T-Bone, will you please point me to the "soul-life" verse in the Bible? I've searched the term in various forms through two different concordance tools with no results. I'm probably just spelling it incorrectly or something simple like that.
Okay Nathan – don’t know if this will answer your question but for now all I can think of is this…
On page 233ff of the PFAL book, the chapter titled Body, Soul, Spirit – Formed, Made, Created, wierwille says this:
The next word to observe is the word “soul” which in Hebrew is nephesh. What is soul? The soul in man is that which gives the body its life, its vitality. Look again at Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man [man’s body] of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
…The soul is nothing more and nothing less that that which gives life to a person’s body. Sometimes it is called “the spirit of man.” Soul has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or a non-Christian. As long as a person breathes, he has a soul.
The confusion between the soul and the spirit has caused no end of difficulty for people. They say the soul is immortal, for instance. They talk about transmigration of the soul, the immortality of the soul. These are all erroneous usages of words which are used with exactness and precision in the Word of God.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
In my opinion wierwille’s dogmatic fundamentalism has probably caused no end of difficulty for folks if they try to untangle his hodge-podge of pseudoscience and authoritarianism. wierwille acknowledges in the above quote that sometimes soul is called the spirit of man. Yet he claims, “words which are used with exactness and precision in The Word of God.” Ha ! his contradictory mumbo jumbo is exposed on the same page !!!!!! What a sloppy con artist! Am I right or am I right?
As far as his other pseudoscientific claim on soul-life I quoted earlier - “God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood… footnote #9 God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum” – wierwille has used the following proof-text from Leviticus:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.Leviticus 17:11 KJV
~ ~ ~ ~
In thinking about Gnosticism’s paradigm of disconnecting the material world from the spiritual world, it makes me wonder if that was a factor in wierwille rationalizing his licentious behavior. I recall the many times I’ve heard him teach on the renewed mind and the Christian lifestyle and he often seemed to imply that the spiritual and physical realms had little to do with each other – and he would emphasize we should focus on the spiritual by saying things like “our old man nature is totally corrupt and unsalvageable – but our spiritual nature that we received when we got born again is perfect and needs no improvement”. Nowadays with a mind that is not Kool-Aid drenched, reexamining those kinds of statements he had made – it's obvious to me that wierwille was unmoored from any of the simple moral demands of the Bible.
I think what may be a related issue is Gnosticism’sspirit good / matter evil maxim- this correlates to wierwille’s body, soul, and spirit teaching –the trichotomy view of a Christian . wierwille defined soul as breath-life - which is an organic function of the body (matter) which is evil. Maybe I’m being picayune – but I lean toward a dichotomy view of humankind. I don't think the Bible differentiates between soul and spirit - but that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.
I also recall something – I think I heard Craig Martindale as one of the first TWI-leaders to refer to natural men and women (who do not have spirit) by the derogatory term “empties floating by”. Basically, this trichotomy view of a Christian goes against the biblical view that men and women ARE created in God’s image. The Bible gives no indication that spirit was lost in the Fall. An interesting study is a look into the Hebrew definition of “death” – not that I will go into great detail here – but you’ll find basically it means “separation” rather than annihilation or total obliteration – i.e., cease to exist. That human beings still retain the image of God – though it may be tarnishedis suggested in such passages asGenesis 9:6and James 3:9BOTH passages refer to a time AFTERthe Fall in Genesis 3.
As it is, being a staunch fundamentalist is problematic hermeneutical-wise. In my opinion the problems are compounded when you throw in wierwille’s Gnosticism and spiritualism. wierwille’s signature intuition is adept at switching gears – sort of like a manual transmission. Something not “geared” for amateur con artists . But “fortunately” for diehard-PFAL-fans, by absorbing wierwille-doctrinehis signature-intuition-manual-transmission- through the miracle of indoctrination – is converted into an automatic transmission - that does not require any driver (aka Bible student) input to change gears – as long as they follow wierwille’s roadmap of Bible interpretation. I’m not saying diehard-PFAL-fans won’t get lost – just that diehard-PFAL-fans won’t know they’re lost – which takes all the stress out of Bible study.
Edited by T-Bone In the spirit of R&B this editor has got soul!
On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?in the bookJesus Christ Is Not God ,wierwille states:
…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
This confusing aspect in wierwille’s argument needs clarification. To me the thrust of his rationalization seems to go along the lines of pointing out the obvious - making a clear distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ as the Son. While I have no problem with that – I also sense he ignores the import of biblical imagery.
I submit that besides the miraculous and inexplicable way Jesus was born – which alone sets him apart as otherworldly in my book – he also acted with all the confidence, authority, and compassion of his heavenly Father – something no ordinary human was capable or qualified to do.
In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons.
Perpetuating Life. In the ancient way of thinking, the life of a father is continued in his son. A major ingredient in a father’s feeling that his life on earth has fulfilled its purpose is the presence of a son to perpetuate his lineage (Gen. 15:2-4)…
…Christ as Son. There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.”
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
To be fair – wierwille has passed away so there’s no way to ask for clarification from him. I wonder if he equated Jesus Christ as being born of a woman as being less than divine. As I mentioned in a previous post – Jesus Christ was “one of a kind” a hybrid – human and divine.
After I left TWI, reading the Bible without the wierwille-colored-glasses(aka the PFAL-mindset), a few sections of Scripture really got me to reflect on his heavenly parentage and the prerogative…the right or privilege exclusive to him alone, as the only begotten Son of God:
Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So, he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.”Luke 5:18-26
~ ~ ~ ~
In the account where Jesus walks on the water, it is fascinating to observe the reactions of the disciples witnessing this phenomenal event:
22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.
27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”
28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
29 “Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”Matthew 14:22-33
~ ~ ~ ~
The NIV Biblical Theology Study Biblenotes of verse 33 worshipped him– The miracle was so spectacular that otherwise monotheistic Jews actually worshipped Jesus. Son of God– Whereas in a Jewish context this could sometimes be a synonym for Messiah and not carry hints of divinity, this context doubtless implies a more awe-inspired declaration.
~ ~ ~ ~
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”Matthew 28:16-18
~ ~ ~ ~
TheNIV Biblical Theology Study Biblenotes onverse 17: they worshipped him; but some doubted. Could also be translated “they worshipped but they doubted.” For such an unprecedented event as a resurrection, it is easy to envision any or all the disciples both acclaiming Jesus’ deity and being very perplexed as to what exactly had happened and wondering if all this was real.
~ ~ ~ ~
Read these next excerpts from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount – and note how he set himself on par with the author of Scripture – God – his Father, in the way he reinterprets…or perhaps even revises the law – I marked in bold red where Jesus introduces an idea that is in contrast to or perhaps even supersedes the existing law:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
…The question of ‘Who is Jesus?’ goes back to the earliest days of Jesus’ ministry. When people heard the things that Jesus said, for example how he ‘taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law, ( Mark 1:22Matthew 7:29 ) and when they witnessed his ‘miraculous powers’, they were forced to grapple with the question: who is this man?( Matthew 13:54)
Modern Christians often face the temptation at this point to short-circuit the question. For many in our world, the question comes down to this: was Jesus, or was he not, ‘the son of God’ in the sense of being ‘divine’, ‘the second person of the Trinity’?...It’s important that we approach these matters the way the early Christians did, in the context of the actual questions and concepts of the time…
…The problem was that Jesus acted and spoke like several different leadership types: rabbi, prophet, healer, priest, sage, royal leader, exorcist, Cynic philosopher, and miracle-worker. Yet he was also unlike any of them. He had a unique sense of authority, an enigmatic form of self-reference as the ‘son of man’…
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Put yourself in the disciples’ sandals. Try to lay aside any modern concepts - whether it’s wierwille’s notions of Jesus Christ, Trinitarianism, complicated theology…or whatever. What do the words and works of Jesus Christ - the Son of God - mean to you?
