free-form on the subject.
The Trinitarian controversy really started as a question of whether Jesus was Divine ("God") or not. After that, the "Holy Spirit" was added as the "Third Person" of the Trinity. Personally, in my own desire to know the nature of God and the person of Jesus Christ, I have come to believe that God Himself visited "us" (the fallen world) in the Person of His Son. His Son, Jesus, is really the only "person." God Himself is not a Person, and "the Holy Spirit" is not a Person. But Jesus most definitely was.
No man has seen God at any time, remember? But the onlybegotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made Him known. And "he who has seen me has seen the Father."
Again, I emphasize that speaking only for myself, my adoption of DrW's "unitarian" stance resulted in my forsaking Jesus as truly Lord. Following his teachings, I relegated Jesus to no more than a "brother" (which, the Scriptures say, he truly is.... but also "lord," and that's a Biggie. Shades of Joseph.)
The Trinitarian formula is problematic. CES's "one God one Lord" exposition does little to clarify the "one Lord" perspective, and that is the essence of Salvation.
"surely they will respect him" (the son)
The Way simply didn't get it. Oak (bless his heart) doesn't get it. I ask myself (because I stand in doubt of myself) do I get it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
My thinking of late has been seeing some aspects of Trinitarian doctrine as a convenient but limited theological construct trying to plumb the bottomless depths of an infinite being. I'm a study bug and a technician – with a penchant for analyzing the life outta something!
My approach to the Trinity has evolved from trying to get a bigger glimpse of God [usually I come away with the feeling that I'm STILL missing something], to I dunno…settling for what I think God wants me to do with my life. 
John 14, 15 & 16 is a target-rich environment for checking out how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit relate to a believer. At least that's what I'm getting out of those chapters. Ya know, The Holy Spirit never gets top billing – His role seems to be more of a facilitator in this whole thing of how I relate to the Father and the Son. That's what really strikes my interest in all this. What does it all have to do with ME?
I'm not trying to be evasive in my response – just honest. Out of any biblical topic – for me this one is the most fun to explore – and I mean explore. I'm not looking to accumulate enough ammunition to annihilate any Unitarian. I'm not claiming to be right or that I've got it all figured out. I see Unitarians as pointing out the disparity between the Father and the Son – I don't argue with that. Maybe where some of the differences lie is in the way Trinitarians and Unitarians believe God works.
I dunno…maybe some of why I'm attracted to Trinitarian doctrine is out of rebellion to the TWI mindset – that was only comfortable in rigidly categorizing theology in bite-size details for mass consumption. Maybe PFAL wasn't so bad in that it got some folks to read the Bible. It was sort of a systematic approach – too bad folks treated it as the touchstone for truth. There's some good stuff in PFAL, and it might have evolved into something way different if there would have been honesty, humility and a concern to improve intellectual standards…No system is perfect – theological, political, technological…whatever…so, I figure Trinitarians & Unitarians both have some strong points and weaknesses. I'm into exploring.
I read a very interesting book The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. One of the biggest things I got out of it was looking at the multi-personal aspect of God in the Old Testament – I cited a bunch from the book on this thread:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=302932
Anyway…is everyone confused over my understanding of the Trinity now? Good – so am I.
[and you should all be thankful...this is my short answer]
~~
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
Nope.
~~
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
As a confused Trinitarian, I would have to say I don't know. What if it's the same Jesus – in a different format. Maybe a Trinitarian looks at Jesus in High Definition. How does a High Definition broadcast of the news change the content of the news? The stories are still the same – but a viewer in front of an HD TV may notice more details on the news set or film clip. My point is - it doesn't change the message and both broadcasts originate from the same program.
~~
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
Yeah, what Oakspear said. I'd also add – while strong on pointing out the disparity between the Father & Son – it failed to address Scripture that showed the divinity of Jesus or suggested any sense of equality.
