I found it fascinating, some time ago, to look over the Greek texts of those verses. It called him the "man of sinS", plural. I thought it was interesting that "man" there was "anthropos". He will be "the son of ruin", a title used in reference to Judas Iscariot. He will sit in the HOLY OF HOLIES of God, that is, the temple's separated area consecrated to God and representing His Presence. He will sit in the Holy of Holies of God Almighty. and "set forth that he is God." He will CLAIM he's God.
Knowing all of that, why AUTOMATICALLY assume this will proceed DIRECTLY from the Trinity? Don't you know other religions and philosophies, ones that claim either that you shall be as God or that you already are? I'm suspicious that the use of "anthropos" there might suggest someone pushing a "perfectability of man" doctrine, where any man might potentially become A god. Instead of something strictly Hindu, say, I'd look for some newer, fusion of Hindu and other doctrines.
Come on. The Greeks and Romans had ideas about men becoming gods- like Hercules/Heracles to the Greeks, and the Roman Emperor to the Romans (he got temples and everything.) A guy who was a big deal was promoted to a god. We know that the early church felt in competition with the Greco-Roman religion. There were rumors that, when Julius Caesar died, the dead rose from their graves and walked around in the streets. (Shakespeare mentions it in Hamlet, so it was well-known when he wrote that play.) Some Christians decided to "compete", and, next thing you know, during the earthquake at the moment of Jesus' death, we got a reference to the dead rising, and that crudely inserted into the text in a jarring way. (Things that supposedly take place weeks later are shoved into a single verse before they happened, and when they actually happened, NOBODY mentioned it. Secular writers had no mention of it. It's not in Acts, nor mentioned in books about saints and martyrs.)
Maybe you're worried about the wrong thing with the man of sinS, this General Practitioner of sinfulness.
I posted this in response to the initial post in this thread. I wonder if John even noticed it. I thought he might find it useful, particularly since I addressed his specific points.
quote : So, it’s gone from About the Way forum to doctrinal forum…now we need a Kool-Aid testimonial forum…whatever. it’s hilarious how muchdiehard-wierwille-fanskeep pushing that idle idol. There’s no use in logical debate of doctrine and Scripture interpretation with them cuz if wierwille said it – they believe it – that settles it.
I did not make even ONE reference to VP in the first post on this thread nor the 2nd. You're just going to see what you want to see. Typical.
That's true - you did not reference wierwille in your 1st or 2nd post...it's not until you got to this point here - where you get into extolling the greatness of shyster-wierwille:
On 6/22/2022 at 9:21 AM, johniam said:
quote: If any still believe VPW is a man of God, enjoy it while you can.
VPW is DEAD! 37 yrs and counting.
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant. I never heard that same message from anybody else and I'm not sure what it even means, but I do believe that VPs combination of gift ministries was unique, not cookie cutter. Nobody has duplicated the respect and impact he got from his people. LCM acted like he had automatically earned that respect, but he did not.
Chris Geer doesn't try to be the MOGFODAT; he just brokers classes and lets local leadership work without interference. He openly disagrees with more than 15 points of VPs doctrine. The fellowship I attend is very non invasive compared to twi even back in the "good old days".
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true. King David is the only person in the bible who is actually called a man after God's own heart, yet when he did what he did to Uriah the Hittite, the bible says the thing David did had displeased the Lord.
So it's possible to be a man after God's own heart and still have the capacity to displease the Lord. Same for us. (I assume most of you believe some of the things VP did displeased God) We can be sons of God and still displease the Lord. We're still born of incorruptible seed, we'll still be rewarded at the gathering together, same for VP.
VPs ministry changed my life. From my first twig to the present day. I will definitely enjoy that while I can.
which is why I said this:
On 6/22/2022 at 10:13 AM, T-Bone said:
Interesting – this may qualify as another one of those bait-and-switch threads. I thought it was going to be a thoughtful discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity and its relevance to the end times …but after considering the actual content of these posts I’m inclined to think it’s more of a wierwille-PFAL-fan-club-thread – a cool excuse to rehash wierwille’s ideology - whoopee !!!!
and followed up with this:
On 6/22/2022 at 8:45 PM, T-Bone said:
So, it’s gone from About the Way forum to doctrinal forum…now we need a Kool-Aid testimonial forum…whatever.
it’s hilarious how much diehard-wierwille-fans keep pushing that idle idol. There’s no use in logical debate of doctrine and Scripture interpretation with them cuz if wierwille said it – they believe it – that settles it. What’s up with that? I wonder if that’s why diehard-wierwille-fans change the topic when the discussion deviates from the PFAL-script.
Maybe it’s that love is blind principle. Perhaps some folks love wierwille so much, they’re blind to his crimes against logic, Scripture, and morality.
I think wierwille’s teaching on anything was dubious. What a shyster! I wouldn’t believe anything he had to say about salvation cuz he lived like the devil – and was proud of it. wierwille was probably the foremost authority on cheap grace…easy-believism…Think about it –wierwille was an unabashed plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sexual predator, a money-grubbing-fame-hound, a megalomaniac, a malignant narcissist, a chain-smoking, Drambuie-guzzling, delusional closet-Gnostic, a master at pontification, with a God-complex. Actions speak louder than pulpiteering.
for anyone interested there’s a much more thoughtful, deep discussion that looks at all of Scripture and not just wierwille’s proof-texting – it’s a thread by Grease Spotters in doctrinal > Can salvation be lost
also see: Got Questions: easy believism
Why is it diehard-wierwille-fans have to keep bringing up this comparison: “David was called a man after God’s own heart and think about some of the bad stuff he did!” oh please…did you ever wonder why David could be considered a man after God’s own heart? two things that stand out real big – Scripture shows David to be genuinely repentant and he was always gung-ho to do what God wanted him to do.
see Man after God’s own heart
~ ~ ~ ~
Let’s compare: Was wierwille repentant?