Edited by T-Bone My editor is a verbose son of a gun
On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?in the bookJesus Christ Is Not God ,wierwille states:
…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.
So the word of God is reduced to statistical probabilities? This logic is born of in depth spiritual awareness and perception? This is how one "rightly divides the word of truth" -- statistical probability!? This is how one separates truth from error?
Or, are these four verses not in the original?
Growing up in a Christian household, I was never taught that Jesus was God. It seemed obvious that he was not, based on what Jesus himself said about himself, and It just wasn't an issue. There was NEVER talk about what others believed as "wrong." We didn't proselytize or evangelize. And no one desperately tried to prove a negative. Only humble affirmation of Truth. Again, it just was not an issue anyone desired to create, make or form.
I remember gasping in awe at how immature (spiritually/intellectually/linguistically) the writing of JCING was. I read about half of it before deciding not to waste any more time on such drivel. And I never even believed Jesus to be God! I was embarrassed for victor and for those thinking he was an enlightened glove-fitter.
So the word of God is reduced to statistical probabilities? This logic is born of in depth spiritual awareness and perception? This is how one "rightly divides the word of truth" -- statistical probability!? This is how one separates truth from error?
Or, are these four verses not in the original?
Growing up in a Christian household, I was never taught that Jesus was God. It seemed obvious that he was not, based on what Jesus himself said about himself, and It just wasn't an issue. There was NEVER talk about what others believed as "wrong." We didn't proselytize or evangelize. And no one desperately tried to prove a negative. Only humble affirmation of Truth. Again, it just was not an issue anyone desired to create, make or form.
I remember gasping in awe at how immature (spiritually/intellectually/linguistically) the writing of JCING was. I read about half of it before deciding not to waste any more time on such drivel. And I never even believed Jesus to be God! I was embarrassed for victor and for those thinking he was an enlightened glove-fitter.
Nathan, thanks for bringing some personal experience into this discussion. I forget how important that is in order for other folks to find common ground. I’ll do the same in a bit – but first wanted to mention reasons why I’ve been a bit bookish on this thread (and a few other threads in About the Way forum) – not only because it’s doctrinal but also in attempting to untangle some of wierwille’s nonsense I think it’s crucial to get into the nitty-gritty of each strand to properly untwine the whole bundle of wierwille-ideology.
And in analyzing the nuts and bolts, my go-to method is using logic, getting familiar with the lay of the land (identifying key points of a particular doctrine), referencing the work of reputable scholars, review stuff I’ve accumulated from my own prayerful studies, and of course listening to other thoughtful posters on Grease Spot Café.
Not saying I’m perfect or always right – rather I’m even upfront about some of my ideas being tenuous - but at least I try to adhere to some honest / legitimate standards which is FAR MOREthan wierwille ever did! I’m the farthest thing from being a know-it-all - I don’t have a dog in this fight – cuz this is just a hobby and I’m having lots of fun! I can’t think of a better reason offhand – other than I don’t put a lot of stock in anything that plagiarizing incompetent con artist put out.
~ ~ ~ ~
On a personal note:
I grew up in a good Christian home – Roman Catholic was our brand name. We never got into discussions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or doctrines. I do remember lots of little life lessons here and there from Mom & Dad about appreciating God’s creation through observation, stewardship and the sciences…having respect for all people no matter what race or religion, and the Golden Rule – and that topic was covered a lot. I never really gave any thought to the Trinity – because in my mind the Trinity was mysterious stuff about God that goes beyond what our brains can handle…even today I still think of the Trinity as nothing more than a mental construct that might help orient me to how God works.
When I prayed, I never felt the need to focus on God the Father or Jesus Christ – I imagined my thoughts and prayers were being heard by God in general rather than a specific department of God the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit… I’ve shared this before on Grease Spot, there’s only one time in my life when I distinctly remember calling on Jesus Christ to help me – and that was during a bad acid trip. Thank God he did!
After I took PFAL I was so excited that I would finally begin to learn more about God and Jesus Christ through wierwille’s “ministry”…bear in mind back in ’74 the Roman Catholic Church was not real big on encouraging congregants to read and study the Holy Bible.
While I do credit PFAL for piquing my interest in stuff like systematic theology, philosophy of religion and hermeneutics, it was like taking swimming lessons from some lifeguard wannabe who can’t even tread water but thought the image would make him a chick magnet…wierwille’s PFAL was “the Word” that took the place of the centrality of Christ.
After I first took the class, I would read and reread the Gospels like crazy and would have tons of questions for my Twig coordinator – and he would direct me to stick with the PFAL reading plan – review, review, review the PFAL material and get in the next class. + zzzzZZZZ ZZZZzzz
My prayer life didn’t change much while in TWI – as far as who I was praying to – it was like before TWI – I imagined I was praying to God in general – no specific department …well, actually there was a “degradation” in my prayer life after PFAL – there was a decline in mindful prayer – prayer in my understanding, since SIT was the big deal. And after 12 years of it – when I left TWI I started questioning everything wierwille taught me – I realized I faked SIT.
In summary, like every other topic that wierwille handled – his teachings on God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit …and holy spirit were rife with inconsistencies, fundamentalism, spiritualism, Gnosticism and…well…wierwille-isms.
When I read the New Testament now – I see that Jesus Christ is a really big deal – and it seems like he often gets more attention than God the Father. And since I don’t find any passages that warn me to reign in that intense fascination I have with His son I figure God the Father is okay with that. Personally I don’t get hung up in trying to nail down certain subjects because they’re too big and way beyond my pray-grade .
While I do credit PFAL for piquing my interest in stuff like systematic theology, philosophy of religion and hermeneutics, it was like taking swimming lessons from some lifeguard wannabe who can’t even tread water but thought the image would make him a chick magnet…wierwille’s PFAL was “the Word” that took the place of the centrality of Christ.
On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?in the bookJesus Christ Is Not God ,wierwille states:
…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.
So, is it mathematical exactness or is it mathematical probability? victor, it seems, will change his methodology to fit his doctrinal whimsy. He will shamelessly contradict himself to make it fit his opinion. This is the real liability.
Edited by Nathan_Jr Who manufactured VPW's errors?
…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident
"In the beginning" appears only one time in the whole bible. Therefore, it should be obvious...we're not here.
On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ?in the bookJesus Christ Is Not God ,wierwille states:
…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident
What are those four verses?
What did God mean when he wrote those verses? Was God lying? Joking? Was he just tired from all the writing and made some simple mistakes? Does God mean what he writes and write what he means?
(Thank God for math and statistical probability lest the whole thing fall apart from Genesis to The Apocalypse of John of Patmos.)
we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.
I cover this with more detail in one of the chapters of my biblical teaching book with the help of the very informative biblical study software program that I use to help me with my biblical study research. The following is the first part of chapter 7 titled "Reconciliation Through Jesus Christ".
Quote
Reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations when doing an internet Google search or when looking up this word in a dictionary. Reconciliation between God and humanity is through Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, while also being the Son of God. Jesus Christ, while living with a natural, earthly body as does humanity today, referred to himself as the Son of Man many times. This in large part showed the relationship between Jesus Christ and imperfect mortal humanity. In the New Testament when using the American Standard Version there are (84) usages of the phrase “Son of Man” (ASV). Perhaps all (84) speak of Jesus Christ with (78) being quoted out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament again using the (ASV) bible, there are (109) usages of “son of man”, most of which are in the book of Ezekiel with the prophet Ezekiel being called “son of man” (ASV). A few usages of “son of man” are even thought of negatively. As an example, in Job 25:6, it compares “son of man” to a worm and states, “the son of man that is a worm!” (ASV)
In the ASV there are (45) usages of the phrase “Son of God” (ASV) with all in the New Testament. All (45) of them refer to Jesus Christ, with only (5) of them quoted out of the mouth of Jesus Christ. This clearly shows Jesus Christ humbly promoting himself mostly as an ordinary every day man. Using math this clearly shows the relationship of Jesus Christ with mortal mankind even more than His relationship with God, his Father as spoken by Jesus Christ. Using simple math this is seen by 84 being a higher number than 45 and 78 being a higher number than 5.