~~
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to the Trinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
Please refer to my answer for question # 1. I'm all talked out now.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
T-bone
This above is a GREAT post. I am glad you are working things out for yourself. Great is the mystery of Godliness huh? I think maybe you have something in the high def thing, but I would just add this. What about those who say He was a good moral man and teacher--does that matter? It does, because of the ressurection. In TWI we didn't reject the human part of Jesus--or the ressurection, we rejected the divinity. Either way--it is still a rejection and not an acceptance of who we are calling Lord. A conscious rejection, not a limited understanding, but a full out Jesus Christ is NOT God rejection. He did not come in the flesh? All men come in the flesh don't they? The gnostics of the day said Jesus was a spirit and had no flesh--much like some groups today. We said He had flesh, was a man, and rose from the dead. So, does that count for us? Some thoughts. Did we deny it was God come in the flesh? Is it still a rejection and not an acceptance of Jesus's claims of being God? Only if you can talk away His claims!!Can you reject Him and be saved? Some seem to think so.
I love to read C.S. Lewis on this topic. He was an agnostic for awhile --Josh Mcdowell does a great work up on this topic. If He wasn't God and just some man--He was a nut--we just made Him into a "Superman" Our version didn't even make sense!
Jesus' distinct claims of being God eliminate the popular ploy of skeptics who regard Him as just a good moral man or a prophet who said a lot of profoundthings. So often that conclusion is passed off as the only one acceptable to scholars or as the obvious result of the intellectual process.
The trouble is, many people nod their heads in agreement and never see the fallacy of such reasoning.
C. S. Lewis, who was a professor at Cambridge University and once an agnostic, understood this issue clearly. He writes:
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.'
That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic ‑ on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg ‑ or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the son of God: or else a madman or something worse."
Then Lewis adds:"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
In the words of Kenneth Scott Latourette, historian of Christianity at Yale University: "It is not His teachings which make Jesus so remarkable, although these would be enough to give Him distinction. It is a combination of the teachings with the man Himself. The two cannot be separated."
Jesus claimed to be God. He didn't leave any other option open. His claim must be either true or false, so it is something that should be given serious consideration.
Jesus' question to His disciples, "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15) has several alternatives.
First, suppose that His claim to be God was false. If it was false, then we have only two alternatives. He either knew it was false or He didn't know it was false.
We will consider each one separately and examine the evidence.Was He a Liar?
If, when Jesus made His claims, He knew that He was not God, then He was lying and deliberately deceiving His followers.
But if He was a liar, then He was also a hypocrite because He told others to be honest, whatever the cost, while He himself taught and lived a colossal lie. More than that, He was a demon, because He told others to trust Him for their eternal destiny. If He couldn't back up His claims and knew it, then He was unspeakably evil. Last, He would also be a fool because it was His claims to being God that led to His crucifixion.
Many will say that Jesus was a good moral teacher. Let's be realistic. How could He be a great moral teacher and knowingly mislead people at the most important point of His teaching ‑His own identity? You would have to conclude logically that He was a deliberate liar. This view of Jesus, however doesn't coincide with what we know either of Him or the results of His life and teachings.
Wherever Jesus has been proclaimed, lives have been changed for the good, nations have changed for the better, thieves are made honest, alcoholics are cured, hateful individuals become channels of love, unjust persons become just.
William Lecky, one of Great Britain's most noted historians and a dedicated opponent of organized Christianity, writes:
"It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character which through all the changes of 18 centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice.... The simple record of these 3 short years of active life has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists."
Historian Philip Schaff says:
"How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an imposter ‑ that is a deceitful, selfish, depraved man ‑ have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and age?"
If Jesus wanted to get people to follow Him and believe in Him as God, why did He go to the Jewish nation?
Why go as a Nazarene carpenter to a country so small in size and population and so thoroughly adhering the undivided unity of God?
Why didn't He go to Egypt or, even more, to Greece, where they believed in various gods and various manifestations of them?
Someone who lived as Jesus lived, taught as Jesus taught, and died as Jesus died could not have been a liar.
