"The "rule", so to speak, was that pre-crucifiction was always JC and post-resurrection was always CJ."
Where did this idea come from? I flipped open my concordance and noticed Romans 1:1 and 1:4 - one verse uses Jesus Christ and the other Christ Jesus- same paragraph, both post-resurrection. Eph 1:1-5 uses CJ twice and JC thrice.
It sounds like a catchy idea that has no real Biblical basis.
I'm not sure where it came from but, it was one you picked up on very early....like, "Don't fart in public!"...And, that's the kind of response it got when used incorrectly.
There's a bit of humorous irony in remembering how many songs we sang that clearly violated "the rule". Songs like "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Sweetest Name I Know", "Have a Little Talk With Jesus", "Jesus of Blue Galilee", "Yes, It Is Jesus" and lots of others whose titles escape me at the moment.
I guess the message here is that there must be some kind of doctrine-correcting "magic" lurking in 3 part harmony and hand clapping.
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.
Actually, in a manner of speaking, they WERE 2 different people.
Jesus Christ was a mortal human whose biological father is God, who was without sin yet tempted in all points, and who offered himself as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, whosoever will may come.
Christ Jesus is a resurrected eternal being who ever liveth to make intercession for us.
LCM once did a teaching he called 'as he is, not as he was'. We're both. We're mortal right now (as he was) and we are guaranteed eternal life (as he is). I think VPs take was that Christ Jesus is more relevant today because none of us is ever going to live a perfect life like Jesus did. What WOULD Jesus do is irrelevant. What DID Jesus do is very relevant.
Christ's accomplished works are what guarantees us eternal life and gives us access to God. Jesus hadn't accomplished them before his crucifixion and his crucifixion alone didn't even do it. You know this stuff.
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.
Thank you Waysider.....VP DID say that JC was coming back as Lord God Almighty. Kevin G used to say....that was the only "mistake" made in PFAL. VP said JC wouldn't be spit upon and did that little spit thing in class?
What I failed to understand was the significance of Jesus broken and naked before His creation......I knew that He endured the shame of the cross.....but for some reason, I took away the shame of the cross without taking away the love, mercy, grace, or justice that was displayed. I remember having real disdain for the symbol of the cross and mocking Christian's to whom it was significant. Something was bred in me to hold the cross in contempt and it began in PFAL. I wasn't the only one.
I will never forget when the shame of that was fully realized and I repented. Not something I am likely to ever forget.
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.
Actually, in a manner of speaking, they WERE 2 different people.
Jesus Christ was a mortal human whose biological father is God, who was without sin yet tempted in all points, and who offered himself as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, whosoever will may come.
Christ Jesus is a resurrected eternal being who ever liveth to make intercession for us.
Some Theologians see it as before the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't technically exist. He only existed in the form of or apart of God and didn't become Jesus until his birth. Is this a way for me to understand how VPW interprets it? That he stopped being Jesus and became something totally different (except in VPWs view Jesus never pre-existed in the form of, as, was, ect. God)?
Is this a way for me to understand how VPW interprets it?
No, I don't think so.
Here it is in a nutshell...The Gospels, to a large degree, portray Jesus as someone who was willing to serve, sacrifice, give of himself for the betterment of others. I don't think the role of humble servant was one that Wierwille was ever interested in assuming. He taught us "dispensationalism" for the express purpose of steering us away from the Gospels. According to Wierwille, the Gospels were not written to "us". Not only is this concept of dispensationalism theologically incorrect, it's historically incorrect. It ignores the simple fact that the Gospels were actually written AFTER the Epistles.
Here it is in a nutshell...The Gospels, to a large degree, portray Jesus as someone who was willing to serve, sacrifice, give of himself for the betterment of others. I don't think the role of humble servant was one that Wierwille was ever interested in assuming. He taught us "dispensationalism" for the express purpose of steering us away from the Gospels. According to Wierwille, the Gospels were not written to "us". Not only is this concept of dispensationalism theologically incorrect, it's historically incorrect. It ignores the simple fact that the Gospels were actually written AFTER the Epistles.
Well, definitely when considering the gospel of John. Written very late......
Although on a similar note I do find it interesting how he completely ignores the perceptions of the early church fathers Ignatius and Polycarp (these two authors have letters soon after Johns gospel)....As far as I remember the book only mentions Ireneus (forgive me for misspelling). Please correct me if I am wrong and give me page numbers.
