Wierwille's doctrine collapsed the tension, because, while he gave lip service to Jesus' divine function, Wierwille practiced and taught an "absent Christ."
I agree, the "absent Christ" and removal or the "divine" function of Christ is not as good as the Trinity..
It was probably one of the most harmful things in fact, because with an absent Lord, who is our Lord, oh yes, the dufus from OK.. And while that was never said directly , it WAS said that he was our LEADER and Overseer and the one to whom God works through ultimately if we didn't hear God's voice the first time, thus setting him up as ... Lord.
Of course, personally of all mankind, the one I don't see any tension in is Christ himself. Anymore than I actually see a "divine" component or a human component. I see one Christ. Is there a tension or 2 separate components that I miss?
I do see a tension between the "divine" functioning and the human functioning. But that is in all man kind or even living thing.
But then maybe I misunderstand you. Since you went from a quote about the "divine" component of Jesus to a "divine" functioning that Wierwille removed.
By "tension" I don't mean the same thing as "anxiety". A guitar string is "tuned" by pulling it in two opposite directions at the same time. The string's ability to produce the proper note depends on having the proper amount of tension on the string. An archery bow's power results from the tension put on the string by drawing it.
Some of the most powerful ideas in the Bible result from holding concepts in tension: the tension between viewing God as all-powerful and as all-loving, the tension between seeming determinism and free-will, the tension between the "all ready" and the "not yet." The tension between the human and the divine in Jesus Christ is probably the most powerful tension in the Bible.
Just as a guitar string or a bow string would cease to perform its function if the tension were collapsed by loosing one of its ends, the ideas in the Bible cease to do what they're supposed to do if their tension is collapsed.
The doctrine of the Trinity may not communicate every little nuance of the relationship between God, Jesus and "holy spirit" that we find in Paul's writings, but it DOES communicate the important functional truth that we relate with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Holy Spirit.
Never been in TWI but my wife has..... I have read a little of the PFAL binder. Found it interesting how it interpreted the verse about Isaiah talking about the vastness of God and how unsearchable His ways are. The red binder explained in some way we can know all of God. The idea that God can be put in a box came to my mind even though they didn't say it in their book.
So the idea of a complex Trinitarian being who exists as one and is one would be a huge stumbling block. I do agree with you that even so still through all the years of research and study about the correlation between the Eternal self of Jesus Christ and His human self is held in a balance only God can truly grasp.
I have been trying to understand it more and more through these years. Especially through marrying my wife and learning about TWI, interacting with people from TWI and reading VPWs book. This stirred me to start to learn greek in its own language so I can know the truth on my own accord. There is a whole lot more information out there than I think people realize. Long before the counsels.
Any way
I like your illustrations of the tension on a string. If you don't mind can I use it?
I like your illustrations of the tension on a string. If you don't mind can I use it?
That's fine by me. I didn't come up with it. The idea of tension was a common part of the Stoic cosmology operative in the first century, and illustrations of the lyre string and the bow string were used in antiquity. I'm presently taking a beginning class on Biblical Greek, and it's a real eye opener!
That's fine by me. I didn't come up with it. The idea of tension was a common part of the Stoic cosmology operative in the first century, and illustrations of the lyre string and the bow string were used in antiquity. I'm presently taking a beginning class on Biblical Greek, and it's a real eye opener!
Love,
Steve
Learning the greek language is extremely important in understanding the fullness of the words and not having someone tell you what the words mean but knowing them. It is interesting to see how certain words are used in greek philosophy and writings and implications of those used in scripture broadens the horizon especially when speaking about Christ. This by the little I have picked up so far. I think next year I may start my Masters in Biblical Studies. Where are you going to school?
Learning the greek language is extremely important in understanding the fullness of the words and not having someone tell you what the words mean but knowing them. It is interesting to see how certain words are used in greek philosophy and writings and implications of those used in scripture broadens the horizon especially when speaking about Christ. This by the little I have picked up so far. I think next year I may start my Masters in Biblical Studies. Where are you going to school?
By "tension" I don't mean the same thing as "anxiety". A guitar string is "tuned" by pulling it in two opposite directions at the same time. The string's ability to produce the proper note depends on having the proper amount of tension on the string. An archery bow's power results from the tension put on the string by drawing it.
The tension between the human and the divine in Jesus Christ is probably the most powerful tension in the Bible.
Thanks for clarifying.. Makes sense, the tensions that is for some of those things. Thanks!