Was He a Lunatic?
If it is inconceivable for Jesus to be a liar, then couldn't He actually have thought Himself to be God, but been mistaken? After all, it's possible to be both sincere and wrong.
But we must remember that for someone to think himself God, especially in a fiercely monotheistic culture, and then to tell others that their eternal destiny depended on believing in him, is no light flight of fantasy but the thoughts of a lunatic in the fullest sense.
Was Jesus Christ such a person?
Someone who believes he is God sounds like someone today believing himself Napoleon. He would be deluded and self‑deceived, and probably he would be locked up so he wouldn't hurt himself or anyone else.
Yet in Jesus we don't observe the abnormalities and imbalance that usually go along with being deranged. His poise and composure would certainly be amazing if He were insane.
Noyes and Kolb, in a medical text, describe the schizophrenic as a person who is more autistic than realistic. The schizophrenic desires to escape from the world of reality. Let's face it; claiming to be God would certainly be a retreat from reality.
In light of the other things we know about Jesus, it's hard to imagine that He was mentally disturbed. Here is a man who spoke some of the most profound sayings ever recorded. His instructions have liberated many individuals from mental bondage.
Clark H. Pinnock asks:"Was He deluded about His greatness, a paranoid, an unintentional deceiver, a schizophrenic? Again, the skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He!"
A student at a California university told me that his psychology professor had said in class that "all he has to do is pick up the Bible and read portions of Christ's teaching to many of his patients. That's all the counseling they need."
Psychiatrist J. T. Fisher states:"If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene ‑if you were to combine them and refine them, and cleave out the excess verbiage ‑ if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount.
And it would suffer immeasurably through comparison. For nearly 2,000 years the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here ... rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimism, mental health, and contentment."
C. S. Lewis writes:
"The historical difficulty of giving for the life, sayings and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity ... of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non‑Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment."
Philip Schaff reasons:
"Is such an intellect ‑ clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self‑possessed ‑ liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission? Preposterous imagination!"
Was He Lord?
I cannot personally conclude that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. The only other alternative is that He was the Christ, the Son of God, as He claimed.
When I discuss this with most Jewish people, it's interesting how they respond. They usually tell me that Jesus was a moral, upright, religious leader, a good man, or some kind of prophet. I then share with them the claims Jesus made about Himself and then this material on the trilemma (liar, lunatic, or Lord).
When I ask if they believe Jesus was a liar, there is a sharp "No!"
Then I ask, "Do you believe He was a lunatic?" The reply is, "Of course not." "Do you believe He is God?" Before I can get a breath in edgewise, there is a resounding, "Absolutely not."
Yet one has only so many choices. The issue with these 3 alternatives is not which is possible, for it is obvious that all 3 are possible.Rather, the question is, "Which is more probable?"
Who you decide Jesus Christ is must not be an idle intellectual exercise. You cannot put Him on the shelf as a great moral teacher. That is not a valid option. He is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord and God. You must make a choice.
"But," as the apostle John wrote, "these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and" ‑ more important ‑ "that believing you might have life in His name" (John 20:31).
The evidence is clearly in favor of Jesus as Lord. Some people, however, reject this clear evidence because of moral implications involved. They don't want to face up to the responsibility or implications of calling Him Lord.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
What I think is very interesting, is that so many people in TWI who were Christians and left, is that most of them over the years have become Trinitarian, and have seen (by God's enlightening of them I believe) that Christ was divine. He had a divinity.
VP's trashing of Christ's divinity did TWI people a massive disservice. Mainly, because reading JCING, you realize VP had no concept of the trinity, which he mocked many times in his teachings. All he could do is mock - which is what the followers do today. TWI followers blindly believe this one book, over any other book VP ever wrote.
Christ was "Emmanuel" - God with us.
Just as God dwelt upon the earth with Israel in the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, so, Christ was the LIVING Tabernacle, on earth. He was the Holy of Holies.