Yeah my wife said that they viewed the Gospels as the Old Testament. IN either case I was confused how.... True or not.....how would that fact......effect the Truth of who Jesus is and how we apply it to our life. Just because in the OT God said "I Am" dose not change the fact that he is the " I Am".
Thanks for the help.... I am trying to grasp the logical flow or illogical flow of their presuppositions (if that is possible). I couldn't really grasp their view of Jesus in the JC is not God book. It seems that they (people in The Way) have been given a straw man in terms of the concept of the Trinity (regardless if someone regards the Trinity the best answer true or not).
Thanks Waysider and others so far this has been really helpful.
"straw man in terms of the concept of the Trinity"
VPW believed "Jesus is God" himself at one time, said it often when speaking of the topic of the trinity.
The Way parsed the topic, more or less. I'd describe it as a conclusion based on logic - "axiomatic" is a word he used often in PFAL. I'm not suggesting that VPW was particularly versed in logic or the study of the principles of logic, but any person who's been through PFAL knows he promoted a "logical" frame of mind to view what he taught. Does it hold up to logical scrutiny? Those who think it does, every word, consider that a support of the Bible and God and Christianity, as if those things rely on how perfectly formed and logical "PFAL" is.
He put conclusions from study of the Bible in terms of if then statements and drew "logical" conclusions - "if this says that, and it says that here and here, and if that means this, and this exception means this, then "this" = a conclusion which is "axiomatic" (although using those methods they might end up actually being non-logic axioms or postulates the way he taught them, which is kinda bass ackwards). For example his statement about "things equal to the same things", or each other and them being equal to themselves....something to that effect, is a very basic logic statement. I'm not sure where he was going with all of these things in PFAL but as with many of the topics covered in PFAL it got me interested in them, like "logic", what is it, how does it work, what is it as a discipline or form of thinking. Frankly I'm not sure that the way he juggled "logic" in PFAL was exactly, hmmmm, a classic approach.
Me, I don't buy the idea that the nature of God, and of Jesus Christ can be clearly understood and turned into 25 words of less by taking the 66 books of the Bible, viewing them as a finished product designed by God as His "Word", and then approaching it with mathematical tools so it can be understood in a way that will produce results that are completely reliable, stable and repeatable - things that people who do that want and that's how they want the Bible to be. They say "God is perfect" so "His Word(s) must be perfect". Etc. etc. etc. and so if the Bible is His Word, this book I bought at Border's - it must be perfect in every way I want it to be.
That approach ignores that man himself is a creation of God and at this stage of the game is far from perfect. So while God might produce "perfect creation" because He is perfect, the perfection we look for may not be displayed in the results we see, how we see them and understand them. And it doesn't have to be.
In relation to the "Trinity" that goes in my mind to our basic human understanding of who and what we are and how we then attempt to apply that to "God". As a "me" I only know one of me. "There can be only one". A very true statement when it comes to our individual consciousness.
Multiple realities perceived by one individual in some form of psychosis includes conflict, the multiple "personalities" or perceptions don't align or agree completely. Bob becomes Joe who doesn't like to eat and both of them have problems with Frank who likes loud music and stays up all night. That kind of thing. Consciousness doesn't seem to work with a crowd of participants.
Also from the human perspective we see ourselves through events and moments, there's "change" and "time". But the nature of the duration of life and the ability to view change and things like choice outside of the events and either/or choices we make is difficult. Things in our worlds need to be measurable and repeatable to understand them and so we always deal with any one thing as it occurs and completes and is then "over". Projecting a future becomes a matter or knowing a repeatable past. But we can't step ahead into that next moment and be in it, we can only prepare for it. So I might say that a color is "orange" because I put red and yellow together, and that without red and yellow there could be no orange. Orange being the product of red and yellow. But if there were no red or yellow could I still have orange? It would seem so. The process of red plus yellow that produces my orange is the process I understand and use. Orange might disagree. That's a kind of sophomoric philosophical exercise but it's a valid one to work through to understand how one might reconsider their own assumptions about anything.
My question is how what do I impose on "God" in the effort to understand Him and myself? I think the Bible uses many great metaphors and comparisons to illustrate God and yet there always seems to be a caveat, as if the writers in their inspiration were passionate about making the point that "as great as I see God and know God, He is more than that".
My point (a point!?) is that while I think PFAL presents some valid information the real important topic is still and always man coming to God through Christ. Jesus Christ. Christ Jesus. That guy, the one in the gospels, the son of God, the one God sent, that one. That focus of God's mind, will and heart is the way, the portal, the means by which the invisible God is known to me. Those things take on form and meaning through Jesus Christ. They have touch, feeling, the intangibles of life's duration, eternity - they can be considered in a moment of time through Him.
