I think that what often causes people to do bad things is not so much the Trinity as thinking they have the one, the only, in big capital letters, TRUTH.
Proof?
How many of us were convinced Saint Vic was the MOG for our day and time?
How many of us thought every word coming out of Saint Vic's mouth came from God's mouth to Saint Vic's ear?
Then we took PLAF and were convinced we had the truth, and by-gum the rest of the world was going to listen.
How many of us do you think challanged local priest, ministers and rabbis?
How many of us challanged our parents?
And all these years later, how many of us realize how wrong we were?
Thinking you have the only truth does something to the human mind: it fills it with huberis. Once filled with huberis, the mind closes and refuses to continue the search.
That huberis also make you view people who don't believe your doctrine a inferior (after all, they're going to the bad place, your going to the good place).
I get what you mean about religious zeal, youthful idealistic energy. Stubborn egotism etc.
I don't believe the Trinity causes bad behavior. I do believe belief influences behavior among other factors and that is an established scientific fact. Belief is given at a very young age, which we may or may not be aware of.
I don't believe the Trinity causes bad behavior. I do believe belief influences behavior among other factors and that is an established scientific fact. Belief is given at a very young age, which we may or may not be aware of
I agree. This is especially true in our current geopolitical climate, where several generations have been conditioned to believe that this or that ethnicity is evil or inferior. These beliefs, if given enough time, do seem to become diluted in the general populace. I think the same will hold true of this trinity issue. Perhaps in another 100 years people will scratch their heads and wonder why people were so consumed with something that doesn't seem to matter to them anymore.
edit: As I was typing this, I was thinking specifically about the issue of Korea's "comfort women" and how subsequent generations following WWII have adjusted their beliefs and attitudes as time itself dilutes the first hand and second hand memories.
Here is why it matters whether or not there is a trinity:
2Ti 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
ASV
The details actually matter. And since the trinity wasn't introduced until the council of Nicaea, it is obviously an addition to scripture and therefore invalid. The Word has so many verses that declared Jesus Christ as the son of God, not part of God. But here is one that is quite definitive:
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
KJV
That underlined word, "man", properly translated from the Greek, means human. God is not human. In all of Paul's letters, he never once declares, nor implies, that Jesus is part of a trinity. If you can find him doing that, I will be quite surprised.
For starters, perhaps it would help to think of some of my methods of communication as coming from a rather odd combination of (in no particular order) layman, gardener, salesman, and Socratic. Obviously, that doesn't categorize well, and I've come to recognize my "different way of thinking" for what it really is (more than anything else), a handicap. In other words, what I write don't always communicate or come across as plainly or as clearly as it should (or that I think it does.) Now, with that in mind...
(SNIP)
Hi once again TLC & Grease Spotters
thought I’d tie up a few loose ends…of a “thread within a thread” – I apologized to TLC on another thread concerning the Bible
the apology was for my overreacting and being overboard harsh and critical of his posts both on that thread and this one…for me Grease Spot is often a “story within the other side of the story” - - the changes I’m going through as I (hopefully) grow further away from TWI and a certain mindset I use to harbor.
Perhaps I can also relate this back to answering a question Bolshevik posed in the first post of this thread -
“I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?”
I think one of the consequences of wierwille’s anti-Trinity stance was how it helped to foster a dogmatic response…followers of TWI would never dream of thinking outside the (theological) box…thus a very successful group-think was established…I’ll end with what I said in my apology on the other thread:
"One of the great things about Grease Spot is rather than there being something of a collective consciousness in the discussions - it’s more along the lines of divergent thinking - where a variety of possible solutions are proposed in an effort to find one or more solutions that can work...here it’s cool to QUESTION EVERYTHING and you’re FREE TO PICK AND CHOOSE what makes sense and works for you! That was some of my thinking in starting this thread - - and uhm...I seemed to have forgotten that."
Quixotism(/kwɪkˈsɒtɪzəm/or/kiːˈhoʊtɪzəm/) (adj.quixotic) is impracticality in pursuit of ideals, especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action.[1]It also serves to describe anidealismwithout regard topracticality. An impulsive person or act might be regarded as quixotic.