Although, I still have to admit, I don't see the tension in Jesus.. But maybe that's because I don't see a human and a divine in Jesus. Maybe I'm missing the "divine". Or maybe it's the fact that the word itself is too generic to describe anything IMHO that is based on reality and not Greek mythology.
Thanks for clarifying.. Makes sense, the tensions that is for some of those things. Thanks!
Although, I still have to admit, I don't see the tension in Jesus.. But maybe that's because I don't see a human and a divine in Jesus. Maybe I'm missing the "divine". Or maybe it's the fact that the word itself is too generic to describe anything IMHO that is based on reality and not Greek mythology.
The tension comes from the confession "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9, I Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, etc., etc., etc.) In Acts 2, Peter starts talking about "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you..." (verse 22), and eventually gets to "...God hath made that same Jesus... both Lord and Christ" (verse 36).
God the Father made the man Jesus of Nazareth Lord when God glorified him. God headed up all things in Christ, toward management of that which fills the opportune moments, or that which fills the moments of decision (Ephesians 1:11).
The princes of this present evil age did not know that the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the man they were crucifying, was going to make him eligible to be elevated by God to the position of glorious Lord. THAT WAS THE MYSTERY! If they had known that death by crucifixion would qualify the man Jesus to be resurrected and glorified as Lord, they would never have crucified him!
God was able to pull off this device because the word "lord" in the Greek, kurios, has multiple meanings. At the lowest level, it simply meant "master." At the highest level it was used to translate YHWH in the Septuagint.
The tension is this: Jesus, a limited man, is currently exercising Lordship, a function of unlimited divinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity is, in my opinion, an oversimplification of the relationship set forth in the New Testament, but it is still functional because it maintains the tension. Wierwille's doctrine gave lip service to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but it collapsed the tension by regarding Jesus as "absent." Bad news.
God was able to pull off this device because the word "lord" in the Greek, kurios, has multiple meanings. At the lowest level, it simply meant "master." At the highest level it was used to translate YHWH in the Septuagint.
My understanding is not that it was used as a translation of YHWH but in the Septuagint as an alternative word by deliberate choice because use of the sacred name was ... too sacred. And the translators of the KJV followed the same pattern even tough it's not a part of western cultural heritage.
Back to the topic - I still don't believe in any trinity, any concept of Jesus = God, as pre-existing other than in God's forethought (just as, indeed, you and I pre-existed in God's forethought - just as any couple planning a baby have that child pre-existing while they buy their house that will be big enough for their family even whilst actually being childless).
How many times does the Bible refer to the MAN Jesus? The lamb of the flock?
While God (YHWH) was busy in the OT, what was Jesus doing - lying around on a cloud? Not many refs to him except as a future redeemer. None as a presently active person, entity, being, whatever... Though I did hear one "pastor" say he was walking around with Daniel in the fiery furnace - and the same "pastor" said that Abraham meeting with angels in the desert and arguing about Sodom - well, one of the angels was actually Jesus. (No private interpretation there, then )
I'm not a particular fan of Athanasius' doctrine. In my opinion, it doesn't reflect the Scriptural nuances of the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, some of which you've pointed out, Twinky. But the doctrine of the Trinity presents less of a hinderance to walking in the spirit than Wierwille's carnal-mindedness did. That was what prompted me to make my original post. Thanks!
The doctrine of the Trinity may not communicate every little nuance of the relationship between God, Jesus and "holy spirit" that we find in Paul's writings, but it DOES communicate the important functional truth that we relate with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Holy Spirit.
Love,
Steve
I think this is excellent.
In fact, I'd like to come back to this. I may want to quote this exactly later to other people.
My understanding is not that it was used as a translation of YHWH but in the Septuagint as an alternative word by deliberate choice because use of the sacred name was ... too sacred. And the translators of the KJV followed the same pattern even tough it's not a part of western cultural heritage.
Back to the topic - I still don't believe in any trinity, any concept of Jesus = God, as pre-existing other than in God's forethought (just as, indeed, you and I pre-existed in God's forethought - just as any couple planning a baby have that child pre-existing while they buy their house that will be big enough for their family even whilst actually being childless).
How many times does the Bible refer to the MAN Jesus? The lamb of the flock?
