Jesus is a larger fragment of Diety, since the "great divide"..
say.. something like 17 percent. God himself reserved or is about 71 percent. and then there are an uncountable number of fragments, which constitute "us".
are they or even we, "one"? I think they, and we were..
from what I've read, some kabballists seem to think part of God died to give birth to creation..I don't think that's exactly what happened..
I think He chose to diversify himself.. for whatever reason..
maybe being "god" is boring..
the Hindus have some thoughts about Brahma.. he was one at one time..
Why can't a Father and son live in the same person..
I think the whole "the trinity is idolatry" thing that Wierwille propounded was carefully constructed to drive a wedge between us and mainline christianity. I could care less if you believe in the trinity or not. In fact, I'm not particularly concerned whether you believe in God or not. Show me your works and your life. That's what matters. And I think that's why the majority of my friends happen to be Jews, Sikhs and Muslims.
Just a thought here. . . .it is not the same person, but three distinct persons. . . . one God. . . it is a relationship that reveals God's amazing heart of love. Nice post Roy. . . as usual.
Ham,
He is who He is. . . and He is eternal. . .He doesn't change. . . . OUR controversies are usually about who He is. . .or at least who we want Him to be. . . no? :)
Wierwille's book on this subject was actually pretty good. It was just named wrong. It should have been named in a more positive light. For example, the title of this book could have been: "Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Many scriptures that are quoted in the book's opening chapters say this and no Christian in their right mind would argue about this title. And yes, the trinitarians do in fact agree with the statement of this title. I know this because I have talked to a few. They have no argument with the bible saying that "Jesus is the Son of God.
Wierwille's book on this subject was actually pretty good. It was just named wrong. It should have been named in a more positive light. For example, the title of this book could have been: "Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Many scriptures that are quoted in the book's opening chapters say this and no Christian in their right mind would argue about this title. And yes, the trinitarians do in fact agree with the statement of this title. I know this because I have talked to a few. They have no argument with the bible saying that "Jesus is the Son of God.
Unfortunately VPW did not delve much into who is as much as he went into detail about who Jesus is not. So, IMO, the book title was appropriate. One God One Lord is a much better book for explaining who Jesus is, even though my personal theology regarding Jesus has evolved since that book was written.
Commenting on what Tzaia posted. I have not read the VPW book for many years and no longer have a copy. However, I do remember that one of the first chapters goes into some detail about the many usages in the New Testament where Jesus is called the Son of God. Therefore the book could have had this as the title. This would have not been controversial. But I have heard that VPW wanted the title to be controversial.
I do however, agree with you on the book, "One God & One Lord". It is very good and is clearly better than the book by VPW.
I just don't see many places where the doctrine of the trinity is called a theory. . at least not in Christendom. . . in the land of cults or ex-cult world maybe. . . but, it just struck me as funny. :)
Recommended Posts
Ham
I have a few thoughts..
Jesus is a larger fragment of Diety, since the "great divide"..
say.. something like 17 percent. God himself reserved or is about 71 percent. and then there are an uncountable number of fragments, which constitute "us".
are they or even we, "one"? I think they, and we were..
from what I've read, some kabballists seem to think part of God died to give birth to creation..I don't think that's exactly what happened..
I think He chose to diversify himself.. for whatever reason..
maybe being "god" is boring..
the Hindus have some thoughts about Brahma.. he was one at one time..
Why can't a Father and son live in the same person..
my father (earthly by *way* terms) lives in me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
And after the "division".. we've spent one lifetime after another trying to acheive some kind of balance or equilibrium..
councils.. rules, standards..
I wonder if god would have even considered this to begin with.. if He knew of the red tape involved..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Ham
man you really understand what getting at
that blesses me more than words can say
I love the way you put everything together
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I think the whole "the trinity is idolatry" thing that Wierwille propounded was carefully constructed to drive a wedge between us and mainline christianity. I could care less if you believe in the trinity or not. In fact, I'm not particularly concerned whether you believe in God or not. Show me your works and your life. That's what matters. And I think that's why the majority of my friends happen to be Jews, Sikhs and Muslims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Jim
"works and your life" could not hold shoe box with them or they could hold many hard drives
life is just a moment
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Roy,
Just a thought here. . . .it is not the same person, but three distinct persons. . . . one God. . . it is a relationship that reveals God's amazing heart of love. Nice post Roy. . . as usual.
Ham,
He is who He is. . . and He is eternal. . .He doesn't change. . . . OUR controversies are usually about who He is. . .or at least who we want Him to be. . . no? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi geisha779
I like thoughts
yes three distinct persons
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
We are made of stardust,Well how the heck can you explain God anyways?Does it matter?
Jesus was divine yet he was human,To say that twi think,where jesus was on his own till he recieved holy spirit
in the form of a dove was nuts.God always looks out for his kids including his own kid.
thank goodness we are not in twi,and we can think any way we like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi frank123lol
yes "thank goodness we are not in twi,and we can think any way we like."
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Wierwille's book on this subject was actually pretty good. It was just named wrong. It should have been named in a more positive light. For example, the title of this book could have been: "Jesus Christ is the Son of God"
Many scriptures that are quoted in the book's opening chapters say this and no Christian in their right mind would argue about this title. And yes, the trinitarians do in fact agree with the statement of this title. I know this because I have talked to a few. They have no argument with the bible saying that "Jesus is the Son of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Mark Sanguinetti
yes there is another title to VPW book but I do not know where he got it
"trinitarians do in fact agree with the statement of this title" I never talk the book with trinitarians
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Unfortunately VPW did not delve much into who is as much as he went into detail about who Jesus is not. So, IMO, the book title was appropriate. One God One Lord is a much better book for explaining who Jesus is, even though my personal theology regarding Jesus has evolved since that book was written.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi Tzaia
my believe as grown or evolve when it comes to Christ
love Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Commenting on what Tzaia posted. I have not read the VPW book for many years and no longer have a copy. However, I do remember that one of the first chapters goes into some detail about the many usages in the New Testament where Jesus is called the Son of God. Therefore the book could have had this as the title. This would have not been controversial. But I have heard that VPW wanted the title to be controversial.
I do however, agree with you on the book, "One God & One Lord". It is very good and is clearly better than the book by VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Hi Mark Sanguinetti
i was hoping Tzaia would answer you
I love you
love Roy
God first
What I think about the theory Trinity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwqQZj0VHXc
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwqQZj0VHXc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwqQZj0VHXc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
love Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I just don't see many places where the doctrine of the trinity is called a theory. . at least not in Christendom. . . in the land of cults or ex-cult world maybe. . . but, it just struck me as funny. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
hi geisha779
that just the way I set it apart
by calling a theory I get you to read
it not a theory
it a belief for some
love Roy
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.