Quixotism is usually related to "over-idealism", meaning an idealism that doesn't take consequence or absurdity into account. It is also related to naïveromanticismand toutopianism.
-----------------------------------
The real problem was people taking the plagiarized classes, then going back to their churches and not becoming a part of the Way in commitment and finance. VPW needed to find some way to pry people from their denominations. It was not good enough they were a functioning parallel member in the body of Christ. No, he had to teach about an exclusive term known as the "household", where other Christians are just a little bit sub-par at best.
Between that and the Trinity, Victor Paul Wierwille could easily cast doubt upon teachings centuries old that had ideological basis in scripture but not actual terminology in scripture.
I mean there are a lot of other monk-chanting like stupid statements in the Apostles Creed, so why focus on the one? And why is Augustine the only d@mn Pope in history Wayfers actually know the name of? It is like the extent of Wayfers knowledge is a two paragraph historical summary in Jesus Christ Is Not God which they cling doggedly to like a shipwreck piece throughout even post Way life.
No I think the rejection of the Trinity with vehemence is evidence of our brainwashing. Not rejection of it alone - I don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity. But us taking up the spears and going after the same windmills is going to leave us perpetually shipwrecked.
VPW Magna opus JCING was poor church history and implying works from Bullinger, Lamsa(and Errico), JW, WCOG, Unitarians, Christian Science, Quakers, etc.Lynn/Schoenheit/Grasser made a slightly better case in CES/ST&F's book One God and one Lord. This plus JCOP/Word's Way(Bullinger, Lamsa, PIllai), and JCOPS/Ernest Martin/Word's Way/Bullinger/Lamsa and Errico/ Pillai was to explain everything about Jesus Christ. btw, I now believe in the Holy Trinity but I can not make anyone agree with me. Video classes like Alpha, Christian Believer(United Methodist), Foundations(Saddleback), Open Home, Open Bible(All Soul's Langham Place, London) all mention the Trinity. Check them out.
VPW Magna opus JCING was poor church history and implying works from Bullinger, Lamsa(and Errico), JW, WCOG, Unitarians, Christian Science, Quakers, etc.Lynn/Schoenheit/Grasser made a slightly better case in CES/ST&F's book One God and one Lord. This plus JCOP/Word's Way(Bullinger, Lamsa, PIllai), and JCOPS/Ernest Martin/Word's Way/Bullinger/Lamsa and Errico/ Pillai was to explain everything about Jesus Christ. btw, I now believe in the Holy Trinity but I can not make anyone agree with me. Video classes like Alpha, Christian Believer(United Methodist), Foundations(Saddleback), Open Home, Open Bible(All Soul's Langham Place, London) all mention the Trinity. Check them out.
Thomas all views are welcome sometimes views are more similar than you think but labels are divisive.
I have far from reached my destination in Christology in view or practice. Thx for the references.
I have far from reached my destination in Christology in view or practice. Thx for the references.
Me too. At this point in my life I at least have some understanding of the Trinity. I think it’s important to understand it, if you’re going to agree or disagree. TWI’s narrow view and opposition were my own for years. Not anymore. Thankfully.
I would also offer a paper prepared by the late Steve Lortz on the trinity. He did this for his (genuine) doctorate. It made more sense to me than anything else I'd read on the subject. However at the moment I seem to be limited in the amount I can upload. An email to the mods, perhaps, for assistance?
Here's one such Trinity thread, started by the late Steve L. It's not, however, what I was thinking of earlier, which caused him to post the paper he'd written (shown above).
Twinky, thanks for the posts with the angel fire link, Steve's paper as PDF (i downloaded it) and the link to his thread - he's shared portions of it and it's great stuff in my opinion.
I was thinking over something Steve mentioned in his paper on the Trinity – he quoted Peter Toon, who said about the Economic Trinity -
This is the self-revelation of God… and we come to know about him as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit… and then we enter into personal friendship, personal union, personal knowing of the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit... So this is the Economic Trinity, God in his economy of creation, his economy of grace…
(end of excerpt)
== == == ==
I think some of what shaped my idea of God as a heavenly father is the relationship I had with my earthly father. My dad was a good man, honest, generous, and kind – but suffered from PTSD after serving in WWII; I think that might have been a big factor in why I felt emotionally cut off from him. I also knew him to be a very resourceful, creative and technically savvy…so given all that, I guess I was like any kid who thinks their dad is awesome – my world revolved around him.