While God (YHWH) was busy in the OT, what was Jesus doing - lying around on a cloud? Not many refs to him except as a future redeemer. None as a presently active person, entity, being, whatever... Though I did hear one "pastor" say he was walking around with Daniel in the fiery furnace - and the same "pastor" said that Abraham meeting with angels in the desert and arguing about Sodom - well, one of the angels was actually Jesus. (No private interpretation there, then )
It is impossible for Jesus to be just a mere fore thought in scripture. Jesus in his conversation with Nicodemus Chapter 3 of John said this "12If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. The Next verse Jesus says that Son of Man (referring to Jesus) being lifted up like Moses lifting up the serpent refering to the cross. Jesus makes a clear distinction between Nicodemus and himself. I am from heaven... Why because he is going to ascend into it. We all know that because he did in Acts.
Then John the baptist says this in verse 31 of John 3
He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony.
Speaking about Jesus in literal language here again separating the rest of mankind because He (Jesus) is from heaven above all and the rest is of the earth and belongs on it. It is impossible with those two statements alone for Jesus to just exist in the foreknowledge of God. There is a lot more quotes from Jesus about him coming down from heaven. Why does Jesus say he came down from heaven? If he was just an artificially inciminated child made by God...He still would be lying if he said something like " I am the bread of life that came down from heaven". Because if he was literally made here on earth. So then John 3:12-13, 31-32 and all of the other verses would not be true. That is not private interpretation.
My understanding is not that it was used as a translation of YHWH but in the Septuagint as an alternative word by deliberate choice because use of the sacred name was ... too sacred. And the translators of the KJV followed the same pattern even tough it's not a part of western cultural heritage.
Back to the topic - I still don't believe in any trinity, any concept of Jesus = God, as pre-existing other than in God's forethought (just as, indeed, you and I pre-existed in God's forethought - just as any couple planning a baby have that child pre-existing while they buy their house that will be big enough for their family even whilst actually being childless).
How many times does the Bible refer to the MAN Jesus? The lamb of the flock?
While God (YHWH) was busy in the OT, what was Jesus doing - lying around on a cloud? Not many refs to him except as a future redeemer. None as a presently active person, entity, being, whatever... Though I did hear one "pastor" say he was walking around with Daniel in the fiery furnace - and the same "pastor" said that Abraham meeting with angels in the desert and arguing about Sodom - well, one of the angels was actually Jesus. (No private interpretation there, then )
I don't know......how many times does the bible refer to the MAN Jesus? Why would that cause you to question the trinity? No one, (except maybe the Gnostics :) )is denying that Jesus was fully a man. Trinitarians(for lack of a better word) believe Jesus was fully a flesh and blood man.
What I wonder is how many attributes of God did Jesus fail to exhibit or speak about?
The doctrine of the Trinity may not communicate every little nuance of the relationship between God, Jesus and "holy spirit" that we find in Paul's writings, but it DOES communicate the important functional truth that we relate with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Holy Spirit.
For me, I believe that Paul's writings are actually communicating to us.....the doctrine of the trinity. This is where it comes from.....the scriptures. This is where we find and learn about the trinity, about God. God is a being in relationship. I am not sure why you would see them as two separate things.
There is so much depth to be gleaned from just considering the trinity in relation to ourselves as the creation. I believe it is all there in the scriptures. The doctrine of the trinity is more than just a formula. Anyway....speaking for myself.....it is how I found the Christian faith after whatever it was I was immersed in during my TWI days.
...It is impossible for Jesus to be just a mere fore thought in scripture...
I am no longer inclined to trust my own speculations as to what it is possible or impossible for Jesus to do or to be.
The relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things, us and the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 8:6) that Paul presents in his writings is much more complex than the doctrine of the Trinity. It's very possible that the earliest Christians were not able to agree on a formula more complex than "Jesus is Lord." It's certain that nobody else ever has. I can... and have... argued proof-texts for three hours straight. They NEVER settle anything.
Theodosius put an end to the bickering in the Roman Empire when he issued his edict of Thessalonika in A.D. 380:
"It is Our will that all peoples ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans... this is the religion followed by bishop Damasus of Rome and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity: that is, according to the apostolic discipline of the evangelical doctrine, we shall believe in the single deity of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
"We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches [no imperial money will be spent on their meeting places - Steve], and they shall be smitten first by Divine Vengence, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which We shall assume in accordance with the Divine Judgment [the civil authorities will burn dissenters at the stake - Steve]." (Charles Freeman. (2009). A.D. 381. New York: Overlook Press. page 25.)
Whether WE find the doctrine of the Trinity agreeable or not, God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have been able to work quite well with it, thank you, for about 1,630 years.
I didn't initiate this thread to argue fine points (or fine NON-points) about the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things, us and the Holy Spirit. I have strong opinions of my own, but I know that proof texting is useless and needlessly divisive. The purpose of this thread was to point out that, bad as the doctrine of the Trinity may be in some peoples' opinions, there are worse things, and Wierwille's doctrine of the "absent" Christ was one of those.