In addition, one of the (45) quoted scriptures with Jesus Christ as the “Son of God” from ASV does not match the Greek text from the Interlinear Transliterated Bible. In John 9:35 based on the Greek word “anthroopou”, which is almost always translated as “man” this should read “Son of Man” instead of “Son of God”. According to the more accurate NIV® bible, John 9:35 reads “…Do you believe in the Son of Man?” (NIV®) as spoken by Jesus Christ.
I cover this with more detail in one of the chapters of my biblical teaching book with the help of the very informative biblical study software program that I use to help me with my biblical study research. The following is the first part of chapter 7 titled "Reconciliation Through Jesus Christ".
Thanks, Mark. Do you know the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God?
Which Bible software do you use? Is it Logos? And which interlinear do you use?
Which Bible software do you use? Is it Logos? And which interlinear do you use?
Here is a link to the very good biblical study software program that I use. https://biblesoft.com/
The following is the complete copy right information for the interlinear that I use.
Quote
INTERLINEAR TRANSLITERATED BIBLE
Published by Biblesoft
OLD TESTAMENT:
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
edited by Karl Ellinger and Wilhelm Rudolph.
Fifth Revised Edition, edited by Adrian Schenker.
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Stuttgart
Groves-Wheeler Westminster Hebrew Morphology, Version 4.4
Westminster Theological Seminary
NEW TESTAMENT:
Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament
27 th Revised Edition
Novum Testamentum Graece,
in the tradition of Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle,
edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland,
Johannes Karavidpopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger.
Deutsche Biblegesellschaft
The GRAMCORD™ Greek New Testament Alpha Morphological Database.
The GRAMCORD™ Institute.
TRANSLATION:
The King James Version
Electronic Database
Published by Biblesoft
Regarding your question "where Jesus is called God". That is a religious question only. There are NO verses where Jesus is clearly called God. If a trinitarian asks me about about the subject of the trinity. One of the things that I tell him or her, "Jesus being seated at the right hand of God is now like God with God his Father delegating ALL authority under Jesus Christ his Son for the salvation of humanity. Yet in his earthly life Jesus showed his humility by often calling himself the Son of Man, much more than He called himself the Son of God. Jesus often related himself to common every day humanity."
Regarding your question "where Jesus is called God". That is a religious question only. There are NO verses where Jesus is clearly called God.
Actually, my question was what are the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God. I'm really asking about victor, what he wrote, what he meant. There may be more or less than four; there may be none, as you say -- not my question.
What were the verses victor had in mind when he made the assertion? That's the question.
Actually, my question was what are the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God.
That is a question for a person that has a copy of the book, "Jesus Christ is Not God". I no longer have a copy of this book and sold it years ago. Instead I have a better book on this subject: "One God & One Lord". VPW's book is OK, but VPW made an error with the title that he choose. A better and more peaceful title would have been, "Jesus Christ the Son of God".
That is a question for a person that has a copy of the book, "Jesus Christ is Not God". I no longer have a copy of this book and sold it years ago. Instead I have a better book on this subject: "One God & One Lord". VPW's book is OK, but VPW made an error with the title that he choose. A better and more peaceful title would have been, "Jesus Christ the Son of God".
Ok. Thanks. Someone knows. I'll wait.
The title of victor's book was calculated to garner attention, foster controversy and cause division. In that sense, it was without error. Though vic claimed accuracy, attention and reverence were all he cared about (along with the three P's).
We will have to agree to disagree about vic's book: it was less than ok.
The title of victor's book was calculated to garner attention, foster controversy and cause division. In that sense, it was without error. Though vic claimed accuracy, attention and reverence were all he cared about (along with the three P's).
That is logical and makes sense. Mostly to bring attention to his book. Again VPW should have had a more peaceful title. If you have a copy of that book, you could do the research to find the verses.
That is logical and makes sense. Mostly to bring attention to his book. Again VPW should have had a more peaceful title. If you have a copy of that book, you could do the research to find the verses.
Right. If I had a copy of the book, I'd definitely do the research myself. I don't own any of his books.
What did God mean when he wrote those verses? Was God lying? Joking? Was he just tired from all the writing and made some simple mistakes? Does God mean what he writes and write what he means?
(Thank God for math and statistical probability lest the whole thing fall apart from Genesis to The Apocalypse of John of Patmos.)
4 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Thank you very much, Mark.
Actually, my question was what are the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God. I'm really asking about victor, what he wrote, what he meant. There may be more or less than four; there may be none, as you say -- not my question.
What were the verses victor had in mind when he made the assertion? That's the question.
I hope that's clear. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks, again.
3 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:
Right. If I had a copy of the book, I'd definitely do the research myself. I don't own any of his books.
The Four Verses…not to be confused with the Four Horsemen…
...if there’s any confusion it’s probably from wierwille horsing around
Below are the four verses that wierwille listed…after rereading the entire chapter today just to review the explanations he gave for discounting the 4 verses as being a reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ – I will forego copying and pasting his gobbledygook here and will instead list the 4 verses and refer to online commentaries – copying and pasting from reputable sources…Grease Spot Readers take note of the hyperlinks to Bible Hub below – a convenient resource for Bible Study – for instance click on this hyperlink of II Timothy 2:15and it will take you to the parallel verses for II Tim.2:15; the website is user friendly – by clicking on the 3 letter Translation or below it the category like commentary, Interlinear, sermon, etc. you can be pretty thorough in your study...with any of the Bible Hub hyperlinks i give below - you can go on all kinds of tangents for hours just by clicking on the various tabs / buttons - you can check out other translations, Greek text, definitions of biblical words, commentaries...so remember to have fun
Anyway…the 4 “supposed problem” verses that wierwille lists in chapter 4 Who is the Word? in Jesus Christ is Not God are:
1.And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.I Timothy 3:16 KJV
wierwille points out it’s questionable if the Greek text has the word “God” …while that certainly may be so if you look at the interlinear of I Timothy 3:16- however even with the word being instead “who” a pronoun – the passage still seems to allude to the divinity of Christ – such as in other versions:
Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. I Timothy 3:16 NASB
A few study Bibles that I’ve checked say this is part of a Christian hymn that starts off emphasizing Christ’s incarnation. Ever thought about that word “incarnation”? I don’t ever remember that word being used in TWI. I wonder why. Definition of Incarnation - a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality…In I Tim. 3:16 Paul affirms the humanity and divinity of Christ. The mystery of godlinessmay refer to the Old Testament symbolic truths in sacrifices that foreshadowed the salvation and righteousness of Christ which produces holiness in believers. In a manner of speaking Christ was like God with skin on – what better way to relate to His people…I don’t have a beef with wierwille offering his opinion of God and Jesus Christ. I think the real treachery was wierwille’s self-assuming role as TWI’shigh priest… In the Old Testament, the high priest served as a mediator between God and the people and was the only one who had close contact with the Holy of Holies…uhm…in case anyone missed it Jesus Christ took over the job of high priest Hebrews 2:17Hebrews 4:14
I won’t get into deep theological and philosophical musings over the concept of God – but given the individuality / uniqueness / nurture / nature aspects of people, I’d venture to say – for those who profess to believe in a higher power – that everyone will probably have a concept of God / some higher power that differs more or less from everyone else…even if we factor in the experience of those who believe they interact with God / some higher power(through prayer, meditation, inspiration, illumination, etc.) there would probably be even more diverse impressions of God / some higher power even with all “believers” doing their best to articulate the experience…just as siblings in a large family would each have their own thoughts and feelings for their parents…just reflect on the dynamics of interacting with another sentient being - it's not a one-way form of communication - interacting is reciprocal - there is something shared...perhaps even transforming to both parties.