I wonder - if you don’t have a good emotional connection with someone that you greatly admire - will that lead to feelings of inferiority? Feeling like you don’t measure up to someone you idolize…anyway – just thinking out loud here – since I happened to read Psalm 104 this morning…and was letting my mind wander thinking about the awesome creative power described in the Psalm…I think I’ve watched too many sci-fi and space movies where they have a scene of looking at our planet from outer space – I like to scare myself by imagining I’m this little ant on the other side of the planet – far away from God’s field of view…some of my childhood still lives on in my head…maybe it’s not a bad thing – I mean, I still have a lot of awe and respect for God and maybe some fear of God too…I was never a big fan of the matter-of-fact-causual-best-buds relationship that some folks seem to have with God Almighty…not that there’s anything wrong with that…it’s just not me…maybe that will change some day…I dunno…
But I do find hope in that stuff about making a connection with God through the Son by the Holy Spirit…For me it seems Jesus Christ makes the Father approachable…accessible…and I wonder if it’s the work of the Holy Spirit that inspires me to explore this connection. It’s odd – I don’t think how I relate to God has changed much since I was a kid. I still pray to him…(I don’t pray to Jesus, by the way...I mean, even Jesus told us to pray in this manner "Our Father..." ). When I’m thankful I think of God. It was just a passing thought - but the other morning as I was getting ready for work I had a brief moment of bliss as I thought about how grateful I am to God for getting to share an existence with this family of mine.
My thoughts usually turn to Jesus Christ or something from the Gospels when it has to do with how I relate to others. I think that slogan what would Jesus do is pretty good. But for me I usually think in terms of what would Jesus have me do…ever get the feeling you’re being followed? I get that sometimes – not for real – but in my imagination – yeah, it’s like when I’m being a real a$$hole to someone and Jesus Christ is right over there eyeballing me with a raised eyebrow in that what-are-you-doing-look…oh, can’t we just go back to the I’m-a-little-ant-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet-away-from-God’s-view mode? all kidding aside though, I feel I can easily relate to Jesus Christ...he walked the earth - he understands the problems and challenges we all experience.
And maybe in all that there’s also the Holy Spirit to liven up things...perhaps a catalyst when thoughts of Jesus Christ turns into empathizing with others...and sometimes I feel convicted of some fault or sin or maybe feel compelled to apologize or resolve an issue I’ve caused…Sometimes I feel on fire to criticize hypocrisy or to stand up for what's right…makes you wonder sometimes what drives you…sometimes we are mystifying to ourselves.
Well, anyway…that is how I think the Trinity works in my life...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...especially if there's no such thing as the Trinity.
And all of that would have to be done after 30 years of never, not even once, giving in to the exact same temptations we all face and miserably fail at day after day. Like I said, no big deal for God, but for a man to do it is something else altogether. That's love... MASSIVE TRUST!
At least massive trust in terms of how we (I) understand what it would take. Not only after enduring temptations for 30 years, but cultivating enough trust (and, I suppose also love) in the Hebrew scriptures or whatever other basis Jesus could have had to develop such a trust to be willing to go through the torture and death.
The Trinity.. deciding on what is true is (far) beyond my job description.. I would say to one side of the argument.. what gives you the authority to define what the Almighty God really is.. and to the other side, what gives you the authority to define what the Almighty God is NOT.
I think that you (and I) are in the same position as Godel. At least he logically concluded that even he could not think outside of the box. That is unless one can find oneself in a larger box..
Reviewing this again. My comments are the topic of the trinity within the context of theologians outside of the TWI sphere of influence is complex and nuanced.
VPW dumbed it down to a single linear plane view that contains none of these nuances. Then he attacked that perceived Trinity definition with very shoddy explanations for any seeming contradictions. And published a book with a confrontational title.