There is beaucoup of anecdotal evidence that wierwille was an unabashed plagiarist, a pathological liar, a sexual predator, a money-grubbing-fame-hound, a megalomaniac, a malignant narcissist, a chain-smoking, Drambuie-guzzling, delusional closet-Gnostic, a master at pontification, with a God-complex. Maybe he could be considered the exact opposite of someone who was repentant or a godly leader like David…wierwille was a repeat offender on a wide variety of willful violations of Scriptural and moral principles.
Did wierwille do what God wanted him to do?
Let’s think about that in light of what he said to Whiteside in the TWI-authorized book “The Way: Living in Love”… on page 178 wierwille stated “I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me.” And on page 209 of Whiteside’s book wierwille comments on the content of what he teaches: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit – that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn’t, I dropped.”
All this is nonsensical delusions of grandeur as well as an outright admission of bigtime plagiarism. it is worth noting that Christians back in the 1st century had no Bible…the New Testament had not been written and the Septuagint was not circulated.
See Wikipedia – dating the Bible
There’s beaucoup threads on Grease Spot that have analyzed many aspects of PFAL.
If God taught wierwille “the word” why are there so many errors, contradictions, unscriptural ideologies and logical fallacies in PFAL?
Amazing some diehard-wierwille-fans still believe wierwille’s bull$hit… I wonder why they think it carries any weight in doctrinal? Oh well, enjoy it while they can.
if you want to counter my arguments - you'll have to do better than that instead of using the typical diehard-wierwille-fan rebuttal.
quote: If any still believe VPW is a man of God, enjoy it while you can.
VPW is DEAD! 37 yrs and counting.
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant. I never heard that same message from anybody else and I'm not sure what it even means, but I do believe that VPs combination of gift ministries was unique, not cookie cutter. Nobody has duplicated the respect and impact he got from his people. LCM acted like he had automatically earned that respect, but he did not.
Chris Geer doesn't try to be the MOGFODAT; he just brokers classes and lets local leadership work without interference. He openly disagrees with more than 15 points of VPs doctrine. The fellowship I attend is very non invasive compared to twi even back in the "good old days".
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true. King David is the only person in the bible who is actually called a man after God's own heart, yet when he did what he did to Uriah the Hittite, the bible says the thing David did had displeased the Lord.
So it's possible to be a man after God's own heart and still have the capacity to displease the Lord. Same for us. (I assume most of you believe some of the things VP did displeased God) We can be sons of God and still displease the Lord. We're still born of incorruptible seed, we'll still be rewarded at the gathering together, same for VP.
VPs ministry changed my life. From my first twig to the present day. I will definitely enjoy that while I can.
Your statements in bold red
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant.
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true…
I have lots of questions on your statements:
1. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was?
2. Who are the “much people”?
3. How do YOU KNOW the NUMBER “church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How did YOU quantify all that? Please elaborate what metrics you used, what surveys you conducted, and what churches these “church people” go to.
4. The internet definition of foreclosed is to take possession of a mortgaged property as a result of the mortgagor's failure to keep up their mortgage payments; to take away someone's power of redeeming (a mortgage) and take possession of the mortgaged property. How does that relate to salvation? I understand you’re speaking metaphorically – talking about salvation in a way that is not physically or financially applicable. But can you explain how fear of one’s salvation being foreclosed resembles repossession of something when a buyer defaults on payments? I’m not trying to be facetious – but didn’t Jesus Christ pay the price for our salvation?
Or do you consider all what Jesus Christ did as only a down payment made for a salvation we’re buying on credit? Sounds confusing and trivializes all that Christ accomplished. Is that something you heard wierwille say or did you come up with that inappropriate metaphor all on your o wn?
5. Nice to know that isn't true. What isn’t true? YOUR mischaracterization of salvation?
6. incorruptible seed… Do you interpret that as a LITERAL seed? If so, you’re following the wooden interpretation of wierwille. He made it out like it was actually a spiritual seed.
But that is erroneous – for in the immediate context – the SAME verse even – it is a reference to the word of God. “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (NIV)
I’m tempted to think wierwille would get his hodge podge of ideologies mixed up - and his “ signature intuition” would shift gears from fundamentalism to spiritualism to Gnosticism in no particular order.
Gnosticism has the idea spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh and never the twain shall meet. Gnosticism invites you to transcend to a higher plane through special knowledge.
A key concept of Spiritualism is that there is more to life than what meets the senses - wierwille’s demonology is based on his speculations of the unseen world. Spiritualism is viewed as the bridge between the spiritual realm and our physical world.
competing ideologies of fundamental ism, Gnosticism and spiritualism probably confused the hell out of wierwille in trying to formulate a coherent thought - so maybe his signature intuition i.e., whatever felt right - just cobbled it all together. Incorruptible seed from the spirt realm crosses over into a human body.