My intent in this digression is to point out the audacity of wierwille to dictate to followers the orthodox concept of God…and Jesus Christ.
Regarding the other 3 “problem verses” I will let some reputable commentaries counter wierwille’s nonsense.
~ ~ ~ ~
2.But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8
wierwille states Heb 1:8 is quoting Ps 45:6 and basically says it's referring to an earthly king
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdomPsalm 45:6
But Benson’s commentary on Ps. 45:6 says it speaks to more than an earthly king:
Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, &c. — It is evident that the speech is still continued to the same person whom he calls king, Psalm 45:1; Psalm 45:11; and here God, to assure us that he doth not speak of Solomon, but of a far greater king, who is not only a man, but the mighty God, Isaiah 9:6. For though the name Elohim, or God, be sometimes given in Scripture to some creatures, yet, in those cases, it is always clogged with some diminishing expression, signifying that they are only made, or called gods, and that only for a certain time and purpose; (see Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6; and it is nowhere put simply and absolutely for any person but him, who is God, blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. Is for ever and ever — Namely, properly, and in thine own person, in which, as he lives for ever, so he must necessarily reign for ever; whereas David, whose throne was said to be established for ever, 2 Samuel 7:16, was a mortal man, and therefore that promise was not intended of, nor could be fulfilled in, his person, without including his seed, and especially the Messiah. And, as he here gives to the Messiah the name of God, which was never given to David nor Solomon, so he ascribes an everlasting kingdom to him, in such a sense as was never given to them. So Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre — The sceptres of earthly princes are often swayed with great injustice and manifold iniquities, which lay the foundation of their overthrow; but thou rulest with exact righteousness and equity, and therefore thy throne is established, Proverbs 16:12. From Psalm 45:6 Benson commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
3.Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”John 20:28
Ellicott’s comments on this are short and to the point:
My Lord and my God.—These words are preceded by “said unto him,” and are followed by “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed;” and the words “my Lord” can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. John 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God.from John 20:28 Ellicott’s commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
4.For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
it's noteworthy Ellicott’s commentary says the Hebrew word for God is only used in reference to deity:
His name shall be called Wonderful.—It is noticeable that that which follows is given not as many names, but one. Consisting as it does of eight words, of which the last six obviously fall into three couplets, it is probable that the first two should also be taken together, and that we have four elements of the compound name: (1) Wonderful-Counsellor, (2) God-the-Mighty-One, (3) Father of Eternity, (4) Prince of Peace. Each element of the Name has its special significance. (1) The first embodies the thought of the wisdom of the future Messiah. Men should not simply praise it as they praise their fellows, but should adore and wonder at it as they wonder at the wisdom of God (Judges 13:18, where the Hebrew for the “secret” of the Authorised version is the same as that for “wonderful;” Exodus 15:11; Psalm 77:11; Psalm 78:11; Isaiah 28:29; Isaiah 29:14). The name contains the germ afterwards developed in the picture of the wisdom of the true king in Isaiah 11:2-4. The LXX. renders the Hebrew as “the angel of great counsel,” and in the Vatican text the description ends there. (2) It is significant that the word for “God” is not Elohim, which may be used in a lower sense for those who are representatives of God, as in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 28:13, but El, which is never used by Isaiah, or any other Old Testament writer, in any lower sense than that of absolute Deity, and which, we may note, had been specially brought before the prophet’s thoughts in the name Immanuel. The name appears again as applied directly to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21; Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18; Nehemiah 9:32; Psalm 24:8; and the adjective in Isaiah 42:13. (3) In “Father of Eternity,” (LXX. Alex. and Vulg., “Father of the age to come “) we have a name which seems at first to clash with the formalised developments of Christian theology, which teach us, lest we should “confound the persons,” not to deal with the names of the Father and the Son as interchangeable. Those developments, however, were obviously not within Isaiah’s ken, and he uses the name of “Father” because none other expressed so well the true idea of loving and protecting government (Job 29:16, Isaiah 22:21). And if the kingdom was to be “for ever and ever,” then in some very real sense he would be, in that attribute of Fatherly government, a sharer in the eternity of Jehovah. Another rendering of the name, adopted by some critics, “Father (i.e., Giver) of booty,” has little to recommend it, and is entirely out of harmony with the majesty of the context. (4) “Prince of Peace.” The prophet clings, as all prophets before him had done, to the thought that peace, and not war, belonged to the ideal Kingdom of the Messiah. That hope had been embodied by David in the name of Absalom (“ father of peace “) and Solomon. It had been uttered in the prayer of Psalm 72:3, and by Isaiah’s contemporary, Micah (Micah 5:5). Earth-powers, like Assyria and Egypt, might rest in war and conquest as an end, but the true king, though warfare might be needed to subdue his foes (Psalm 45:5), was to be a “Prince of Peace” (Zechariah 9:9-10). It must be noted as remarkable, looking to the grandeur of the prophecy, and its apparently direct testimony to the true nature of the Christ, that it is nowhere cited in the New Testament as fulfilled in Him; and this, though Isaiah 9:1 is, as we have seen, quoted by St. Matthew and Isaiah 9:7, finds at least an allusive reference in Luke 1:32-33.from Isaiah 9:6 Ellicott’s commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
I think wierwille pitting 50 verses that say Son of God to 4 verses that refer to Jesus Christ as God is like comparing apples to orangesafter you mix all of them together in a blender. As I explained in a previous post What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean?- see here- In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social, and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons…There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.”
In my opinion wierwille tended to water down…and worse obfuscate the unique, exalted, and divine characteristics of “the Son of God” which obviously refers to a literal physical relationship between Jesus Christ and God. How he downgraded it was by equating it with the adoption of sons Romans 8:15Galatians 4:5. An adopted son does not have a literal physical relationship with his father…and to add to the confusion wierwille’s fundamentalism interpreted being born again of incorruptible seed as something that was literally true-I have presented counterarguments to wierwille’s literalism earlier on this thread - here-and here- so I don’t see the need to rehash that again.
Edited by T-Bone The editor was keeping score: 50 obvious typos versus 4 suspect typos…but plagiarism is at 100% due to copying and pasting from online commentaries :)
I don’t have a beef with wierwille offering his opinion of God and Jesus Christ. I think the real treachery was wierwille’s self-assuming role as TWI’shigh priest
I first saw that errant problem in the late 1970s when I was listening to a tape of one of VPW's Sunday teachings. He mentioned the doctrine of the Pope being the vicar of Christ and agreed with that Roman Catholic doctrine. That inspired or motivated me to, a few years later, write the first draft of the chapter in my book titled: "Lordship of Jesus Christ Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man".