Where PFAL's proponents today take that comes off ham handed to me, cheesey, as if there's high value in making it all into a 30 minute joke about bad math and "3 in 1". To me it was a start to consider the broader subject of Jesus Christ.
Recommended Posts
waysider
I'm not sure where it came from but, it was one you picked up on very early....like, "Don't fart in public!"...And, that's the kind of response it got when used incorrectly.
There's a bit of humorous irony in remembering how many songs we sang that clearly violated "the rule". Songs like "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Sweetest Name I Know", "Have a Little Talk With Jesus", "Jesus of Blue Galilee", "Yes, It Is Jesus" and lots of others whose titles escape me at the moment.
I guess the message here is that there must be some kind of doctrine-correcting "magic" lurking in 3 part harmony and hand clapping.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
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.
Actually, in a manner of speaking, they WERE 2 different people.
Jesus Christ was a mortal human whose biological father is God, who was without sin yet tempted in all points, and who offered himself as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind, whosoever will may come.
Christ Jesus is a resurrected eternal being who ever liveth to make intercession for us.
LCM once did a teaching he called 'as he is, not as he was'. We're both. We're mortal right now (as he was) and we are guaranteed eternal life (as he is). I think VPs take was that Christ Jesus is more relevant today because none of us is ever going to live a perfect life like Jesus did. What WOULD Jesus do is irrelevant. What DID Jesus do is very relevant.
Christ's accomplished works are what guarantees us eternal life and gives us access to God. Jesus hadn't accomplished them before his crucifixion and his crucifixion alone didn't even do it. You know this stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Thank you Waysider.....VP DID say that JC was coming back as Lord God Almighty. Kevin G used to say....that was the only "mistake" made in PFAL. VP said JC wouldn't be spit upon and did that little spit thing in class?
You remember this exactly as I do.......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I failed to understand was the significance of Jesus broken and naked before His creation......I knew that He endured the shame of the cross.....but for some reason, I took away the shame of the cross without taking away the love, mercy, grace, or justice that was displayed. I remember having real disdain for the symbol of the cross and mocking Christian's to whom it was significant. Something was bred in me to hold the cross in contempt and it began in PFAL. I wasn't the only one.
I will never forget when the shame of that was fully realized and I repented. Not something I am likely to ever forget.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Some Theologians see it as before the birth of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't technically exist. He only existed in the form of or apart of God and didn't become Jesus until his birth. Is this a way for me to understand how VPW interprets it? That he stopped being Jesus and became something totally different (except in VPWs view Jesus never pre-existed in the form of, as, was, ect. God)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
No, I don't think so.
Here it is in a nutshell...The Gospels, to a large degree, portray Jesus as someone who was willing to serve, sacrifice, give of himself for the betterment of others. I don't think the role of humble servant was one that Wierwille was ever interested in assuming. He taught us "dispensationalism" for the express purpose of steering us away from the Gospels. According to Wierwille, the Gospels were not written to "us". Not only is this concept of dispensationalism theologically incorrect, it's historically incorrect. It ignores the simple fact that the Gospels were actually written AFTER the Epistles.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Well, definitely when considering the gospel of John. Written very late......
Although on a similar note I do find it interesting how he completely ignores the perceptions of the early church fathers Ignatius and Polycarp (these two authors have letters soon after Johns gospel)....As far as I remember the book only mentions Ireneus (forgive me for misspelling). Please correct me if I am wrong and give me page numbers.
Yeah my wife said that they viewed the Gospels as the Old Testament. IN either case I was confused how.... True or not.....how would that fact......effect the Truth of who Jesus is and how we apply it to our life. Just because in the OT God said "I Am" dose not change the fact that he is the " I Am".
Thanks for the help.... I am trying to grasp the logical flow or illogical flow of their presuppositions (if that is possible). I couldn't really grasp their view of Jesus in the JC is not God book. It seems that they (people in The Way) have been given a straw man in terms of the concept of the Trinity (regardless if someone regards the Trinity the best answer true or not).
Thanks Waysider and others so far this has been really helpful.
Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"straw man in terms of the concept of the Trinity"
VPW believed "Jesus is God" himself at one time, said it often when speaking of the topic of the trinity.