The few commentaries I’ve read on I Peter 1:23 don’t even try to explain it as a literal second birth but as a beginning of a life destined for eternity.
the Greek text of I Peter 1:23 indicates that the preposition “by” in I Peter 1:23 “by the word of God” is “dia” in the Greek Strong’s # 1223 and means through, on account of, because of…The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (see Titus 3:5 ) but as indicated in I Peter 1:23 the word of God also plays an important role…
Peter’s reference to the seed probably harkens back to the parable of the Sower and the seed in Matthew 13: 1- 23 …which seems to be more about the ground than the Sower in that Jesus is explaining the different reactions to hearing the word. It’s obvious in the parable that the differences lie in HOW people respond to the word – the distinctions are made by the differences in quantity of crop yield or even crop loss.
The seed sown in all the soil types is the same – it’s the word of God…so WHY do YOU interpret the incorruptible seed of I Peter 1:23 as a literal seed? The context is obviously the word of God – as is the seed of Matthew 13. Did the Sower in Matthew 13 literally tear up little pieces of Old Testament scrolls and plant them in the ground?
As Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says of “incorruptible seed” …”That is, not of the seed of Abraham, but of the seed of God. This is the argument: “You must learn not to be selfish, or arrogant, as being of the chosen race, but to have a true brotherly feeling and earnest love for the Gentile converts, and for those who, like St. Paul, are specially working for the Gentiles, because your inheritance of the promised ‘salvation’ is grounded, not on your Abrahamic descent, but on your spiritual regeneration, in which matter the Gentile converts are your equals.” That this was the doctrine of St. Peter is certain from his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, “God put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith;” and again, “It is only through the favour of the Lord Jesus that we hope to be saved, in precisely the same manner as they” (Acts 15:9; Acts 15:11). (Comp., for the argument, 1John 5:1.)
By the word of God.—“Seed,” in the beginning of the clause, is more literally the act of sowing, or engendering, which sowing is carried on “through the living and abiding word of God,” this “word of God” being the actual seed sown.
The “seed” of all existence is the spoken Word of God, the expressed will and meaning of creative thought (Psalm 33:6); and so here, even when spoken mediately, through the lips of men (as explained in 1Peter 1:25), it is that which begets men afresh. God creates afresh, though men speak the creative word for Him, just as “it is He that hath made us,” although He does so through natural laws and human powers.
The “Word of God” here is, no doubt, the preaching of the gospel, but especially, as it would seem, the preaching of the Resurrection (1Peter 1:3), or of the sufferings and glories of Messiah (1Peter 1:12), the “truth” of the last verse. The part taken by “the Word” in the sacrament of regeneration may be seen again in Ephesians 5:26 and James 1:18; in connection with the other sacrament we may also refer to John 6:63.
“Incorruptible” (i.e., imperishable; see 1Peter 1:4; 1Peter 1:18) finds a more energetic paraphrase here in “living and abiding” (the words “for ever” not being part of the true text). The former epithet is a favourite with St. Peter (1Peter 1:3, 1Peter 2:4-5), and is perhaps borrowed from this place by the author to the Hebrews, in connection with the “word of God” (Hebrews 4:12). The epithets serve to prepare the way for the quotation.”
end of excerpt from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Edited by T-Bone Undoubtedly the horrendous typos were born again of incorrigible word-seeds
The few commentaries I’ve read on I Peter 1:23 don’t even try to explain it as a literal second birth but as a beginning of a life destined for eternity.
the Greek text of I Peter 1:23 indicates that the preposition “by” in I Peter 1:23 “by the word of God” is “dia” in the Greek Strong’s # 1223 and means through, on account of, because of…The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (see Titus 3:5 ) but as indicated in I Peter 1:23 the word of God also plays an important role…
Yes, the context of this verse is the word of God. This also shows applying the word of God in our daily lives with sincere love for other people. As quoted from the New International Version here is the context.
Quote
22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For,
"All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall, 25 but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.
(NIV)
Victor Wierwille was not 100% truthful with his teachings, but from his books he was at least above average. One day I even heard him speak at an event with one of his teachings. He described that at least one of you in the audience could or will have better teachings than I have taught. The year of this was a year between 1983 and 1985. This was a year after he had delegated authority as president of TWI to another person. The one time I met him I corrected him a little about the lordship structure of TWI. I figuratively did this by telling him, "You look familiar, but I can not remember your name, but it sounds like wear something." I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.
I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.
Thanks Mark,
Please accept my loving correction.
The goal of gaslighting is to make the gaslighted question everything they themselves discern and KNOW to be real and true, creating a codependent relationship with the gaslighter. This is abuse. This is brainwashing. This is evil.
I suspect most here were too hooked and confused to confront or correct any leader. This was by victor's design. And once they woke up to Truth, they dropped it all and split. Though there are a few here who did confront leadership while still in. They've told their stories here.
Sadness for not trying to correct those taught up by VPW? Probably not. More likely anger at the deceiver and his deceiving minions for the destruction of lives. Angry at the deceiver, VPW, for deceiving those seeking God; and angry at themselves for believing God is to be found through any mortal man with an engraved bracelet.
Writing against victor wierwille, bless his tiny hard heart, is to write for the Truth.