It appears to me that there is a dramatic difference between VPW's view of Jesus and that of the book of Revelation. It's hard to square the wimpy man who's just "one of the flock" with the overwhelmingly powerful, majestic, dominating picture of Jesus Christ in Revelation.
In Rev, Jesus is the blazing figure holding 7 stars in his hands, booming messages to the 7 churches...
He is the victorious Lamb sharing the throne with the Father, receiving the praises of all creation and of those redeemed by His blood....
He is the Alpha and Omega- the first and last, the beginning and the end, origin and purpose of all things (separate verses call the Father the Alpha and Omega and the Son Alpha and Omega... how can you have two alphas and 2 omegas?).
He is the Faithful and True with a sword from His mouth, destroying all enemies with none able to offer any resistance....
He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (there can be only one Lord of all Lords)...
The greatest of all saints bow and throw their crowns before Him.
Awe-inspiring, but not the message you get from TWI & VP.
VP never called Jesus "wimpy". As usual several of you have to misrepresent VP to make your case.
Re-examine your PFAL materials, John, especially the session that deals with the second coming. That's the one where VP compares the persecuted Jesus to the resurrected Christ and goes on to say that, when he returns, no one will spit in his face or beat him beyond recognition because, next time, "He's coming back as King of Kings, Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty." The stark contrast between what Jesus Christ represented and what Christ Jesus represented was a theme that was frequently visited in countless teachings. Although VP didn't use the word "wimpy" specifically, the implication was made.....over and over. Do you not recall that we were never instructed to pattern our lives after the pre-crucifiction Jesus, we were instructed, rather, to pattern our lives after the resurrected Christ? And, don't even think about praying in Jesus' name, lest you be suspected of conferring with a devil spirit.
I am no longer inclined to trust my own speculations as to what it is possible or impossible for Jesus to do or to be.
I think anyone who claims complete knowledge on an infinite being and allowance for no error has lost the idea of what infinite truly is. It can also go in the opposite direction where if you can't trust the logical conclusions that are written in front of you there is nothing to discuss.
The relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things, us and the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 8:6) that Paul presents in his writings is much more complex than the doctrine of the Trinity. It's very possible that the earliest Christians were not able to agree on a formula more complex than "Jesus is Lord." It's certain that nobody else ever has. I can... and have... argued proof-texts for three hours straight. They NEVER settle anything.
I agree that the relationship between the Father and Jesus Christ is complex. I personally do not think that the formula of the Trinity is a perfect illustration of the wholeness of God. Regardless I do think there are logical undeniable facts of who Jesus thought he was while on Earth (not to mention all the passages in Revelation). Just the passages he spoke about himself indicated that he believed at the least he pre-existed. C.S. Lewis was right in saying he was either nuts or he truly thought he was divine and that is what the early followers believed. Reading Ignatius, Polycarp and Iraneus (sorry if I misspell their names) they are under the impression of Christ's Divinity.
In regards to proof texting. I disagree with you to a point. In my experience it challenges me and the other person. When I was in bible college at a baptist college I was challenge and proof texted with others over calvinism vs arminianism. We were not divided but became friends. It actually was very helpful for me to do so and did it get heated....Yes but it was good we both became stronger individuals (even having to change my own presuppositions after further studying because of the discussion) and respected each other even more. I think it is the attitude of the people disagreeing (including me).
Theodosius put an end to the bickering in the Roman Empire when he issued his edict of Thessalonika in A.D. 380:
"It is Our will that all peoples ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans... this is the religion followed by bishop Damasus of Rome and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity: that is, according to the apostolic discipline of the evangelical doctrine, we shall believe in the single deity of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
"We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches [no imperial money will be spent on their meeting places - Steve], and they shall be smitten first by Divine Vengence, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which We shall assume in accordance with the Divine Judgment [the civil authorities will burn dissenters at the stake - Steve]." (Charles Freeman. (2009). A.D. 381. New York: Overlook Press. page 25.)
Whether WE find the doctrine of the Trinity agreeable or not, God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have been able to work quite well with it, thank you, for about 1,630 years.
I didn't initiate this thread to argue fine points (or fine NON-points) about the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things, us and the Holy Spirit. I have strong opinions of my own, but I know that proof texting is useless and needlessly divisive. The purpose of this thread was to point out that, bad as the doctrine of the Trinity may be in some peoples' opinions, there are worse things, and Wierwille's doctrine of the "absent" Christ was one of those.