30 years later followers of the Way, splinter groups, and ex members pretty much still buy into his logic. Arrogant and prideful they elevate themselves above their brothers and sisters in Christ and have made up more perversions of scripture calling Christs body which spans all Christians in I Corinthians as inessential and “household” as the defining boundary around functional Christianity.
The true intent of those inventing these perversions is personal gain and control. By these false doctrines they draw away followers of Jesus Christ and isolate them away from other Christians and control them.
As I was raised Jehovah's Witness, I never believed in the Trinity. Jehovah's Witnesses, unlike the Way, really did draw their theology from Arianism, a theology with a lengthy history and lots of scholarship behind it. I find it intriguing that Bart Ehrman, the former fundamentalist-turned-Bible-scholar-turned-agnostic (and still a Bible scholar) now believes Arianism best reflects the belief of the first century church. Not that he is the final authority on anything, but I find his position interesting because he has nothing to gain from it. It's just what he believes is the best reflection of the available evidence.
I think Wierwille's presentation was a joke. It was a work of non-scholarship, the intellectual equivalent of a Chick Tract without the subtlety.
Anthony Buzzard's book on the development of the Trinity doctrine is a far superior presentation of Wierwille's position, as was the CES book One God and One Lord (which dishonestly omits Wierwille's book as a source).
As for me, my position is completely irrelevant. I merely believe the Trinitarian position won out, became dominant, and successfully cast all opposing positions as the work of the devil, which is hardly an invitation to honest discourse.
I believe some of the earliest Christians believed Jesus is God. I also believe others did not. I believe these competing claims (together will all the other early church heresies) reflect the fact that the stories of Jesus and his deeds and his teachings and his claims were quite simply made up decades after they allegedly took place. It's actually the best explanation for the intense division in the early church, IMO.
Another thing to consider is that Christianity didn't begin with a single authority declaring doctrine by fiat. (No Mohammed nor L. Ron Hubbard on board.) So, there was nobody to declare the "official" positions, modern-style, and converts could end up introducing things, intentionally or not. To the Greco-Roman mind, the idea of a mortal starting as a mortal who was the son of a god who was promoted to a man-god later was routine- with Heracles/Hercules being the most obvious example.
Add Constantine in a few centuries later, and there's someone with a vested interest in emphasizing similarities to the Roman religion, and manufacturing more connections whenever possible. Add the incentives for those who went along, and the killings of those who didn't, it's surprising anybody was left who was both alive AND refused to dance to Constantine's tune. After that, the only thing missing is accusing the non-believers in a man-god of coming along afterwards and adding their doctrine, calling them all sorts of names.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
41
26
22
19
Popular Days
Mar 8
23
Jul 8
21
Jul 20
17
Mar 9
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Bolshevik 41 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 22 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 8 2018
23 posts
Jul 8 2017
21 posts
Jul 20 2017
17 posts
Mar 9 2018
17 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches? In my experience the trin
Raf
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both befo
Bolshevik
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists. Do the various views of trinity/
GoldStar
Bolshevik, I agree 1000%, spiritual beliefs affect physical actions
It is axiomatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I get what you mean about religious zeal, youthful idealistic energy. Stubborn egotism etc.
I don't believe the Trinity causes bad behavior. I do believe belief influences behavior among other factors and that is an established scientific fact. Belief is given at a very young age, which we may or may not be aware of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I agree. This is especially true in our current geopolitical climate, where several generations have been conditioned to believe that this or that ethnicity is evil or inferior. These beliefs, if given enough time, do seem to become diluted in the general populace. I think the same will hold true of this trinity issue. Perhaps in another 100 years people will scratch their heads and wonder why people were so consumed with something that doesn't seem to matter to them anymore.
edit: As I was typing this, I was thinking specifically about the issue of Korea's "comfort women" and how subsequent generations following WWII have adjusted their beliefs and attitudes as time itself dilutes the first hand and second hand memories.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Here is why it matters whether or not there is a trinity:
2Ti 2:15 Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
ASV
The details actually matter. And since the trinity wasn't introduced until the council of Nicaea, it is obviously an addition to scripture and therefore invalid. The Word has so many verses that declared Jesus Christ as the son of God, not part of God. But here is one that is quite definitive:
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
KJV
That underlined word, "man", properly translated from the Greek, means human. God is not human. In all of Paul's letters, he never once declares, nor implies, that Jesus is part of a trinity. If you can find him doing that, I will be quite surprised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi once again TLC & Grease Spotters
thought I’d tie up a few loose ends…of a “thread within a thread” – I apologized to TLC on another thread concerning the Bible
the apology was for my overreacting and being overboard harsh and critical of his posts both on that thread and this one…for me Grease Spot is often a “story within the other side of the story” - - the changes I’m going through as I (hopefully) grow further away from TWI and a certain mindset I use to harbor.