Good comment Nathan_Jr. Actually if Victor was still alive and I met him. I figuratively might even hold out my hand like I often do with dogs when I meet them. To see if they wag their tales or bark. If they wag their tale, I could pet them. If they bark I will walk away. And I really like dogs.
Good comment Nathan_Jr. Actually if Victor was still alive and I met him. I figuratively might even hold out my hand like I often do with dogs when I meet them. To see if they wag their tales or bark. If they wag their tale, I could pet them. If they bark I will walk away. And I really like dogs.
Actually, if victor, bless his little heart, were still alive he might have found meekness, humility and silence. He might have repented with Godly sorrow. Only then might he have found what honest pursuit of Truth really means. Only then can the student be ready; and when the student is ready, the master appears.
Sometimes, in order to understand what is, we need to contrast what it is not: the dark with the light, the good with the evil, victor paul wierwille with the Truth.
If victor were still alive, I would let him sit at my feet, but not for long, because how embarrassing!
...Victor Wierwille was not 100% truthful with his teachings,
do ya think?
1 hour ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:
but from his books he was at least above average. .. I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.
Comparing wierwille’s written works to his live teachings and video classes – in my opinion what was “above average” was his charismatic and engaging manner in a live setting. BUT - Intellectual-wise…scholarly-wise…apologetics-wise…theologically-wise…logical-wise…content-wise…Scripture-wise…as well as simply being straightforward and above-board, in any format - whether in writing or live settings - in my opinion wierwille was WAY BELOW PAR… WORSE THAN A LOT OF BAD TELEVAGENELISTS THAT I’VE SEEN.
“I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.” Maybe so, Mark…maybe so…I for one do have regrets that I let my cognitive skills be anesthetized by wierwille’s charm…my intellect and emotions were rendered comatose by his desensitizing techniques to overstep my personal boundaries and self-determination…I own that …I bought into this cult of personality so much I decided to go into the mini-wierwille-clone-factory (aka the way corps program).
And let me be clear on this - especially addressing any diehard-wierwille-fans - since I’ve joined Grease Spot Café in 2006, I usually speak to his manipulative tactics – NOT OUT OF AN ATTEMPT AT CHARACTER ASSINATION – which is the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation.
Outside of the thick fog of TWI-culture – in the REAL WORLD – wierwille has got to be one of the most DISREPUTABLE AND UNSCRUPUOUS PERSON that I have had the unfortunate experience of stumbling into his sphere of influence…so…
I unapologetically state that my criticism IS JUSTIFIED…I intend to expose and neutralize his strategies to exploit and control others …and to expose and neutralize his insidious ideology…And one more thing – which I will address shortly – it’s utterly absurd and ridiculous that any Grease Spotters would refer to wierwille in a positive light IN THE DOCTRINAL FORUM! …
werwille’s hocus-pocus-and-hokum has no place in a DOCTRINAL forum that is supposed to be thoughtful and analytical discussions of creeds, tenets, articles of faith…
…I’m a little embarrassed - my first post on this thread stated “This thread belongs in doctrinal forum” cuz I thought the thread starter wanted to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and as it relates to the end times ( see here ). But as this thread has played out – it seems obvious to me the thread starter wanted to rehash wierwille’s insidious ideology… so now – what? Move it back to About the Way forum where it started? I don’t care…I’ll go with the flow …I’m kinda use to the dodge-deflect-obfuscate-tactics of another diehard-wierwille-fan oh yoo hoo …I noticed a very perceptive Grease Spotter did start a thread in About the Way forum ( see here ) about this highly-enriched-diehard-wierwille-fan-propaganda post ( see here ).
Edited by T-Bone Can The Monroe Doctrine prevent diehard-wierwille-fans from interfering with theological discussions in doctrinal?
. . . I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.
VPW died when I was very small. His followers liked to hit me in the face repeatedly with a stick. Did I speak up? Yes. In that context,
Words. Don't. Matter.
I think the Trinity doctrine pushes the idea of the individual. An educated individual who challenges the status quo, without destroying it.
Our standard practice for threads that have been around for a while has been to allow the conversation to grow organically, even when they stray from their original subject matter.
But there's a difference between straying and being derailed. This conversation has become derailed, and the thread is only 10 days old.
Debate Wierwille's legacy in About the Way. T-Bone is correct. This thread is supposed to be about the Trinity and whether it is an asset or a liability (with all the subtopics raised in the opening post, including whether the doctrine will make the Antichrist's job easier).
One source of contention between Rome and Constaninople were the Arian Christians. The Pope was seen as ineffective in dealing with them, so Rome lost legitimacy.
The Trinity developed over time as do all theological doctrines. I think Tertullian coined the term in the late 2nd century. (Later, Tertullian became a Montanist, SIT and prophesying more in one week than Paul and Victor combined did in their lifetimes.)
The fourth and latest Gospel was the basis for this doctrine, obviously. John's was of a very high Christology. One might imagine, if this was the only gospel available to an early church assembly, why they might think Jesus was God.
But this doctrine is ultra early when considered in the context of other spurious doctrines like five crucified and dispensational systematic theology. Both of those were hand--crafted like a fine APA in the 19th century.
I don't think Thomas is helpful for this discussion.
Maybe the infancy Gospel of Thomas says something about when he was begotten or else his pre-existence, but that is very late... and very weird.
Right it sounded like there were numerous ideas for a second, like Jesus had be begotten, forgotten, begotten again.