The Four Verses…not to be confused with the Four Horsemen…
...if there’s any confusion it’s probably from wierwille horsing around
Below are the four verses that wierwille listed…after rereading the entire chapter today just to review the explanations he gave for discounting the 4 verses as being a reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ – I will forego copying and pasting his gobbledygook here and will instead list the 4 verses and refer to online commentaries – copying and pasting from reputable sources…Grease Spot Readers take note of the hyperlinks to Bible Hub below – a convenient resource for Bible Study – for instance click on this hyperlink of II Timothy 2:15and it will take you to the parallel verses for II Tim.2:15; the website is user friendly – by clicking on the 3 letter Translation or below it the category like commentary, Interlinear, sermon, etc. you can be pretty thorough in your study...with any of the Bible Hub hyperlinks i give below - you can go on all kinds of tangents for hours just by clicking on the various tabs / buttons - you can check out other translations, Greek text, definitions of biblical words, commentaries...so remember to have fun
Anyway…the 4 “supposed problem” verses that wierwille lists in chapter 4 Who is the Word? in Jesus Christ is Not God are:
1.And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.I Timothy 3:16 KJV
wierwille points out it’s questionable if the Greek text has the word “God” …while that certainly may be so if you look at the interlinear of I Timothy 3:16- however even with the word being instead “who” a pronoun – the passage still seems to allude to the divinity of Christ – such as in other versions:
Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. I Timothy 3:16 NASB
A few study Bibles that I’ve checked say this is part of a Christian hymn that starts off emphasizing Christ’s incarnation. Ever thought about that word “incarnation”? I don’t ever remember that word being used in TWI. I wonder why. Definition of Incarnation - a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality…In I Tim. 3:16 Paul affirms the humanity and divinity of Christ. The mystery of godlinessmay refer to the Old Testament symbolic truths in sacrifices that foreshadowed the salvation and righteousness of Christ which produces holiness in believers. In a manner of speaking Christ was like God with skin on – what better way to relate to His people…I don’t have a beef with wierwille offering his opinion of God and Jesus Christ. I think the real treachery was wierwille’s self-assuming role as TWI’shigh priest… In the Old Testament, the high priest served as a mediator between God and the people and was the only one who had close contact with the Holy of Holies…uhm…in case anyone missed it Jesus Christ took over the job of high priest Hebrews 2:17Hebrews 4:14
I won’t get into deep theological and philosophical musings over the concept of God – but given the individuality / uniqueness / nurture / nature aspects of people, I’d venture to say – for those who profess to believe in a higher power – that everyone will probably have a concept of God / some higher power that differs more or less from everyone else…even if we factor in the experience of those who believe they interact with God / some higher power(through prayer, meditation, inspiration, illumination, etc.) there would probably be even more diverse impressions of God / some higher power even with all “believers” doing their best to articulate the experience…just as siblings in a large family would each have their own thoughts and feelings for their parents…My intent in this digression is to point out the audacity of wierwille to dictate to followers the orthodox concept of God…and Jesus Christ.
Regarding the other 3 “problem verses” I will let some reputable commentaries counter wierwille’s nonsense.
~ ~ ~ ~
2.But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8
wierwille states Heb 1:8 is quoting Ps 45:6 and basically says it's referring to an earthly king
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdomPsalm 45:6
Benson’s commentary on Ps. 45:6 says:
Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, &c. — It is evident that the speech is still continued to the same person whom he calls king, Psalm 45:1; Psalm 45:11; and here God, to assure us that he doth not speak of Solomon, but of a far greater king, who is not only a man, but the mighty God, Isaiah 9:6. For though the name Elohim, or God, be sometimes given in Scripture to some creatures, yet, in those cases, it is always clogged with some diminishing expression, signifying that they are only made, or called gods, and that only for a certain time and purpose; (see Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6; and it is nowhere put simply and absolutely for any person but him, who is God, blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. Is for ever and ever — Namely, properly, and in thine own person, in which, as he lives for ever, so he must necessarily reign for ever; whereas David, whose throne was said to be established for ever, 2 Samuel 7:16, was a mortal man, and therefore that promise was not intended of, nor could be fulfilled in, his person, without including his seed, and especially the Messiah. And, as he here gives to the Messiah the name of God, which was never given to David nor Solomon, so he ascribes an everlasting kingdom to him, in such a sense as was never given to them. So Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre — The sceptres of earthly princes are often swayed with great injustice and manifold iniquities, which lay the foundation of their overthrow; but thou rulest with exact righteousness and equity, and therefore thy throne is established, Proverbs 16:12. From Psalm 45:6 Benson commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
3.Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”John 20:28
Ellicott’s comments on this are:
My Lord and my God.—These words are preceded by “said unto him,” and are followed by “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed;” and the words “my Lord” can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. John 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God.from John 20:28 Ellicott’s commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
4.For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
it's noteworthy Ellicott’s commentary says the Hebrew word for God is only used in reference to deity:
His name shall be called Wonderful.—It is noticeable that that which follows is given not as many names, but one. Consisting as it does of eight words, of which the last six obviously fall into three couplets, it is probable that the first two should also be taken together, and that we have four elements of the compound name: (1) Wonderful-Counsellor, (2) God-the-Mighty-One, (3) Father of Eternity, (4) Prince of Peace. Each element of the Name has its special significance. (1) The first embodies the thought of the wisdom of the future Messiah. Men should not simply praise it as they praise their fellows, but should adore and wonder at it as they wonder at the wisdom of God (Judges 13:18, where the Hebrew for the “secret” of the Authorised version is the same as that for “wonderful;” Exodus 15:11; Psalm 77:11; Psalm 78:11; Isaiah 28:29; Isaiah 29:14). The name contains the germ afterwards developed in the picture of the wisdom of the true king in Isaiah 11:2-4. The LXX. renders the Hebrew as “the angel of great counsel,” and in the Vatican text the description ends there. (2) It is significant that the word for “God” is not Elohim, which may be used in a lower sense for those who are representatives of God, as in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 28:13, but El, which is never used by Isaiah, or any other Old Testament writer, in any lower sense than that of absolute Deity, and which, we may note, had been specially brought before the prophet’s thoughts in the name Immanuel. The name appears again as applied directly to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21; Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18; Nehemiah 9:32; Psalm 24:8; and the adjective in Isaiah 42:13. (3) In “Father of Eternity,” (LXX. Alex. and Vulg., “Father of the age to come “) we have a name which seems at first to clash with the formalised developments of Christian theology, which teach us, lest we should “confound the persons,” not to deal with the names of the Father and the Son as interchangeable. Those developments, however, were obviously not within Isaiah’s ken, and he uses the name of “Father” because none other expressed so well the true idea of loving and protecting government (Job 29:16, Isaiah 22:21). And if the kingdom was to be “for ever and ever,” then in some very real sense he would be, in that attribute of Fatherly government, a sharer in the eternity of Jehovah. Another rendering of the name, adopted by some critics, “Father (i.e., Giver) of booty,” has little to recommend it, and is entirely out of harmony with the majesty of the context. (4) “Prince of Peace.” The prophet clings, as all prophets before him had done, to the thought that peace, and not war, belonged to the ideal Kingdom of the Messiah. That hope had been embodied by David in the name of Absalom (“ father of peace “) and Solomon. It had been uttered in the prayer of Psalm 72:3, and by Isaiah’s contemporary, Micah (Micah 5:5). Earth-powers, like Assyria and Egypt, might rest in war and conquest as an end, but the true king, though warfare might be needed to subdue his foes (Psalm 45:5), was to be a “Prince of Peace” (Zechariah 9:9-10). It must be noted as remarkable, looking to the grandeur of the prophecy, and its apparently direct testimony to the true nature of the Christ, that it is nowhere cited in the New Testament as fulfilled in Him; and this, though Isaiah 9:1 is, as we have seen, quoted by St. Matthew and Isaiah 9:7, finds at least an allusive reference in Luke 1:32-33.from Isaiah 9:6 Ellicott’s commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
I think wierwille pitting 50 verses that say Son of God to 4 verses that refer to Jesus Christ as God is like comparing apples to orangesafter you mix them in a blender. As I explained in a previous post What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean?- see here- In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social, and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons…There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.”
In my opinion wierwille tended to water down…and worse obfuscate the unique, exalted, and divine characteristics of “the Son of God” which obviously refers to a literal physical relationship between Jesus Christ and God. How he downgraded it was by equating it with the adoption of sons Romans 8:15Galatians 4:5. An adopted son does not have a literal physical relationship with his father…and to add to the confusion wierwille’s fundamentalism interpreted being born again of incorruptible seed as something that was literally true-I have presented counterarguments to wierwille’s literalism earlier on this thread - here-and here- so I don’t see he need to rehash that again.