He was the "fullness of the Godhead bodily." He was the fullness of God walking, dwelling among men, on earth.
He was the Logos of the universe, the Word, made flesh.
He created the world and everything in it, and remarked on this in John to his disciples, yet, he was rejected by Israel.
Those who saw him have seen the Father.
VP denied that Christ [Emmanuale - God with us] was "come in the flesh." He warped that scripture.
Christ talked about he glory he had with the father before his incarnation in the "body thou hast prepared me" when on earth.
Peter, John, and James saw him in his amazing, glory at the transfiguration and fell down.
Does a Christian need to believe Christ had a divinity? No. But, I believe they will never see the greatness of what was done for them.
He's more than a "bro."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Again,
I just wanted to add. On this question 2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
I would pose it as-- Can one flat out reject the deity of Christ and be saved? After being informed and making a conscious choice--will one be saved?
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.
They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error
Sunesis point that many of us who have left and believed in Christ deity is right on. VP was a false teacher according to scripture--this verse talks about being against Christ. Not confused or unsure, but actually anti-Christ. Can you be saved if you are against Him? Can we accept and deny at once?
On another Jesus, again 2Cor11 says:
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a
different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. . . . . . .
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
Can a false teacher preach another version of Jesus and another gospel and it be unto salvation? If VP fits the bill as a false teacher--and we recieved "another Jesus' would it be a Jesus preached unto salvation? Does the true Jesus the Apostles preached matter? Does it make a difference to be saved? Seems it does.
Also, if these men who preach "another" Jesus--man only--spirit only--disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, but we know them by their lives-fruit--What were we involved in with VP? Highly suspect IMHO As would be His version of Jesus according to scripture.
We have to consider "different spirit"--when we consider what we learned in TWI-Big H little h--that too might be a denial of the true Holy Spirit? Makes that whole SIT very suspect as well. Doesn't mean we didn't accept a version of the Holy Spirit--or manifest that version, just means it may have been a different one.
The thing that is so telling about this --is that Jesus transforms lives--in TWI many of us just traded in one form of sin for another--getting down and dirty and really examining it--I just stopped one behavior and adopted other sinful ones. NO transformation.
Just some thoughts. How can we make Him Lord(Obey and keep His commandments) if we are rejecting who He is--How can we call on His name as Lord if we are calling on another Jesus?
:) Just wondering
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I'm mostly in the same boat with Oakspear. I don't much dig into the bible anymore except for maybe the Psalms/Proverbs/Ecclesiastes 'trinity' once in a while.
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
--three co-equal, co-eternal beings who in combination make up what mainstream Christianity today refers to as God.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
--Who knows? But I would think if the answer to this was affirmative, the bible would explicitly say such. It doesn't. I can't imagine God would make salvation dependent on a doctrine so biblically ill-defined and conceptually obtuse.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
--Who knows? It probably depends on your answer to question 2.
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
--I always thought the JCNG book was mostly lame. For such an important subject, it wasn't very well written nor did it have very much detail. I kind of saw it as a hinderance and never openly lent it to anyone. The book from CES was much better, as far as books are concerned.
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
--None, actually. The trinity, along with the dead being dead, are about the only things I think TWI was right on. I still think that if you just sat down and read the bible without preconceptions, you would never come to the conclusion that God exists as a trinity.
Beyond that, not only do I believe you wouldn't see it, you also wouldn't need it. Every work and benefit of God can be understood without the concept of a trinity. Can you think of any verses that absolutely depend on Jesus being God? I can think of none. Being the 2nd Adam and then further exalted by God for doing His will covers all the bases.
Just some thoughts from an ex-wayfer turned agnostic...
--JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sunesis brought up the mocking aspect of TWI teaching. I concur. Even though I was convinced during my TWI sojourn that Jesus was not God, I was always very uncomfortable with the mocking attitude that many wayfers, including especially the top dogs, had toward Trinitarians. And the simplistic platitudes (that's redundant ain't it?