In the beginning was THE Word. And THE Word was with God. And THE Word was God.
That's a Bible Verse. The Bible was in the beginning? The Bible is God? Maybe The Word and The Bible are two different things. His Will is also a thing.
Right it sounded like there were numerous ideas for a second, like Jesus had be begotten, forgotten, begotten again.
In the beginning was THE Word. And THE Word was with God. And THE Word was God.
That's a Bible Verse. The Bible was in the beginning? The Bible is God? Maybe The Word and The Bible are two different things. His Will is also a thing.
Right. I never considered the Bible to be God until I took "the class."
Later, I came to understand the words, like "pros," are NOT the Word.
Some thoughts to enjoy while one can.
Edited by Nathan_Jr THE. A word that engraves easily. Lots of right angles.
So, there's numerous alternatives to The Trinity. Which is the right alternative?
The Bible is Not God. So a definitive answer wouldn't likely be there.
The right alternative? Exactly. Everyone's doxy is the orthodoxy according to who's proclaiming it. But everyone can't be right. So, maybe, everyone is wrong and the truth is something else entirely. I don't know, nor do I claim to know.
The Bible was written over thousands of years by dozens, if not hundreds, of authors and editors with different opinions and theologies and agendas. Different theologians have derived different doctrines from the same diverse collection of books we call the Bible. Right?
I'm just trying to enjoy all this while I still can. Presumably, before it's too late. Because God's love is perpetual, until it's not. So I've been told.
The right alternative? Exactly. Everyone's doxy is the orthodoxy according to who's proclaiming it. But everyone can't be right. So, maybe, everyone is wrong and the truth is something else entirely. I don't know, nor do I claim to know.
The Bible was written over thousands of years by dozens, if not hundreds, of authors and editors with different opinions and theologies and agendas. Different theologians have derived different doctrines from the same diverse collection of books we call the Bible. Right?
I'm just trying to enjoy all this while I still can. Presumably, before it's too late. Because God's love is perpetual, until it's not. So I've been told.
It's a wonder why the writing stopped. . . . People did keep writing. Writing is still a thing.
Before IT is written, IT has yet to be written.
So they wrote what was wrought, until it was naught? Nah. That's not all that's been thought.
The Arains still had Jesus, THE Logos, begotten before creation and having creation made through him.
That is still very different than Wayworld.
Did Jesus begin in Mary or way before that?
Great question! There’s various ways to answer that. I’m not sure that I’m correctly reasoning out this conundrum…anyway…my 2 cents is partly based on a key word in the Greek text of John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
In the Greek text of John 3:16 - only begotten is from monogenē which is # 3439 in Strong’s numbering system and you can see two ideas in the Greek word – mono = one and genos = offspring, stock…we could say Jesus was one of a kind. Unique…In one of my earlier 2-bit-theological-musings ( here ) I imagined Jesus as a unique hybrid in a superhero origin story…a hybrid is the offspring of two plants or animals of different species or varieties. So I think in Jesus we would find a being with a mix of qualities from two natures – human and divine…so technically I would think Jesus began in Mary…
But
there’s also the Logos to consider
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.John 1: 1, 2 & 14
Logically the concept in John 1 predates Jesus’ beginning in Mary. How do we imagine the coming together of the two distinct natures? I don’t know. How is it possible to cram godhood into a human being? Don’t know. Was “some stuff” left out? My pea-brain thinks so. I’m thinking Jesus’ brain and body was pushed to its fullest potential – and if there was a need to fill in any knowledge or wisdom gaps – or if there was a need for him to go beyond what's humanly possible, maybe that’s where the Holy Spirit came in...and all of this is merely conjecture on the part of my pea-brain.
Is there a connection to another dimension or dimensions? Marvel’s Quantum Realm ? A divine manipulation of the fundamental forces of the cosmos? Lots of things for me to get lost in speculation. Is there something to superstring theory? What happened when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? Then his physical body was miraculously altered to something otherworldly…with capabilities beyond human reason. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 . I don’t really understand what that verse is talking about. But time-wise I believe it’s referring to Christ in his resurrected…changed…exalted form.
Edited by T-Bone In the beginning there was T-Bone...and T-Bone was really with it, man
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
71
46
60
Popular Days
Jun 28
25
Jun 19
23
Jun 23
22
Jun 18
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 23 posts
T-Bone 71 posts
Bolshevik 46 posts
Nathan_Jr 60 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2022
25 posts
Jun 19 2022
23 posts
Jun 23 2022
22 posts
Jun 18 2022
17 posts
Popular Posts
johniam
When the devil tempted Jesus, as recorded in both Matthew chapter 4 and in Luke chapter 4, he offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them". He further stated that those things
T-Bone
This thread belongs in doctrinal forum. But for now, I’ll throw my 2 cents in while it’s hot off the press. note your words are in bold red 1. “Prior to the day of Penteco
Bolshevik
Hi Johniam, Maybe reread your paragraph. You say people have a choice . . . But it sounds like an ultimatum. You start off with love and end with a threat. The middle sentence feels like a li
WordWolf
I posted this in response to the initial post in this thread. I wonder if John even noticed it. I thought he might find it useful, particularly since I addressed his specific points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That's true - you did not reference wierwille in your 1st or 2nd post...it's not until you got to this point here - where you get into extolling the greatness of shyster-wierwille:
which is why I said this:
and followed up with this:
if you want to counter my arguments - you'll have to do better than that instead of using the typical diehard-wierwille-fan rebuttal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Your statements in bold red
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant.
in case you missed it – we tackled this dubious statement in the About the Way forum > here > Who were the supposed 7 "THE Man of Gods? ...care to join in the fun?