Perhaps I can also relate this back to answering a question Bolshevik posed in the first post of this thread -
“I'm hoping some Christians (or some who understand) can explain why The Trinity is important to many Christians, why VPW's anti-Trinity stance was significant, and how the non-Trinity view may have affected other doctrines of Christianity in TWI. (What might have been intended and unintended consequences.) What role does the Trinity play and what did VPW disrupt?”
I think one of the consequences of wierwille’s anti-Trinity stance was how it helped to foster a dogmatic response…followers of TWI would never dream of thinking outside the (theological) box…thus a very successful group-think was established…I’ll end with what I said in my apology on the other thread:
"One of the great things about Grease Spot is rather than there being something of a collective consciousness in the discussions - it’s more along the lines of divergent thinking - where a variety of possible solutions are proposed in an effort to find one or more solutions that can work...here it’s cool to QUESTION EVERYTHING and you’re FREE TO PICK AND CHOOSE what makes sense and works for you! That was some of my thinking in starting this thread - - and uhm...I seemed to have forgotten that."
Edited by T-Boneformatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
On the Trinity topic, one way I have come to view this as Victor Paul Wierwille in "The Ingenious Nobleman Sir Quixote of La Mancha"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
The ingenious nobleman was so immersed in his own struggle his name became forever enthroned within an "ism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quixotism
Quixotism (/kwɪkˈsɒtɪzəm/ or /kiːˈhoʊtɪzəm/) (adj. quixotic) is impracticality in pursuit of ideals, especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action.[1] It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality. An impulsive person or act might be regarded as quixotic.
Quixotism is usually related to "over-idealism", meaning an idealism that doesn't take consequence or absurdity into account. It is also related to naïve romanticism and to utopianism.
-----------------------------------
The real problem was people taking the plagiarized classes, then going back to their churches and not becoming a part of the Way in commitment and finance. VPW needed to find some way to pry people from their denominations. It was not good enough they were a functioning parallel member in the body of Christ. No, he had to teach about an exclusive term known as the "household", where other Christians are just a little bit sub-par at best.
Between that and the Trinity, Victor Paul Wierwille could easily cast doubt upon teachings centuries old that had ideological basis in scripture but not actual terminology in scripture.
I mean there are a lot of other monk-chanting like stupid statements in the Apostles Creed, so why focus on the one? And why is Augustine the only d@mn Pope in history Wayfers actually know the name of? It is like the extent of Wayfers knowledge is a two paragraph historical summary in Jesus Christ Is Not God which they cling doggedly to like a shipwreck piece throughout even post Way life.
No I think the rejection of the Trinity with vehemence is evidence of our brainwashing. Not rejection of it alone - I don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity. But us taking up the spears and going after the same windmills is going to leave us perpetually shipwrecked.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
VPW Magna opus JCING was poor church history and implying works from Bullinger, Lamsa(and Errico), JW, WCOG, Unitarians, Christian Science, Quakers, etc.Lynn/Schoenheit/Grasser made a slightly better case in CES/ST&F's book One God and one Lord. This plus JCOP/Word's Way(Bullinger, Lamsa, PIllai), and JCOPS/Ernest Martin/Word's Way/Bullinger/Lamsa and Errico/ Pillai was to explain everything about Jesus Christ. btw, I now believe in the Holy Trinity but I can not make anyone agree with me. Video classes like Alpha, Christian Believer(United Methodist), Foundations(Saddleback), Open Home, Open Bible(All Soul's Langham Place, London) all mention the Trinity. Check them out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Thomas all views are welcome sometimes views are more similar than you think but labels are divisive.