The Way parsed the topic, more or less. I'd describe it as a conclusion based on logic - "axiomatic" is a word he used often in PFAL. I'm not suggesting that VPW was particularly versed in logic or the study of the principles of logic, but any person who's been through PFAL knows he promoted a "logical" frame of mind to view what he taught. Does it hold up to logical scrutiny? Those who think it does, every word, consider that a support of the Bible and God and Christianity, as if those things rely on how perfectly formed and logical "PFAL" is.
He put conclusions from study of the Bible in terms of if then statements and drew "logical" conclusions - "if this says that, and it says that here and here, and if that means this, and this exception means this, then "this" = a conclusion which is "axiomatic" (although using those methods they might end up actually being non-logic axioms or postulates the way he taught them, which is kinda bass ackwards). For example his statement about "things equal to the same things", or each other and them being equal to themselves....something to that effect, is a very basic logic statement. I'm not sure where he was going with all of these things in PFAL but as with many of the topics covered in PFAL it got me interested in them, like "logic", what is it, how does it work, what is it as a discipline or form of thinking. Frankly I'm not sure that the way he juggled "logic" in PFAL was exactly, hmmmm, a classic approach.
Me, I don't buy the idea that the nature of God, and of Jesus Christ can be clearly understood and turned into 25 words of less by taking the 66 books of the Bible, viewing them as a finished product designed by God as His "Word", and then approaching it with mathematical tools so it can be understood in a way that will produce results that are completely reliable, stable and repeatable - things that people who do that want and that's how they want the Bible to be. They say "God is perfect" so "His Word(s) must be perfect". Etc. etc. etc. and so if the Bible is His Word, this book I bought at Border's - it must be perfect in every way I want it to be.
That approach ignores that man himself is a creation of God and at this stage of the game is far from perfect. So while God might produce "perfect creation" because He is perfect, the perfection we look for may not be displayed in the results we see, how we see them and understand them. And it doesn't have to be.
In relation to the "Trinity" that goes in my mind to our basic human understanding of who and what we are and how we then attempt to apply that to "God". As a "me" I only know one of me. "There can be only one".
A very true statement when it comes to our individual consciousness.
Multiple realities perceived by one individual in some form of psychosis includes conflict, the multiple "personalities" or perceptions don't align or agree completely. Bob becomes Joe who doesn't like to eat and both of them have problems with Frank who likes loud music and stays up all night. That kind of thing. Consciousness doesn't seem to work with a crowd of participants.
Also from the human perspective we see ourselves through events and moments, there's "change" and "time". But the nature of the duration of life and the ability to view change and things like choice outside of the events and either/or choices we make is difficult. Things in our worlds need to be measurable and repeatable to understand them and so we always deal with any one thing as it occurs and completes and is then "over". Projecting a future becomes a matter or knowing a repeatable past. But we can't step ahead into that next moment and be in it, we can only prepare for it. So I might say that a color is "orange" because I put red and yellow together, and that without red and yellow there could be no orange. Orange being the product of red and yellow. But if there were no red or yellow could I still have orange? It would seem so. The process of red plus yellow that produces my orange is the process I understand and use. Orange might disagree. That's a kind of sophomoric philosophical exercise but it's a valid one to work through to understand how one might reconsider their own assumptions about anything.
My question is how what do I impose on "God" in the effort to understand Him and myself? I think the Bible uses many great metaphors and comparisons to illustrate God and yet there always seems to be a caveat, as if the writers in their inspiration were passionate about making the point that "as great as I see God and know God, He is more than that".
My point (a point!?) is that while I think PFAL presents some valid information the real important topic is still and always man coming to God through Christ. Jesus Christ. Christ Jesus. That guy, the one in the gospels, the son of God, the one God sent, that one. That focus of God's mind, will and heart is the way, the portal, the means by which the invisible God is known to me. Those things take on form and meaning through Jesus Christ. They have touch, feeling, the intangibles of life's duration, eternity - they can be considered in a moment of time through Him.
Where PFAL's proponents today take that comes off ham handed to me, cheesey, as if there's high value in making it all into a 30 minute joke about bad math and "3 in 1". To me it was a start to consider the broader subject of Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Interesting thoughts...
You have to have an absent Christ to have a "Return".
via - twi and others i suppose
Not sure how the trinity plays it.
I think they all think there will be an end of the whole world.
Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus
A Son of God, like us.
No 'the' son of God. Never was.
Jesus became one with the Spirit/God/Christ as we will.
So what sets Jesus up so special?
He did it quite openly.
There is surely more to make him the captain of salvation.
Who without fear took on devils/angels while he was still in the flesh.
No small thing.
Acquainted with death it says in Isaiah, while he was alive.
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.