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true…
I have lots of questions on your statements:
1. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was?
2. Who are the “much people”?
3. How do YOU KNOW the NUMBER “church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How did YOU quantify all that? Please elaborate what metrics you used, what surveys you conducted, and what churches these “church people” go to.
4. The internet definition of foreclosed is to take possession of a mortgaged property as a result of the mortgagor's failure to keep up their mortgage payments; to take away someone's power of redeeming (a mortgage) and take possession of the mortgaged property. How does that relate to salvation? I understand you’re speaking metaphorically – talking about salvation in a way that is not physically or financially applicable. But can you explain how fear of one’s salvation being foreclosed resembles repossession of something when a buyer defaults on payments? I’m not trying to be facetious – but didn’t Jesus Christ pay the price for our salvation?
Or do you consider all what Jesus Christ did as only a down payment made for a salvation we’re buying on credit? Sounds confusing and trivializes all that Christ accomplished. Is that something you heard wierwille say or did you come up with that inappropriate metaphor all on your o wn?
5. Nice to know that isn't true. What isn’t true? YOUR mischaracterization of salvation?
6. incorruptible seed… Do you interpret that as a LITERAL seed? If so, you’re following the wooden interpretation of wierwille. He made it out like it was actually a spiritual seed.
But that is erroneous – for in the immediate context – the SAME verse even – it is a reference to the word of God. “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (NIV)
I’m tempted to think wierwille would get his hodge podge of ideologies mixed up - and his “ signature intuition” would shift gears from fundamentalism to spiritualism to Gnosticism in no particular order.
Gnosticism has the idea spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh and never the twain shall meet. Gnosticism invites you to transcend to a higher plane through special knowledge.
A key concept of Spiritualism is that there is more to life than what meets the senses - wierwille’s demonology is based on his speculations of the unseen world. Spiritualism is viewed as the bridge between the spiritual realm and our physical world.
competing ideologies of fundamental ism, Gnosticism and spiritualism probably confused the hell out of wierwille in trying to formulate a coherent thought - so maybe his signature intuition i.e., whatever felt right - just cobbled it all together. Incorruptible seed from the spirt realm crosses over into a human body.
The few commentaries I’ve read on I Peter 1:23 don’t even try to explain it as a literal second birth but as a beginning of a life destined for eternity.
the Greek text of I Peter 1:23 indicates that the preposition “by” in I Peter 1:23 “by the word of God” is “dia” in the Greek Strong’s # 1223 and means through, on account of, because of…The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (see Titus 3:5 ) but as indicated in I Peter 1:23 the word of God also plays an important role…
Peter’s reference to the seed probably harkens back to the parable of the Sower and the seed in Matthew 13: 1- 23 …which seems to be more about the ground than the Sower in that Jesus is explaining the different reactions to hearing the word. It’s obvious in the parable that the differences lie in HOW people respond to the word – the distinctions are made by the differences in quantity of crop yield or even crop loss.
The seed sown in all the soil types is the same – it’s the word of God…so WHY do YOU interpret the incorruptible seed of I Peter 1:23 as a literal seed? The context is obviously the word of God – as is the seed of Matthew 13. Did the Sower in Matthew 13 literally tear up little pieces of Old Testament scrolls and plant them in the ground?
As Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says of “incorruptible seed” …”That is, not of the seed of Abraham, but of the seed of God. This is the argument: “You must learn not to be selfish, or arrogant, as being of the chosen race, but to have a true brotherly feeling and earnest love for the Gentile converts, and for those who, like St. Paul, are specially working for the Gentiles, because your inheritance of the promised ‘salvation’ is grounded, not on your Abrahamic descent, but on your spiritual regeneration, in which matter the Gentile converts are your equals.” That this was the doctrine of St. Peter is certain from his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, “God put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith;” and again, “It is only through the favour of the Lord Jesus that we hope to be saved, in precisely the same manner as they” (Acts 15:9; Acts 15:11). (Comp., for the argument, 1John 5:1.)
By the word of God.—“Seed,” in the beginning of the clause, is more literally the act of sowing, or engendering, which sowing is carried on “through the living and abiding word of God,” this “word of God” being the actual seed sown.
The “seed” of all existence is the spoken Word of God, the expressed will and meaning of creative thought (Psalm 33:6); and so here, even when spoken mediately, through the lips of men (as explained in 1Peter 1:25), it is that which begets men afresh. God creates afresh, though men speak the creative word for Him, just as “it is He that hath made us,” although He does so through natural laws and human powers.
The “Word of God” here is, no doubt, the preaching of the gospel, but especially, as it would seem, the preaching of the Resurrection (1Peter 1:3), or of the sufferings and glories of Messiah (1Peter 1:12), the “truth” of the last verse. The part taken by “the Word” in the sacrament of regeneration may be seen again in Ephesians 5:26 and James 1:18; in connection with the other sacrament we may also refer to John 6:63.