As I didn't get the exact point of your start of your thread. It seemed you where wanting to point out the errors of VPWs teaching because of the lack of the presence of Christ who is Divine. I think that goes deeper than just Lordship. That is where I would disagree with you. Christ saw himself as Lord and King even without Revelations, he speaks of it in the gospels. I think His pre-existence is a huge issue. It is the very reason why he is Lord and why you don't have him as Lord in VPWs teaching. If Jesus is just a mere man you shouldn't worship him. God said he will not share with no one. He alone Saves. When I read only the things Jesus said as in not the beginning of John or the other epistles referencing Jesus as living prior to birth. It seems Jesus had some sort of view of himself as One who pre-existed Abraham (literally), As the truth and everyone who knows truth listens and obeys him, the one who was prophesied about, The one who will be worship, Is the only one who can talk about heaven because he was the only one from there, Had close intimate relationship with God, accepted worship as God, Said of himself being king of not only this world in the future but also king of heaven at the present moment before crucifixion. And so he is Lord (as he says he is). So I do not think they are little points. So it isn't the concept of the Trinity or Lordship in VPWs teaching it is who Jesus viewed himself as. So Christ never was truly represented.
I think the beauty of these forums is that everyone can give an opinion. Being able to respond to someone elses opinion. As my response was not primarily to the subject at hand but directed to someone else's comment about the pre-existence of Christ. In either case I think Christ's Lordship is dependent on who Jesus is. So you must talk about it even the finer points.
Love,
Steve
Sorry for the delay of the post. I hope all is well and I value your insight and opinions.
What you may or may not realize is that, in The Way, Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus were talked about as if they were almost two different people. It was actually a point of contention to interchange the two names. The "rule", so to speak, was that pre-crucifiction was always JC and post-resurrection was always CJ.
What you may or may not realize is that, in The Way, Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus were talked about as if they were almost two different people. It was actually a point of contention to interchange the two names. The "rule", so to speak, was that pre-crucifiction was always JC and post-resurrection was always CJ.
I am very aware of that. Sorry I didn't address it. I am still trying to understand how they view the whole Jesus Christ vs Christ Jesus thing. My wife was asking if I have every heard about it a couple months back and so I went on my journey researching. Have not really grasped the concept they teach. I try to understand what others believe even if I do not believe it. So that is something I still have not grasped the concept. I have found other sources that teach that. I do see the different wording but I just don't see their thought flow in determining two different people or identities or what not. If you can help me understand it...it would be well appreciated :).
Regardless...I see people who are trinitarians, and those who are non-trinitarians, get prayers answered. Deeply committed people on both sides of this understanding.
I reckon God, JC, CJ, whoever, whatever, the HS ...it doesn't bother them. They work not with the understanding but with the heart to know, love and serve. We all know imperfectly. We're all in for some surprises in that time when we shall know as we are known. Meanwhile - carry on loving and serving.
(Not saying this isn't an interesting discussion ! :blush:)
Jesus, the Nazarene, the "man from Galilee". Human, man, crucified.
Christ, the Messiah, Redeemer, Savior, son of God.
The two words carry a different sense, based on context and their usage. Jesus is the name associated with His humanity and redemptive life He lived. Christ with the spiritual role, a title, "The Christ", the Messiah or "Annointed One". The two combined have a slightly different nuance - Jesus Christ, is as if to say "Jesus, the Christ", or that guy Jesus over there is the Messiah.....Christ Jesus is as if to say "Christ, Who is Jesus", or God's Annointed One is this Jesus. The primary difference taught in the Way relates to emphasis.
It's all the same guy, referred to different ways. That much is in the bible. The Way taught a significance to to how the names are used. There is to be sure, IMO. However once you accept Jesus as Lord, if you've been taught who He was, what He did and the history of the gospels and epistles, you get that anyway. Hope this helps.
Recommended Posts
TrustAndObey
I agree, the "absent Christ" and removal or the "divine" function of Christ is not as good as the Trinity..
It was probably one of the most harmful things in fact, because with an absent Lord, who is our Lord, oh yes, the dufus from OK.. And while that was never said directly , it WAS said that he was our LEADER and Overseer and the one to whom God works through ultimately if we didn't hear God's voice the first time, thus setting him up as ... Lord.
Of course, personally of all mankind, the one I don't see any tension in is Christ himself. Anymore than I actually see a "divine" component or a human component. I see one Christ. Is there a tension or 2 separate components that I miss?