My man in Amsterdam! Thanks, T-Bone.
Philippians 2:6? Maybe this verse is handled in a different chapter, but it seems relevant here, even important. It's from one of the undisputed letters of the Pauline corpus speaking to the divine nature of Christ.
Victor placed Paul way above Christ, so it seems he would address what Paul wrote about this issue.
Philippians 2:6? Maybe this verse is handled in a different chapter, but it seems relevant here, even important. It's from one of the undisputed letters of the Pauline corpus speaking to the divine nature of Christ.
Victor placed Paul way above Christ, so it seems he would address what Paul wrote about this issue.
Thanks, again, T!
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantagePhilippians 2:6 NIV
wierwille does handle Philippians 2:6 in the same chapter – but he gets into it over the word equality – “equal” in the KJV and compares verses like John 14:28andI Corinthians 11:3where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” and Paul says “the head of Christ is God” – and John 5:18about the Jews all in a huff because Jesus said God was his Father making himself equal with God
the problem I see with wierwille tackling these verses is that he seems so intent on disputing the divinity of Christ, he keeps mischaracterizing the doctrine of the Trinity…I have no problem understanding the Father is greater than the Son even though in some ways the Father and the Son share common characteristics – like being divine...well wierwille acted like a know-it-all and so he may have felt compelled to explain everything - whether he could or not.
how about I’ll let you and other Grease Spotters use the Bible Hub hyperlinks I’ve given to look at parallel Bibles, commentaries, Greek text, etc., for some extra credit.
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantagePhilippians 2:6 NIV
wierwille does handle Philippians 2:6 in the same chapter – but he gets into it over the word equality – “equal” in the KJV and compares verses like John 14:28andI Corinthians 11:3where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” and Paul says “the head of Christ is God” – and John 5:18about the Jews all in a huff because Jesus said God was his Father making himself equal with God compelled he had the responsibility to explain everything - whether he could or not.
how about I’ll let you and other Grease Spotters use the Bible Hub hyperlinks I’ve given to look at parallel Bibles, commentaries, Greek text, etc., for some extra credit.
I first saw that errant problem in the late 1970s when I was listening to a tape of one of VPW's Sunday teachings. He mentioned the doctrine of the Pope being the vicar of Christ and agreed with that Roman Catholic doctrine. That inspired or motivated me to, a few years later, write the first draft of the chapter in my book titled: "Lordship of Jesus Christ Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man".
cool, Mark that's some great insight for back then
wierwille’s most vehement attacks on the Trinity, were inflammatory and galvanizing remarks made at open meetings - and were never committed to written works .
One memorable diatribe of his used a mathematical argument - saying if you moved the decimal point in a fraction, you change the numerical value of the fraction. To the best of my recollection his position seemed to go along the lines of comparing the attributes of Jesus Christ to God’s - there’s obviously some differences - and like moving the decimal point - Jesus Christ can’t be God.
wierwille’s other more familiar mathematical argument against the Trinity was using addition : 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 …but I say - why limit oneself to addition? 1 X 1 X 1 = 1 so take that, Mathletes of the Spirit!
…well… anyway…according to wierwille’s numerology-theology-demonology-psychology of nonsense when it comes to worshipping the one true God and idolatry he surmised that no matter how close something resembled the one true God it was still idolatry.
On the other hand, if one cares to consult a reputable source that holds to logic and intellectual standards - one might find there’s other ways of thinking of the inseparable oneness of the Trinity - such as in the article below. Take note near the end of the article - I think wierwille’s
excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible would qualify as bibliolatry….anyway check out this article:
idolatry, in Judaism and Christianity, the worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God. The first of the biblical Ten Commandments prohibits idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before me.”
Several forms of idolatry have been distinguished. Gross, or overt, idolatry consists of explicit acts of reverence addressed to a person or an object—the sun, the king, an animal, a statue. This may exist alongside the acknowledgment of a supreme being; e.g., Israel worshiped the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai, where it had encamped to receive the Law and the covenant of the one true God.
A person becomes guilty of a more subtle idolatry, however, when, although overt acts of adoration are avoided, he attaches to a creature the confidence, loyalty, and devotion that properly belong only to the Creator. Thus, the nation is a good creature of God, but it is to be loved and served with an affection appropriate to it, not with the ultimate devotion that must be reserved for the Lord of all nations. Even true doctrine (e.g., true doctrine about idolatry) may become an idol if it fails to point beyond itself to God alone.
the same time, Christian thought has insisted upon the principle of mediation and has rejected the charge that attachment to a mediating agency is automatically idolatrous. The Christian scriptures are called “the Holy Bible” not because they have an intrinsic holiness or are themselves the source of such holiness but because the God who alone is holy is mediated and disclosed to humans through the words of the Bible. Christians are not in agreement about the agents of mediation—e.g., about the role of the Virgin Mary and of the other saints. But where such mediation is acknowledged to be present, it is also acknowledged that reverence shown toward it applies not to the agent of mediation in and of himself but to the one for whom the agent stands. A special instance is the human nature of Jesus Christ (which is worthy of divine worship because of its inseparable union with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) and the consecrated Host in the Eucharist (which may properly be adored because it has been changed into the very body of Christ). Although the accusation of idolatry is thus a part of the polemic of Christian against Christian, so that Protestants are accused of bibliolatry and Roman Catholics of Mariolatry, the fundamental meaning of the term is the direct moral corollary of the Jewish-Christian avowal of the oneness of God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”
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
T-Bone
Okay Nathan – don’t know if this will answer your question but for now all I can think of is this…
On page 233ff of the PFAL book, the chapter titled Body, Soul, Spirit – Formed, Made, Created, wierwille says this:
The next word to observe is the word “soul” which in Hebrew is nephesh. What is soul? The soul in man is that which gives the body its life, its vitality. Look again at Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man [man’s body] of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
…The soul is nothing more and nothing less that that which gives life to a person’s body. Sometimes it is called “the spirit of man.” Soul has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian or a non-Christian. As long as a person breathes, he has a soul.
The confusion between the soul and the spirit has caused no end of difficulty for people. They say the soul is immortal, for instance. They talk about transmigration of the soul, the immortality of the soul. These are all erroneous usages of words which are used with exactness and precision in the Word of God.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
In my opinion wierwille’s dogmatic fundamentalism has probably caused no end of difficulty for folks if they try to untangle his hodge-podge of pseudoscience and authoritarianism. wierwille acknowledges in the above quote that sometimes soul is called the spirit of man. Yet he claims, “words which are used with exactness and precision in The Word of God.” Ha ! his contradictory mumbo jumbo is exposed on the same page !!!!!!
What a sloppy con artist! 
Am I right or am I right? 
As far as his other pseudoscientific claim on soul-life I quoted earlier - “God, to produce a sinless man yet one who was of the line of Adam, had to provide a way whereby Jesus would have a human body derived from Adam and yet not have soul-life from Adam’s sinful blood… footnote #9 God created the sperm that impregnated the ovum (egg) of Mary in the Fallopian tube. This created sperm carried only dominant characteristics and did what ordinarily any sperm would do to an impregnated ovum” – wierwille has used the following proof-text from Leviticus:
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Leviticus 17:11 KJV
~ ~ ~ ~
In thinking about Gnosticism’s paradigm of disconnecting the material world from the spiritual world, it makes me wonder if that was a factor in wierwille rationalizing his licentious behavior. I recall the many times I’ve heard him teach on the renewed mind and the Christian lifestyle and he often seemed to imply that the spiritual and physical realms had little to do with each other – and he would emphasize we should focus on the spiritual by saying things like “our old man nature is totally corrupt and unsalvageable – but our spiritual nature that we received when we got born again is perfect and needs no improvement”. Nowadays with a mind that is not Kool-Aid drenched, reexamining those kinds of statements he had made – it's obvious to me that wierwille was unmoored from any of the simple moral demands of the Bible.