“Incorruptible” (i.e., imperishable; see 1Peter 1:4; 1Peter 1:18) finds a more energetic paraphrase here in “living and abiding” (the words “for ever” not being part of the true text). The former epithet is a favourite with St. Peter (1Peter 1:3, 1Peter 2:4-5), and is perhaps borrowed from this place by the author to the Hebrews, in connection with the “word of God” (Hebrews 4:12). The epithets serve to prepare the way for the quotation.”
end of excerpt from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Edited by T-BoneUndoubtedly the horrendous typos were born again of incorrigible word-seeds
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Yes, the context of this verse is the word of God. This also shows applying the word of God in our daily lives with sincere love for other people. As quoted from the New International Version here is the context.
Victor Wierwille was not 100% truthful with his teachings, but from his books he was at least above average. One day I even heard him speak at an event with one of his teachings. He described that at least one of you in the audience could or will have better teachings than I have taught. The year of this was a year between 1983 and 1985. This was a year after he had delegated authority as president of TWI to another person. The one time I met him I corrected him a little about the lordship structure of TWI. I figuratively did this by telling him, "You look familiar, but I can not remember your name, but it sounds like wear something." I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks Mark,
Please accept my loving correction.
The goal of gaslighting is to make the gaslighted question everything they themselves discern and KNOW to be real and true, creating a codependent relationship with the gaslighter. This is abuse. This is brainwashing. This is evil.
I suspect most here were too hooked and confused to confront or correct any leader. This was by victor's design. And once they woke up to Truth, they dropped it all and split. Though there are a few here who did confront leadership while still in. They've told their stories here.
Sadness for not trying to correct those taught up by VPW? Probably not. More likely anger at the deceiver and his deceiving minions for the destruction of lives. Angry at the deceiver, VPW, for deceiving those seeking God; and angry at themselves for believing God is to be found through any mortal man with an engraved bracelet.
Writing against victor wierwille, bless his tiny hard heart, is to write for the Truth.
Edited by Nathan_JrThe words are not the Word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Good comment Nathan_Jr. Actually if Victor was still alive and I met him. I figuratively might even hold out my hand like I often do with dogs when I meet them. To see if they wag their tales or bark. If they wag their tale, I could pet them. If they bark I will walk away. And I really like dogs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Actually, if victor, bless his little heart, were still alive he might have found meekness, humility and silence. He might have repented with Godly sorrow. Only then might he have found what honest pursuit of Truth really means. Only then can the student be ready; and when the student is ready, the master appears.
Sometimes, in order to understand what is, we need to contrast what it is not: the dark with the light, the good with the evil, victor paul wierwille with the Truth.
If victor were still alive, I would let him sit at my feet, but not for long, because how embarrassing!
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
do ya think?
Comparing wierwille’s written works to his live teachings and video classes – in my opinion what was “above average” was his charismatic and engaging manner in a live setting. BUT - Intellectual-wise…scholarly-wise…apologetics-wise…theologically-wise…logical-wise…content-wise…Scripture-wise…as well as simply being straightforward and above-board, in any format - whether in writing or live settings - in my opinion wierwille was WAY BELOW PAR… WORSE THAN A LOT OF BAD TELEVAGENELISTS THAT I’VE SEEN.
“I wonder if people here are sad because they did not even try to correct any leader of TWI, when they were still with TWI? So perhaps they are making up for this by writing against Victor Wierwille on this forum.” Maybe so, Mark…maybe so…I for one do have regrets that I let my cognitive skills be anesthetized by wierwille’s charm…my intellect and emotions were rendered comatose by his desensitizing techniques to overstep my personal boundaries and self-determination…I own that …I bought into this cult of personality so much I decided to go into the mini-wierwille-clone-factory (aka the way corps program).
And let me be clear on this - especially addressing any diehard-wierwille-fans - since I’ve joined Grease Spot Café in 2006, I usually speak to his manipulative tactics – NOT OUT OF AN ATTEMPT AT CHARACTER ASSINATION – which is the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation.
Outside of the thick fog of TWI-culture – in the REAL WORLD – wierwille has got to be one of the most DISREPUTABLE AND UNSCRUPUOUS PERSON that I have had the unfortunate experience of stumbling into his sphere of influence…so…
I unapologetically state that my criticism IS JUSTIFIED…I intend to expose and neutralize his strategies to exploit and control others …and to expose and neutralize his insidious ideology…And one more thing – which I will address shortly – it’s utterly absurd and ridiculous that any Grease Spotters would refer to wierwille in a positive light IN THE DOCTRINAL FORUM! …
werwille’s hocus-pocus-and-hokum has no place in a DOCTRINAL forum that is supposed to be thoughtful and analytical discussions of creeds, tenets, articles of faith…
…I’m a little embarrassed - my first post on this thread stated “This thread belongs in doctrinal forum” cuz I thought the thread starter wanted to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity and as it relates to the end times ( see here ). But as this thread has played out – it seems obvious to me the thread starter wanted to rehash wierwille’s insidious ideology… so now – what? Move it back to About the Way forum where it started? I don’t care…I’ll go with the flow
…I’m kinda use to the dodge-deflect-obfuscate-tactics of another diehard-wierwille-fan oh yoo hoo 
…I noticed a very perceptive Grease Spotter did start a thread in About the Way forum ( see here ) about this highly-enriched-diehard-wierwille-fan-propaganda post ( see here ).