I do see a tension between the "divine" functioning and the human functioning. But that is in all man kind or even living thing.
But then maybe I misunderstand you. Since you went from a quote about the "divine" component of Jesus to a "divine" functioning that Wierwille removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
By "tension" I don't mean the same thing as "anxiety". A guitar string is "tuned" by pulling it in two opposite directions at the same time. The string's ability to produce the proper note depends on having the proper amount of tension on the string. An archery bow's power results from the tension put on the string by drawing it.
Some of the most powerful ideas in the Bible result from holding concepts in tension: the tension between viewing God as all-powerful and as all-loving, the tension between seeming determinism and free-will, the tension between the "all ready" and the "not yet." The tension between the human and the divine in Jesus Christ is probably the most powerful tension in the Bible.
Just as a guitar string or a bow string would cease to perform its function if the tension were collapsed by loosing one of its ends, the ideas in the Bible cease to do what they're supposed to do if their tension is collapsed.
The doctrine of the Trinity may not communicate every little nuance of the relationship between God, Jesus and "holy spirit" that we find in Paul's writings, but it DOES communicate the important functional truth that we relate with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Holy Spirit.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Never been in TWI but my wife has..... I have read a little of the PFAL binder. Found it interesting how it interpreted the verse about Isaiah talking about the vastness of God and how unsearchable His ways are. The red binder explained in some way we can know all of God. The idea that God can be put in a box came to my mind even though they didn't say it in their book.
So the idea of a complex Trinitarian being who exists as one and is one would be a huge stumbling block. I do agree with you that even so still through all the years of research and study about the correlation between the Eternal self of Jesus Christ and His human self is held in a balance only God can truly grasp.
I have been trying to understand it more and more through these years. Especially through marrying my wife and learning about TWI, interacting with people from TWI and reading VPWs book. This stirred me to start to learn greek in its own language so I can know the truth on my own accord. There is a whole lot more information out there than I think people realize. Long before the counsels.
Any way
I like your illustrations of the tension on a string. If you don't mind can I use it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
That's fine by me. I didn't come up with it. The idea of tension was a common part of the Stoic cosmology operative in the first century, and illustrations of the lyre string and the bow string were used in antiquity. I'm presently taking a beginning class on Biblical Greek, and it's a real eye opener!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Learning the greek language is extremely important in understanding the fullness of the words and not having someone tell you what the words mean but knowing them. It is interesting to see how certain words are used in greek philosophy and writings and implications of those used in scripture broadens the horizon especially when speaking about Christ. This by the little I have picked up so far. I think next year I may start my Masters in Biblical Studies. Where are you going to school?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I sent you a personal message! Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrustAndObey
Thanks for clarifying.. Makes sense, the tensions that is for some of those things. Thanks!
Although, I still have to admit, I don't see the tension in Jesus.. But maybe that's because I don't see a human and a divine in Jesus. Maybe I'm missing the "divine". Or maybe it's the fact that the word itself is too generic to describe anything IMHO that is based on reality and not Greek mythology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The tension comes from the confession "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9, I Corinthians 12:3, Philippians 2:11, etc., etc., etc.) In Acts 2, Peter starts talking about "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you..." (verse 22), and eventually gets to "...God hath made that same Jesus... both Lord and Christ" (verse 36).
God the Father made the man Jesus of Nazareth Lord when God glorified him. God headed up all things in Christ, toward management of that which fills the opportune moments, or that which fills the moments of decision (Ephesians 1:11).
The princes of this present evil age did not know that the death of Jesus of Nazareth, the man they were crucifying, was going to make him eligible to be elevated by God to the position of glorious Lord. THAT WAS THE MYSTERY! If they had known that death by crucifixion would qualify the man Jesus to be resurrected and glorified as Lord, they would never have crucified him!
God was able to pull off this device because the word "lord" in the Greek, kurios, has multiple meanings. At the lowest level, it simply meant "master." At the highest level it was used to translate YHWH in the Septuagint.
The tension is this: Jesus, a limited man, is currently exercising Lordship, a function of unlimited divinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity is, in my opinion, an oversimplification of the relationship set forth in the New Testament, but it is still functional because it maintains the tension. Wierwille's doctrine gave lip service to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but it collapsed the tension by regarding Jesus as "absent." Bad news.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
My understanding is not that it was used as a translation of YHWH but in the Septuagint as an alternative word by deliberate choice because use of the sacred name was ... too sacred. And the translators of the KJV followed the same pattern even tough it's not a part of western cultural heritage.