I think what may be a related issue is Gnosticism’s spirit good / matter evil maxim - this correlates to wierwille’s body, soul, and spirit teaching – the trichotomy view of a Christian . wierwille defined soul as breath-life - which is an organic function of the body (matter) which is evil. Maybe I’m being picayune – but I lean toward a dichotomy view of humankind. I don't think the Bible differentiates between soul and spirit - but that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.
I also recall something – I think I heard Craig Martindale as one of the first TWI-leaders to refer to natural men and women (who do not have spirit) by the derogatory term “empties floating by”. Basically, this trichotomy view of a Christian goes against the biblical view that men and women ARE created in God’s image. The Bible gives no indication that spirit was lost in the Fall. An interesting study is a look into the Hebrew definition of “death” – not that I will go into great detail here – but you’ll find basically it means “separation” rather than annihilation or total obliteration – i.e., cease to exist. That human beings still retain the image of God – though it may be tarnished is suggested in such passages as Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 BOTH passages refer to a time AFTER the Fall in Genesis 3.
As it is, being a staunch fundamentalist is problematic hermeneutical-wise. In my opinion the problems are compounded when you throw in wierwille’s Gnosticism and spiritualism. wierwille’s signature intuition is adept at switching gears – sort of like a manual transmission. Something not “geared” for amateur con artists
. But “fortunately” for diehard-PFAL-fans, by absorbing wierwille-doctrine his signature-intuition-manual-transmission - through the miracle of indoctrination – is converted into an automatic transmission - that does not require any driver (aka Bible student) input to change gears – as long as they follow wierwille’s roadmap of Bible interpretation. I’m not saying diehard-PFAL-fans won’t get lost – just that diehard-PFAL-fans won’t know they’re lost – which takes all the stress out of Bible study. 
Edited by T-BoneIn the spirit of R&B this editor has got soul!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, T-Bone. I always appreciate your thoroughness and willingness to endeavor an answer.
This is among the most profoundly prescient sentences I've ever read anywhere about anything. Holy F*cking Sh!t. Damn, T-Bone... just... damn....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean?
On page 30 of chapter 2 Who is Jesus Christ? in the book Jesus Christ Is Not God , wierwille states:
…we note Jesus Christ is directly referred to as the “Son of God” in more than 50 verses in the New Testament; he is called “God” in four. (Never is he called “God the Son.”) By sheer weight of this evidence alone, 50 to 4, the truth should be evident.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
This confusing aspect in wierwille’s argument needs clarification. To me the thrust of his rationalization seems to go along the lines of pointing out the obvious - making a clear distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ as the Son. While I have no problem with that – I also sense he ignores the import of biblical imagery.
I submit that besides the miraculous and inexplicable way Jesus was born – which alone sets him apart as otherworldly in my book – he also acted with all the confidence, authority, and compassion of his heavenly Father – something no ordinary human was capable or qualified to do.
In Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, General Editors: Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III, on pages 805 & 806 under the SON entry it says:
In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons.
Perpetuating Life. In the ancient way of thinking, the life of a father is continued in his son. A major ingredient in a father’s feeling that his life on earth has fulfilled its purpose is the presence of a son to perpetuate his lineage (Gen. 15:2-4)…
…Christ as Son. There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.”
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
To be fair – wierwille has passed away so there’s no way to ask for clarification from him. I wonder if he equated Jesus Christ as being born of a woman as being less than divine. As I mentioned in a previous post – Jesus Christ was “one of a kind” a hybrid – human and divine.
After I left TWI, reading the Bible without the wierwille-colored-glasses (aka the PFAL-mindset), a few sections of Scripture really got me to reflect on his heavenly parentage and the prerogative…the right or privilege exclusive to him alone, as the only begotten Son of God:
Some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So, he said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God. Everyone was amazed and gave praise to God. They were filled with awe and said, “We have seen remarkable things today.” Luke 5:18-26
~ ~ ~ ~
In the account where Jesus walks on the water, it is fascinating to observe the reactions of the disciples witnessing this phenomenal event:
22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.
27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”
28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
29 “Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” Matthew 14:22-33
~ ~ ~ ~
The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible notes of verse 33 worshipped him – The miracle was so spectacular that otherwise monotheistic Jews actually worshipped Jesus. Son of God – Whereas in a Jewish context this could sometimes be a synonym for Messiah and not carry hints of divinity, this context doubtless implies a more awe-inspired declaration.
~ ~ ~ ~
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Matthew 28:16-18
~ ~ ~ ~
The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible notes on verse 17: they worshipped him; but some doubted. Could also be translated “they worshipped but they doubted.” For such an unprecedented event as a resurrection, it is easy to envision any or all the disciples both acclaiming Jesus’ deity and being very perplexed as to what exactly had happened and wondering if all this was real.
~ ~ ~ ~
Read these next excerpts from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount – and note how he set himself on par with the author of Scripture – God – his Father, in the way he reinterprets…or perhaps even revises the law – I marked in bold red where Jesus introduces an idea that is in contrast to or perhaps even supersedes the existing law:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
End of excerpts from Matthew 5
~ ~ ~ ~
In the book The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians by N.T. Wright & Michael F. Bird , in chapter 10 the authors ask the question Who Did Jesus Think He Was? :
…The question of ‘Who is Jesus?’ goes back to the earliest days of Jesus’ ministry. When people heard the things that Jesus said, for example how he ‘taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law, ( Mark 1:22 Matthew 7:29 ) and when they witnessed his ‘miraculous powers’, they were forced to grapple with the question: who is this man? ( Matthew 13:54 )
Modern Christians often face the temptation at this point to short-circuit the question. For many in our world, the question comes down to this: was Jesus, or was he not, ‘the son of God’ in the sense of being ‘divine’, ‘the second person of the Trinity’?...It’s important that we approach these matters the way the early Christians did, in the context of the actual questions and concepts of the time…
…The problem was that Jesus acted and spoke like several different leadership types: rabbi, prophet, healer, priest, sage, royal leader, exorcist, Cynic philosopher, and miracle-worker. Yet he was also unlike any of them. He had a unique sense of authority, an enigmatic form of self-reference as the ‘son of man’…
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
Put yourself in the disciples’ sandals. Try to lay aside any modern concepts - whether it’s wierwille’s notions of Jesus Christ, Trinitarianism, complicated theology…or whatever. What do the words and works of Jesus Christ - the Son of God - mean to you?
Edited by T-BoneMy editor is a verbose son of a gun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
So the word of God is reduced to statistical probabilities? This logic is born of in depth spiritual awareness and perception? This is how one "rightly divides the word of truth" -- statistical probability!? This is how one separates truth from error?
Or, are these four verses not in the original?
Growing up in a Christian household, I was never taught that Jesus was God. It seemed obvious that he was not, based on what Jesus himself said about himself, and It just wasn't an issue. There was NEVER talk about what others believed as "wrong." We didn't proselytize or evangelize. And no one desperately tried to prove a negative. Only humble affirmation of Truth. Again, it just was not an issue anyone desired to create, make or form.
I remember gasping in awe at how immature (spiritually/intellectually/linguistically) the writing of JCING was. I read about half of it before deciding not to waste any more time on such drivel. And I never even believed Jesus to be God! I was embarrassed for victor and for those thinking he was an enlightened glove-fitter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Nathan, thanks for bringing some personal experience into this discussion. I forget how important that is in order for other folks to find common ground. I’ll do the same in a bit – but first wanted to mention reasons why I’ve been a bit bookish on this thread (and a few other threads in About the Way forum) – not only because it’s doctrinal but also in attempting to untangle some of wierwille’s nonsense I think it’s crucial to get into the nitty-gritty of each strand to properly untwine the whole bundle of wierwille-ideology.