Edited by T-BoneCan The Monroe Doctrine prevent diehard-wierwille-fans from interfering with theological discussions in doctrinal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
VPW died when I was very small. His followers liked to hit me in the face repeatedly with a stick. Did I speak up? Yes. In that context,
Words. Don't. Matter.
I think the Trinity doctrine pushes the idea of the individual. An educated individual who challenges the status quo, without destroying it.
What in VPW's work does that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Our standard practice for threads that have been around for a while has been to allow the conversation to grow organically, even when they stray from their original subject matter.
But there's a difference between straying and being derailed. This conversation has become derailed, and the thread is only 10 days old.
Debate Wierwille's legacy in About the Way. T-Bone is correct. This thread is supposed to be about the Trinity and whether it is an asset or a liability (with all the subtopics raised in the opening post, including whether the doctrine will make the Antichrist's job easier).
Let's stick to topic.
Modcat5 posting as Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One source of contention between Rome and Constaninople were the Arian Christians. The Pope was seen as ineffective in dealing with them, so Rome lost legitimacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The Trinity developed over time as do all theological doctrines. I think Tertullian coined the term in the late 2nd century. (Later, Tertullian became a Montanist, SIT and prophesying more in one week than Paul and Victor combined did in their lifetimes.)
The fourth and latest Gospel was the basis for this doctrine, obviously. John's was of a very high Christology. One might imagine, if this was the only gospel available to an early church assembly, why they might think Jesus was God.
But this doctrine is ultra early when considered in the context of other spurious doctrines like five crucified and dispensational systematic theology. Both of those were hand--crafted like a fine APA in the 19th century.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Arains still had Jesus, THE Logos, begotten before creation and having creation made through him.
That is still very different than Wayworld.
Did Jesus begin in Mary or way before that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Kinda depends on which Gospel you read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You mean like Thomas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thomas doesn’t have a narrative. Only sayings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Poor Thomas' Almanac.
So Jesus was begatten here and there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I don't think Thomas is helpful for this discussion.
Maybe the infancy Gospel of Thomas says something about when he was begotten or else his pre-existence, but that is very late... and very weird.
My earlier point was about how different the Christologies are between say Mark and John.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Right it sounded like there were numerous ideas for a second, like Jesus had be begotten, forgotten, begotten again.
In the beginning was THE Word. And THE Word was with God. And THE Word was God.
That's a Bible Verse. The Bible was in the beginning? The Bible is God? Maybe The Word and The Bible are two different things. His Will is also a thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. I never considered the Bible to be God until I took "the class."
Later, I came to understand the words, like "pros," are NOT the Word.
Some thoughts to enjoy while one can.
Edited by Nathan_JrTHE. A word that engraves easily. Lots of right angles.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So, there's numerous alternatives to The Trinity. Which is the right alternative?
The Bible is Not God. So a definitive answer wouldn't likely be there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The right alternative? Exactly. Everyone's doxy is the orthodoxy according to who's proclaiming it. But everyone can't be right. So, maybe, everyone is wrong and the truth is something else entirely. I don't know, nor do I claim to know.
The Bible was written over thousands of years by dozens, if not hundreds, of authors and editors with different opinions and theologies and agendas. Different theologians have derived different doctrines from the same diverse collection of books we call the Bible. Right?
I'm just trying to enjoy all this while I still can. Presumably, before it's too late. Because God's love is perpetual, until it's not. So I've been told.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It's a wonder why the writing stopped. . . . People did keep writing. Writing is still a thing.
Before IT is written, IT has yet to be written.
So they wrote what was wrought, until it was naught? Nah. That's not all that's been thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great question! There’s various ways to answer that. I’m not sure that I’m correctly reasoning out this conundrum…anyway…my 2 cents is partly based on a key word in the Greek text of John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
In the Greek text of John 3:16 - only begotten is from monogenē which is # 3439 in Strong’s numbering system and you can see two ideas in the Greek word – mono = one and genos = offspring, stock…we could say Jesus was one of a kind. Unique…In one of my earlier 2-bit-theological-musings ( here ) I imagined Jesus as a unique hybrid in a superhero origin story…a hybrid is the offspring of two plants or animals of different species or varieties. So I think in Jesus we would find a being with a mix of qualities from two natures – human and divine…so technically I would think Jesus began in Mary…
But
there’s also the Logos to consider
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1: 1, 2 & 14
Logically the concept in John 1 predates Jesus’ beginning in Mary. How do we imagine the coming together of the two distinct natures? I don’t know. How is it possible to cram godhood into a human being? Don’t know. Was “some stuff” left out? My pea-brain thinks so. I’m thinking Jesus’ brain and body was pushed to its fullest potential – and if there was a need to fill in any knowledge or wisdom gaps – or if there was a need for him to go beyond what's humanly possible, maybe that’s where the Holy Spirit came in...and all of this is merely conjecture on the part of my pea-brain.
Is there a connection to another dimension or dimensions? Marvel’s Quantum Realm ? A divine manipulation of the fundamental forces of the cosmos? Lots of things for me to get lost in speculation. Is there something to superstring theory? What happened when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? Then his physical body was miraculously altered to something otherworldly…with capabilities beyond human reason. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 . I don’t really understand what that verse is talking about. But time-wise I believe it’s referring to Christ in his resurrected…changed…exalted form.
Edited by T-BoneIn the beginning there was T-Bone...and T-Bone was really with it, man
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.