) like "There's one God, not three", "Jesus must have been talking to himself when he prayed" ad nauseum, betrayed a real lack of understanding about what Trinitarians actually believed. I would be embarrassed at some of my fellow wayfers who tried to witness to people and bring up the Trinity. :unsure:
These days, even though I'm not a Christian, I have no problem understanding the concept of one God in three persons (the Latin was the persona, which actually communicates to me better than the English "person"). There the old Irish legend about St. Patrick explaining the Trinity using the illustration of the shamrock: three leaves on one plant; but the pagan Irish had no problem understanding such a concept and didn't need his explanation: many Irish gods & goddesses were manifest in three aspects, or forms, and modern paganism honors the goddess in her three aspects of maiden, mother & crone. Heck, Moorcock's "Eternal Champion" is a multi-aspect being!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Oak,
It almost sounds like you're moving from Trinitarianism into modalism(sabellianism, oneness, triunitarianism)... Mother, maiden, and crone.. Yup, that's more triunitarian rather than trinitarian, which is what the old water and its three forms, 3 leaf clover, egg yolk and shell analogies more aptly define and is considered a heresy to those who hold to the 'orthodox view' (Whatever that means...... lol)
1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?
One being, 3 separate but equal persons, Each being 100% fully God and God being 100% the person. (God being fully Jesus and Jesus being fully God, God being fully Father, and Father being Fully God, yet there three separate persons since the Father is not the Jesus!). And to try and give it more detail, it's just a mystery that no one can define, and to try to would only delve into the modalism and other non-Trinitarian views. Of course the Trinitarian view has changed somewhat from the days of Tertullian to now.. As Tertullian's view did fit more the modalistic view.
2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?
No... No one scripture defines the Trinity, it's an amalgamation of scriptures, and as such is promulgated as a synthesis of scriptures required to define it. And since many other "different" synthesis of scriptures can say something contrary, I don't believe God would require any one to have a view on a subject that must be synthesized by man to understand.
3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?
Depends on your definition of "Jesus".
4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?
I would say it is a very poorly written book. It made up things to fit into holes that wasn't understood by the author. Take John 1:1.. His take on it was completely inaccurate. Didn't even take into account anything from the Greek, but rather had their own idea of this word meaning this here, but means this in the next sentence. Gee, a first grader could do that. If we did that to the whole Bible, this word means this here, but this over here, it could say what we wanted! Well, that's what VPW did anyways!
5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to theTrinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?
I was a Trinitarian growing up. Started studying scripture prior to meeting those in the Way. Realized the Trinitarian belief was man synthesized and didn't hold any more ground than some alternate views. Joined the way, and kept my view, left the way, studied the Trinitarian subject in depth. And still hold somewhat the same view. Jesus has always been my Lord. I serve Him. And He serves His Father, our God. And I don't nit pick and get into these fights about trinitarian/non-trinitarian unless asked. Doesn't make as much difference as people make it out to be (That view was changed, since TWI era was the most Biblical Fundamental viewpoint of it's what does the Word say.. Nahh. Know God, spend time with Him, He'll lead you in the right direction..). ust get to know them both!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
TWI and S&TF seem to say that Jesus is what all human beings would have been had there been no sin(Adam is a son of God, not God in human flesh). John Schoenheit in One God, One Lord treats church history better than Wierwille. What JS misses is Kurios(Kyrie) does not simply mean master/lord but is used for a being who is deity. Most Unitarians accept Jesus having "divinity" but not "deity", that is "holy spirit" as a thing or it like a computer having electricity rumming through it(not counting laptops with batteries only) but until you turn it on, click the mouse to the internet/world wide web to talk to God(who Is Holy and Spirit, and is Father/Parent). Interesting that the Ebionites believed Jesus was not god but Joseph's biological son/ or a Roman Centurion who raped Mary impregnating her, started by Paul of Samosota. VPW and JS believed Jesus was not God(stuck in heaven and CS Lewis was nuts), nor Michael nor Gabriel, nor sinful human being, but true perfect human(not capable of sin and had no free will or by superstrength mind over matter chose not to sin), therefore He is not like us at all but human alien(Doctor Who maybe?) created within Mary's womb, not unlike Adam's creation. No fall or sin, Adam, Eve and all of us perfect with out sin just like Jesus. Still searching and delibtating the issue. ps, Wierwille thought Lewis' arguement stupid and not convincing because of Son of God never equals God the Son or God disguised in human flesh without perverting God's character of holiness, making Yaweh sinful like all of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