Back to the topic - I still don't believe in any trinity, any concept of Jesus = God, as pre-existing other than in God's forethought (just as, indeed, you and I pre-existed in God's forethought - just as any couple planning a baby have that child pre-existing while they buy their house that will be big enough for their family even whilst actually being childless).
How many times does the Bible refer to the MAN Jesus? The lamb of the flock?
While God (YHWH) was busy in the OT, what was Jesus doing - lying around on a cloud? Not many refs to him except as a future redeemer. None as a presently active person, entity, being, whatever... Though I did hear one "pastor" say he was walking around with Daniel in the fiery furnace - and the same "pastor" said that Abraham meeting with angels in the desert and arguing about Sodom - well, one of the angels was actually Jesus. (No private interpretation there, then
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm not a particular fan of Athanasius' doctrine. In my opinion, it doesn't reflect the Scriptural nuances of the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, some of which you've pointed out, Twinky. But the doctrine of the Trinity presents less of a hinderance to walking in the spirit than Wierwille's carnal-mindedness did. That was what prompted me to make my original post. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think this is excellent.
In fact, I'd like to come back to this. I may want to quote this exactly later to other people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you, WordWolf! From you, I take that as a high compliment! I'm very interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
It is impossible for Jesus to be just a mere fore thought in scripture. Jesus in his conversation with Nicodemus Chapter 3 of John said this "12If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. The Next verse Jesus says that Son of Man (referring to Jesus) being lifted up like Moses lifting up the serpent refering to the cross. Jesus makes a clear distinction between Nicodemus and himself. I am from heaven... Why because he is going to ascend into it. We all know that because he did in Acts.
Then John the baptist says this in verse 31 of John 3
He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He bears witness to what he has seen and heard, yet no one receives his testimony.
Speaking about Jesus in literal language here again separating the rest of mankind because He (Jesus) is from heaven above all and the rest is of the earth and belongs on it. It is impossible with those two statements alone for Jesus to just exist in the foreknowledge of God. There is a lot more quotes from Jesus about him coming down from heaven. Why does Jesus say he came down from heaven? If he was just an artificially inciminated child made by God...He still would be lying if he said something like " I am the bread of life that came down from heaven". Because if he was literally made here on earth. So then John 3:12-13, 31-32 and all of the other verses would not be true. That is not private interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't know......how many times does the bible refer to the MAN Jesus? Why would that cause you to question the trinity? No one, (except maybe the Gnostics :) )is denying that Jesus was fully a man. Trinitarians(for lack of a better word) believe Jesus was fully a flesh and blood man.
What I wonder is how many attributes of God did Jesus fail to exhibit or speak about?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine of the Trinity may not communicate every little nuance of the relationship between God, Jesus and "holy spirit" that we find in Paul's writings, but it DOES communicate the important functional truth that we relate with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ by means of Holy Spirit.
For me, I believe that Paul's writings are actually communicating to us.....the doctrine of the trinity. This is where it comes from.....the scriptures. This is where we find and learn about the trinity, about God. God is a being in relationship. I am not sure why you would see them as two separate things.
There is so much depth to be gleaned from just considering the trinity in relation to ourselves as the creation. I believe it is all there in the scriptures. The doctrine of the trinity is more than just a formula. Anyway....speaking for myself.....it is how I found the Christian faith after whatever it was I was immersed in during my TWI days.
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c9gwoZNudCI" allowfullscreen="" width="420" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I am no longer inclined to trust my own speculations as to what it is possible or impossible for Jesus to do or to be.
The relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things, us and the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 8:6) that Paul presents in his writings is much more complex than the doctrine of the Trinity. It's very possible that the earliest Christians were not able to agree on a formula more complex than "Jesus is Lord." It's certain that nobody else ever has. I can... and have... argued proof-texts for three hours straight. They NEVER settle anything.
Theodosius put an end to the bickering in the Roman Empire when he issued his edict of Thessalonika in A.D. 380:
"It is Our will that all peoples ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans... this is the religion followed by bishop Damasus of Rome and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity: that is, according to the apostolic discipline of the evangelical doctrine, we shall believe in the single deity of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.
"We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches [no imperial money will be spent on their meeting places - Steve], and they shall be smitten first by Divine Vengence, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which We shall assume in accordance with the Divine Judgment [the civil authorities will burn dissenters at the stake - Steve]." (Charles Freeman. (2009). A.D. 381. New York: Overlook Press. page 25.)