I have far from reached my destination in Christology in view or practice. Thx for the references.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Me too. At this point in my life I at least have some understanding of the Trinity. I think it’s important to understand it, if you’re going to agree or disagree. TWI’s narrow view and opposition were my own for years. Not anymore. Thankfully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Some of you might find this page of interest. I know nothing of the author(s) but there appears to have been some serious work put into the website:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
I would also offer a paper prepared by the late Steve Lortz on the trinity. He did this for his (genuine) doctorate. It made more sense to me than anything else I'd read on the subject. However at the moment I seem to be limited in the amount I can upload. An email to the mods, perhaps, for assistance?
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Do you think it would fit in an email? I would love to read that piece.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Keys, so would I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Okay, Krys, let's see if this works:
Yep, looks good. There will be a thread somewhere here where Steve discussed this topic, and that's why he posted this paper.
Lortz trinity paper.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Here's one such Trinity thread, started by the late Steve L. It's not, however, what I was thinking of earlier, which caused him to post the paper he'd written (shown above).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Twinky, thanks for the posts with the angel fire link, Steve's paper as PDF (i downloaded it) and the link to his thread - he's shared portions of it and it's great stuff in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
I didn't realise Steve had died. When and how?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
i went looking for this earlier after reading your post - I could have sworn someone recently posted about this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I was thinking over something Steve mentioned in his paper on the Trinity – he quoted Peter Toon, who said about the Economic Trinity -
This is the self-revelation of God… and we come to know about him as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit… and then we enter into personal friendship, personal union, personal knowing of the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit... So this is the Economic Trinity, God in his economy of creation, his economy of grace…
(end of excerpt)
== == == ==
I think some of what shaped my idea of God as a heavenly father is the relationship I had with my earthly father. My dad was a good man, honest, generous, and kind – but suffered from PTSD after serving in WWII; I think that might have been a big factor in why I felt emotionally cut off from him. I also knew him to be a very resourceful, creative and technically savvy…so given all that, I guess I was like any kid who thinks their dad is awesome – my world revolved around him.
I wonder - if you don’t have a good emotional connection with someone that you greatly admire - will that lead to feelings of inferiority? Feeling like you don’t measure up to someone you idolize…anyway – just thinking out loud here – since I happened to read Psalm 104 this morning…and was letting my mind wander thinking about the awesome creative power described in the Psalm…I think I’ve watched too many sci-fi and space movies where they have a scene of looking at our planet from outer space – I like to scare myself by imagining I’m this little ant on the other side of the planet – far away from God’s field of view…some of my childhood still lives on in my head…maybe it’s not a bad thing – I mean, I still have a lot of awe and respect for God and maybe some fear of God too…I was never a big fan of the matter-of-fact-causual-best-buds relationship that some folks seem to have with God Almighty…not that there’s anything wrong with that…it’s just not me…maybe that will change some day…I dunno…
But I do find hope in that stuff about making a connection with God through the Son by the Holy Spirit…For me it seems Jesus Christ makes the Father approachable…accessible…and I wonder if it’s the work of the Holy Spirit that inspires me to explore this connection. It’s odd – I don’t think how I relate to God has changed much since I was a kid. I still pray to him…(I don’t pray to Jesus, by the way...I mean, even Jesus told us to pray in this manner "Our Father..." ). When I’m thankful I think of God. It was just a passing thought - but the other morning as I was getting ready for work I had a brief moment of bliss as I thought about how grateful I am to God for getting to share an existence with this family of mine.
My thoughts usually turn to Jesus Christ or something from the Gospels when it has to do with how I relate to others. I think that slogan what would Jesus do is pretty good. But for me I usually think in terms of what would Jesus have me do…ever get the feeling you’re being followed? I get that sometimes – not for real – but in my imagination – yeah, it’s like when I’m being a real a$$hole to someone and Jesus Christ is right over there eyeballing me with a raised eyebrow in that what-are-you-doing-look…oh, can’t we just go back to the I’m-a-little-ant-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet-away-from-God’s-view mode?
all kidding aside though, I feel I can easily relate to Jesus Christ...he walked the earth - he understands the problems and challenges we all experience.