But you have to admit at the same time of Kurios being used for a deity, it is also used for non-deity, just as Theos is used for humans and non alike. Also, the term and understanding of a "deity" is not a Jewish understanding. It comes from polytheists. Whether people want to bring it into Christianity is up to them.. I'd rather leave it out...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Thomas,
That just makes CS Lewis all the more dear to me. :) :) :)
Amazing man-Amazing thinker--Wonderful Christian--They would think him nuts I guess. That makes perfect sense! :)
Seems we strained a gnat and swallowed a camel.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
ihrleben
This is a hot button issue, so, no trashing, bashing or character attacking allowed. This is meant to be a place where we can come together, discuss our points of view and change perspectives.
Ok, I'll start....
I've view the Trinity as three parts. God, Son and Holy Spirit. Each has their own job. God the decision maker and judge, Christ the Savior of the world and Holy Spirit the comforter and advisor.
Although God can be viewed as the head, I believe it's more like the ultimate team. Each part loving the other completely. There is no division in the ranks. Decisions are made collectively. It is the example of servant leadership. The Holy Spirit bowing to the Son, the Son to the Father, and around we go.... As great leaders go, each submits and serves the other in love; thereby, no one part is greater than another servanthood. Each part is seperate. God is God, Jesus his Son and the Holy Spirit. I do not believe Jesus is God, just like I don't believe the Holy Spirit is God. I believe they are one in thought, but seperate parts.
Onto Muslims, they seem willing to accept this explanation. I also do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists. Christians, during the Crusades, have been just as guilty of converting people by the sword as Muslims. Here in Afghanistan, terrorists are not considered Muslims. They're often hated and viewed as trash.... Many true Muslims fight alongside our forces over here, giving their lives for this country. Often those who are against terrorism place their own lives at risk. I admire these people, as share frequent converstaions with them.
Ok, now it's your turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it don't get any better then this
someone in the middle of war
saying to put down your weapons
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Nice post Ben. I am glad you drew a distinction between Muslim and terrorist. I am sure you have been welcomed at times with incredible hospitality. My sister-in-law was in Kabul 2 years ago and she was just so awed by the welcoming and kindness displayed by everyday people.
Have you ever read Prisoners of Hope--about the two girls held by the taliban at the start of the war? That is the heart we are to have towards Muslims. One of love.
I would ask you one thing--who does the bible say is to judge all things if not God?
I enjoyed your explanation, but see it just a bit differently. Either way-it was nice to read. Have you ever listened to Ravi Zacharias on this topic?
To me, the trinity makes it so much clearer--and displays the most amazing gift in Jesus Christ. I am often moved to behave a bit more--due to this understanding-LOL
Nice Post-I thank-you
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
ihrleben
I agree with you, God is judge. It's scripture. Christ acts on our behalf as, shall we say, our defense lawyer and the Holy Spirit comforts and advises (shares wisdom).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
According to 1 John 5 there is actually 6 + 1. 7
6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
There's the six and you being the seventh being witnessed to.
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
My earlier posts should not be construed that I reject the trinity, but that I was trying to explain how I understood Wierwiile's and Schoenheit's reasoning. Other Unitarians are Unitarian Universalist, Christian Science, Unity School, Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, Worldwide Church of God(Armstrong), in addition to TWI, S&TF,CFFM,C&RF,COF,etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
One of the things that inclined me towards Trinitarianism while I was still involved with TWI was coming to recognize what I later learned is referred to theologically as perichoresis, circumincessio (circumincession), or coinherence.