Whether WE find the doctrine of the Trinity agreeable or not, God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit have been able to work quite well with it, thank you, for about 1,630 years.
I didn't initiate this thread to argue fine points (or fine NON-points) about the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things, us and the Holy Spirit. I have strong opinions of my own, but I know that proof texting is useless and needlessly divisive. The purpose of this thread was to point out that, bad as the doctrine of the Trinity may be in some peoples' opinions, there are worse things, and Wierwille's doctrine of the "absent" Christ was one of those.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
It appears to me that there is a dramatic difference between VPW's view of Jesus and that of the book of Revelation. It's hard to square the wimpy man who's just "one of the flock" with the overwhelmingly powerful, majestic, dominating picture of Jesus Christ in Revelation.
In Rev, Jesus is the blazing figure holding 7 stars in his hands, booming messages to the 7 churches...
He is the victorious Lamb sharing the throne with the Father, receiving the praises of all creation and of those redeemed by His blood....
He is the Alpha and Omega- the first and last, the beginning and the end, origin and purpose of all things (separate verses call the Father the Alpha and Omega and the Son Alpha and Omega... how can you have two alphas and 2 omegas?).
He is the Faithful and True with a sword from His mouth, destroying all enemies with none able to offer any resistance....
He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (there can be only one Lord of all Lords)...
The greatest of all saints bow and throw their crowns before Him.
Awe-inspiring, but not the message you get from TWI & VP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
VP never called Jesus "wimpy". As usual several of you have to misrepresent VP to make your case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Re-examine your PFAL materials, John, especially the session that deals with the second coming. That's the one where VP compares the persecuted Jesus to the resurrected Christ and goes on to say that, when he returns, no one will spit in his face or beat him beyond recognition because, next time, "He's coming back as King of Kings, Lord of Lords. He's coming back as Lord God Almighty." The stark contrast between what Jesus Christ represented and what Christ Jesus represented was a theme that was frequently visited in countless teachings. Although VP didn't use the word "wimpy" specifically, the implication was made.....over and over. Do you not recall that we were never instructed to pattern our lives after the pre-crucifiction Jesus, we were instructed, rather, to pattern our lives after the resurrected Christ? And, don't even think about praying in Jesus' name, lest you be suspected of conferring with a devil spirit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Sorry for the delay of the post. I hope all is well and I value your insight and opinions.
Thanks
Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Nate
What you may or may not realize is that, in The Way, Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus were talked about as if they were almost two different people. It was actually a point of contention to interchange the two names. The "rule", so to speak, was that pre-crucifiction was always JC and post-resurrection was always CJ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I am very aware of that. Sorry I didn't address it. I am still trying to understand how they view the whole Jesus Christ vs Christ Jesus thing. My wife was asking if I have every heard about it a couple months back and so I went on my journey researching. Have not really grasped the concept they teach. I try to understand what others believe even if I do not believe it. So that is something I still have not grasped the concept. I have found other sources that teach that. I do see the different wording but I just don't see their thought flow in determining two different people or identities or what not. If you can help me understand it...it would be well appreciated :).
Thanks
Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Regardless...I see people who are trinitarians, and those who are non-trinitarians, get prayers answered. Deeply committed people on both sides of this understanding.
I reckon God, JC, CJ, whoever, whatever, the HS ...it doesn't bother them. They work not with the understanding but with the heart to know, love and serve. We all know imperfectly. We're all in for some surprises in that time when we shall know as we are known. Meanwhile - carry on loving and serving.
(Not saying this isn't an interesting discussion ! :blush:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm not so sure it's as complicated as you think.
They want to share in the laurels of glory and power but shun any identification with service and humility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Jesus, the Nazarene, the "man from Galilee". Human, man, crucified.
Christ, the Messiah, Redeemer, Savior, son of God.
The two words carry a different sense, based on context and their usage. Jesus is the name associated with His humanity and redemptive life He lived. Christ with the spiritual role, a title, "The Christ", the Messiah or "Annointed One". The two combined have a slightly different nuance - Jesus Christ, is as if to say "Jesus, the Christ", or that guy Jesus over there is the Messiah.....Christ Jesus is as if to say "Christ, Who is Jesus", or God's Annointed One is this Jesus. The primary difference taught in the Way relates to emphasis.
It's all the same guy, referred to different ways. That much is in the bible. The Way taught a significance to to how the names are used. There is to be sure, IMO. However once you accept Jesus as Lord, if you've been taught who He was, what He did and the history of the gospels and epistles, you get that anyway. Hope this helps.
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.