And maybe in all that there’s also the Holy Spirit to liven up things...perhaps a catalyst when thoughts of Jesus Christ turns into empathizing with others...and sometimes I feel convicted of some fault or sin or maybe feel compelled to apologize or resolve an issue I’ve caused…Sometimes I feel on fire to criticize hypocrisy or to stand up for what's right…makes you wonder sometimes what drives you…sometimes we are mystifying to ourselves.
Well, anyway…that is how I think the Trinity works in my life...but that's just my opinion, I could be wrong...especially if there's no such thing as the Trinity.
Edited by T-Boneformatting and clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
At least massive trust in terms of how we (I) understand what it would take. Not only after enduring temptations for 30 years, but cultivating enough trust (and, I suppose also love) in the Hebrew scriptures or whatever other basis Jesus could have had to develop such a trust to be willing to go through the torture and death.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
The Trinity.. deciding on what is true is (far) beyond my job description.. I would say to one side of the argument.. what gives you the authority to define what the Almighty God really is.. and to the other side, what gives you the authority to define what the Almighty God is NOT.
I think that you (and I) are in the same position as Godel. At least he logically concluded that even he could not think outside of the box. That is unless one can find oneself in a larger box..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Reviewing this again. My comments are the topic of the trinity within the context of theologians outside of the TWI sphere of influence is complex and nuanced.
VPW dumbed it down to a single linear plane view that contains none of these nuances. Then he attacked that perceived Trinity definition with very shoddy explanations for any seeming contradictions. And published a book with a confrontational title.
30 years later followers of the Way, splinter groups, and ex members pretty much still buy into his logic. Arrogant and prideful they elevate themselves above their brothers and sisters in Christ and have made up more perversions of scripture calling Christs body which spans all Christians in I Corinthians as inessential and “household” as the defining boundary around functional Christianity.
The true intent of those inventing these perversions is personal gain and control. By these false doctrines they draw away followers of Jesus Christ and isolate them away from other Christians and control them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As I was raised Jehovah's Witness, I never believed in the Trinity. Jehovah's Witnesses, unlike the Way, really did draw their theology from Arianism, a theology with a lengthy history and lots of scholarship behind it. I find it intriguing that Bart Ehrman, the former fundamentalist-turned-Bible-scholar-turned-agnostic (and still a Bible scholar) now believes Arianism best reflects the belief of the first century church. Not that he is the final authority on anything, but I find his position interesting because he has nothing to gain from it. It's just what he believes is the best reflection of the available evidence.
I think Wierwille's presentation was a joke. It was a work of non-scholarship, the intellectual equivalent of a Chick Tract without the subtlety.
Anthony Buzzard's book on the development of the Trinity doctrine is a far superior presentation of Wierwille's position, as was the CES book One God and One Lord (which dishonestly omits Wierwille's book as a source).
As for me, my position is completely irrelevant. I merely believe the Trinitarian position won out, became dominant, and successfully cast all opposing positions as the work of the devil, which is hardly an invitation to honest discourse.
I believe some of the earliest Christians believed Jesus is God. I also believe others did not. I believe these competing claims (together will all the other early church heresies) reflect the fact that the stories of Jesus and his deeds and his teachings and his claims were quite simply made up decades after they allegedly took place. It's actually the best explanation for the intense division in the early church, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Another thing to consider is that Christianity didn't begin with a single authority declaring doctrine by fiat. (No Mohammed nor L. Ron Hubbard on board.) So, there was nobody to declare the "official" positions, modern-style, and converts could end up introducing things, intentionally or not. To the Greco-Roman mind, the idea of a mortal starting as a mortal who was the son of a god who was promoted to a man-god later was routine- with Heracles/Hercules being the most obvious example.
Add Constantine in a few centuries later, and there's someone with a vested interest in emphasizing similarities to the Roman religion, and manufacturing more connections whenever possible. Add the incentives for those who went along, and the killings of those who didn't, it's surprising anybody was left who was both alive AND refused to dance to Constantine's tune. After that, the only thing missing is accusing the non-believers in a man-god of coming along afterwards and adding their doctrine, calling them all sorts of names.
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.