In John’s gospel, Jesus Christ declares that he is in the Father and that the Father is in him. What is he saying? He is revealing that he and the Father mutually indwell one another. That the Father and the Son are distinct, yet they interpenetrate one another. That they are inseparable.
Is it the Holy Spirit who comes and dwells in Christians? Is it Christ himself abiding in them? Is it God the Father who makes a habitation for himself in them? There are scriptural indications of each of these things, yet there seems to be in Scripture the particular indication of the Holy Spirit being sent by the Father and the Son to indwell Christian believers and glorify the Son who has glorified the Father. With one of the three divine persons, however, are the other two -- all three interpenetrating, dwelling with and in one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perichoresis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
With your kind indulgence, I shall use Oakspear's post as a comparison.
I do this not because I want to criticize it, but rather since I thought it was well-written,
and I could clearly indicate what I agreed with and what I didn't agree with.
Disclaimer: All of this is me speaking for ME and no other party.
This is my OPINION. Feel free to disagree all you want.
First of all,
Oakspear and I disagree in our basic belief systems in a fundamental way.
(We agree on mutual respect.)
I am a Bible believer, and I DO believe the Bible is God's Word,
that is, the deliberate intent of God Almighty to communicate directly to us.
That having been said, if you begin from one position- Jesus is God the Son,
or begin from the other position-Jesus is The Son of God but not God,
you will find verses that seem to support your position, and verses that seem
to OPPOSE your position.
I find it particularly noteworthy that most of the Bible verses with the most
tampering- the end of Matthew, and I John 5 are what I'm thinking of here
mainly- are demonstrated to have been FORGERIES- people came along
later and ADDED doctrine to them-doctrine which just happens to push the
Trinitarian position. (There's a few other verses, but those are the most
egregious examples.) That's enough to get me suspicious of the Trinitatian
position-a position where some people felt it was significant enough to alter
the Bible to insert their beliefs into it. Now, when the Samaritan Pentateuch
is a fair representation of the Pentateuch, but suddenly includes a few verses
that elevate Mount Gerezim-the place of Samaritan worship- far above its
previous position, we can accept those verses were forgeries, skip them,
and skip their doctrine. We can't QUITE do that with these verses here,
since some people will dogmatically oppose that-they WILL scream, call names,
and label anyone trying to honestly arrive at the truth of the verses,
if that truth disagrees with theirs.
I've come to the conclusion that I have NOT heard the CORRECT position yet-
that both positions that are popular fail to completely account for everything,
and so they're both right to a point and WRONG to a point.
Naturally, I can get flak from both sides about that.
I consider it childish and petty that some of my fellow Christians can waste their
time doing that- and labelling both ME and EACH OTHER as non-Christians,
but I can't stop them, either.
Mind you, outside of the ex-twi community, I've had Christians know my positions,
and some have said I wasn't a Christian, some have said I was, and the positions
range between a respected, beloved brother in Christ, and being yelled at in the
street. That the ex-twi community should know better and STILL can't rise above
that is a little sad to me, but I can't affect that, either.
Since I do not believe the verses clearly make the case one way or the other,
I do not believe God considers this issue to be the make-or-break, and thus
spurns one side while embracing the other. I believe he considers them all Christians,
no matter what labels we down here insist on using AGAINST each other.
I would also add that "co-equal" is a necessary part of the doctrine, IMHO.
Since it's Three-in-One and One Unity of Three, that's how it seems to
be represented mathematically, anyway. No part of the Trinity any less than another.
I agree with everything so far.
I will clarify the last point, however-
if one believes Jesus of Nazareth is not The Son of God, unique in birth,
prophesied, The Messiah, The Atonement, He Who Will Return As King of Kings
and Lord of Lords, who shall Judge the Earth in righteousness,
who lived a physical life on Earth for some 30 years, was crucified,
died, buried, and resurrected,
THEN you're talking "another Jesus."
I consider "another Jesus" to be "any Jesus who is not The Messiah, The Son of God,
who is not unique in all of the history of man, and The Redeemer."
There's people who claim that one, but they're not in THIS discussion claiming
to be Christians. (Unless I missed them posting-in which case, my apologies.)
JCNG is a poorly-written work. If the argument is made, it is NOT made with that book.
If all the strength of that side was purely from JCNG, then it WOULD be fair to say
"all non-Trinitarian Christians are silly and illogical."
As it is, that does a grave disservice to those who say "it's true in spite of that book"
as well as all the Christians throughout history who were devout Christians who did
not believe in a Trinity. I am NOT prepared to call Sir Isaac Newton silly, illogical,
or a less-than-devout Christian.
I was raise with Catholic dogma, and told to believe in the Trinity. By the time I was a
teenager, I had discarded what I'd been taught as insufficient answers. To this day, I
believe those answers were incorrect. Since I'd been taught that Roman Catholics had
all the answers, I wrongly generalized that ALL Christians were wrong and NONE had
the answers I sought, and the Bible was an outdated set of books with no authority.
I found twi teaching superior to what I personally had been taught in general.
So, I believed the Trinity to be an incorrect doctrine. I did NOT, however, villainize
the Trinitarians as I was taught in twi-I still considered them fellow Christians even if
they had incorrect doctrines (including praying to saints, praying the Rosary, etc.)
I do believe that, if I hadn't left twi when I DID leave, I would have found increasing
problems with twi doctrine and twi dogma. Having left, I've had a number of years
to examine a lot of it, and agree with some and disagree with some.
I STILL don't believe this is THE make-or-break, "You're not a Christian" doctrine.
I've seen good examples of Christians on both sides. (Poor examples, too.)
I've seen sufficient evidence to convince me that God answers prayers for both,
and miracles deliver both equally. I'm convinced the arguments we have on Earth
are petty squabbles that waste the limited time we have here, and divide the
family of God unnecessarily.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Having questions about something is different than having doubts about it. We all have questions. That does not preclude us from being accepted by Christ. Never.
It is a journey and none of us have all our doctrines in order even after we accept Him and He us.
A doubt can be different--we are unsure something is the way it is--a commitment doesn't spring from doubt. Giving ones life to Christ is a commitment.
A rejection is the clear indication that we have accepted the doubt. Questions-doubt-rejection--these are all different animals--it is good to examine our doubts
before they become flat out rejections. Our questions we bring humbly to Him to be answered in His time. That is what makes the journey so fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
What I find really interesting is that we can humbly bring our questions to Him and get so vastly different answers. I guess we each have our own paths and journeys to take in this life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
As a Christian, I find my extended family of brethren and sistern, including all those crazy cuz's out on the Left and Right coastal areas a fascinating bunch. Me included.
We're a funny bunch. We believe in Jesus Christ variously as a Redeemer, Messiah, Savior, Son of God, God the Son, Teacher, Shepherd and All Around One Bad Mothah who will get us through this Dark Valley of Time and upon whom we invest our highest and greatest hopes for this life and in fact all of eternity. JC is The Man for whom many, will finally bring down the Righteous Sword of Judgement for all and Kick Asz As Necessary, No Names required because perfect justice will be His purview.
Yet many of us have different understandings of who exactly He is, where He is, what He's done, is doing and will do, given the time.
Somewhere in all of this there has to be a very personal understanding of who it was that we went to, accepted, learned out, needed, liked, loved, wanted and ultimately determined to follow. What were we hearing, seeing, thinking, wanting, needing?
It's difficult to follow someone or something that's indistinct, faint, unclear. That may be where the challenge is, if there is one and I think there is one. I know of no other way than to keep at it. We all need and benefit from whatever help anyone else can give but ultimately it's our mind's eyes that see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There's also a Pentecostal branch - One God Apostolics
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.