And in analyzing the nuts and bolts, my go-to method is using logic, getting familiar with the lay of the land (identifying key points of a particular doctrine), referencing the work of reputable scholars, review stuff I’ve accumulated from my own prayerful studies, and of course listening to other thoughtful posters on Grease Spot Café.
Not saying I’m perfect or always right – rather I’m even upfront about some of my ideas being tenuous - but at least I try to adhere to some honest / legitimate standards which is FAR MORE than wierwille ever did! I’m the farthest thing from being a know-it-all - I don’t have a dog in this fight – cuz this is just a hobby and I’m having lots of fun! I can’t think of a better reason offhand – other than I don’t put a lot of stock in anything that plagiarizing incompetent con artist put out.
~ ~ ~ ~
On a personal note:
I grew up in a good Christian home – Roman Catholic was our brand name. We never got into discussions about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or doctrines. I do remember lots of little life lessons here and there from Mom & Dad about appreciating God’s creation through observation, stewardship and the sciences…having respect for all people no matter what race or religion, and the Golden Rule – and that topic was covered a lot. I never really gave any thought to the Trinity – because in my mind the Trinity was mysterious stuff about God that goes beyond what our brains can handle…even today I still think of the Trinity as nothing more than a mental construct that might help orient me to how God works.
When I prayed, I never felt the need to focus on God the Father or Jesus Christ – I imagined my thoughts and prayers were being heard by God in general rather than a specific department of God the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit
… I’ve shared this before on Grease Spot, there’s only one time in my life when I distinctly remember calling on Jesus Christ to help me – and that was during a bad acid trip. Thank God he did! 
After I took PFAL I was so excited that I would finally begin to learn more about God and Jesus Christ through wierwille’s “ministry”…bear in mind back in ’74 the Roman Catholic Church was not real big on encouraging congregants to read and study the Holy Bible.
While I do credit PFAL for piquing my interest in stuff like systematic theology, philosophy of religion and hermeneutics, it was like taking swimming lessons from some lifeguard wannabe who can’t even tread water but thought the image would make him a chick magnet…wierwille’s PFAL was “the Word” that took the place of the centrality of Christ.
After I first took the class, I would read and reread the Gospels like crazy and would have tons of questions for my Twig coordinator – and he would direct me to stick with the PFAL reading plan – review, review, review the PFAL material and get in the next class.
+ zzzzZZZZ 
ZZZZzzz
My prayer life didn’t change much while in TWI – as far as who I was praying to – it was like before TWI – I imagined I was praying to God in general – no specific department …well, actually there was a “degradation” in my prayer life after PFAL – there was a decline in mindful prayer – prayer in my understanding, since SIT was the big deal. And after 12 years of it – when I left TWI I started questioning everything wierwille taught me – I realized I faked SIT.
In summary, like every other topic that wierwille handled – his teachings on God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit …and holy spirit
were rife with inconsistencies, fundamentalism, spiritualism, Gnosticism and…well…wierwille-isms. 
When I read the New Testament now – I see that Jesus Christ is a really big deal – and it seems like he often gets more attention than God the Father. And since I don’t find any passages that warn me to reign in that intense fascination I have with His son I figure God the Father is okay with that. Personally I don’t get hung up in trying to nail down certain subjects because they’re too big and way beyond my pray-grade .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This.
Edited by Nathan_JrSwimming with gloved hands
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
So, is it mathematical exactness or is it mathematical probability? victor, it seems, will change his methodology to fit his doctrinal whimsy. He will shamelessly contradict himself to make it fit his opinion. This is the real liability.
Edited by Nathan_JrWho manufactured VPW's errors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"In the beginning" appears only one time in the whole bible. Therefore, it should be obvious...we're not here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What are those four verses?
What did God mean when he wrote those verses? Was God lying? Joking? Was he just tired from all the writing and made some simple mistakes? Does God mean what he writes and write what he means?
(Thank God for math and statistical probability lest the whole thing fall apart from Genesis to The Apocalypse of John of Patmos.)
Edited by Nathan_JrPros, pros, pros
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I cover this with more detail in one of the chapters of my biblical teaching book with the help of the very informative biblical study software program that I use to help me with my biblical study research. The following is the first part of chapter 7 titled "Reconciliation Through Jesus Christ".
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, Mark. Do you know the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God?
Which Bible software do you use? Is it Logos? And which interlinear do you use?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here is a link to the very good biblical study software program that I use. https://biblesoft.com/
The following is the complete copy right information for the interlinear that I use.
Regarding your question "where Jesus is called God". That is a religious question only. There are NO verses where Jesus is clearly called God. If a trinitarian asks me about about the subject of the trinity. One of the things that I tell him or her, "Jesus being seated at the right hand of God is now like God with God his Father delegating ALL authority under Jesus Christ his Son for the salvation of humanity. Yet in his earthly life Jesus showed his humility by often calling himself the Son of Man, much more than He called himself the Son of God. Jesus often related himself to common every day humanity."
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thank you very much, Mark.
Actually, my question was what are the four verses vic refers to where Jesus is called God. I'm really asking about victor, what he wrote, what he meant. There may be more or less than four; there may be none, as you say -- not my question.
What were the verses victor had in mind when he made the assertion? That's the question.
I hope that's clear. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks, again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
That is a question for a person that has a copy of the book, "Jesus Christ is Not God". I no longer have a copy of this book and sold it years ago. Instead I have a better book on this subject: "One God & One Lord". VPW's book is OK, but VPW made an error with the title that he choose. A better and more peaceful title would have been, "Jesus Christ the Son of God".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Ok. Thanks. Someone knows. I'll wait.
The title of victor's book was calculated to garner attention, foster controversy and cause division. In that sense, it was without error. Though vic claimed accuracy, attention and reverence were all he cared about (along with the three P's).
We will have to agree to disagree about vic's book: it was less than ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
That is logical and makes sense. Mostly to bring attention to his book. Again VPW should have had a more peaceful title. If you have a copy of that book, you could do the research to find the verses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. If I had a copy of the book, I'd definitely do the research myself. I don't own any of his books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The Four Verses…not to be confused with the Four Horsemen…
...if there’s any confusion it’s probably from wierwille horsing around
Below are the four verses that wierwille listed…after rereading the entire chapter today just to review the explanations he gave for discounting the 4 verses as being a reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ – I will forego copying and pasting his gobbledygook here and will instead list the 4 verses and refer to online commentaries – copying and pasting from reputable sources…Grease Spot Readers take note of the hyperlinks to Bible Hub below – a convenient resource for Bible Study – for instance click on this hyperlink of II Timothy 2:15 and it will take you to the parallel verses for II Tim.2:15; the website is user friendly – by clicking on the 3 letter Translation or below it the category like commentary, Interlinear, sermon, etc. you can be pretty thorough in your study...with any of the Bible Hub hyperlinks i give below - you can go on all kinds of tangents for hours just by clicking on the various tabs / buttons - you can check out other translations, Greek text, definitions of biblical words, commentaries...so remember to have fun
Anyway…the 4 “supposed problem” verses that wierwille lists in chapter 4 Who is the Word? in Jesus Christ is Not God are:
1. And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. I Timothy 3:16 KJV
wierwille points out it’s questionable if the Greek text has the word “God” …while that certainly may be so if you look at the interlinear of I Timothy 3:16 - however even with the word being instead “who” a pronoun – the passage still seems to allude to the divinity of Christ – such as in other versions:
Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory. I Timothy 3:16 NASB
A few study Bibles that I’ve checked say this is part of a Christian hymn that starts off emphasizing Christ’s incarnation. Ever thought about that word “incarnation”? I don’t ever remember that word being used in TWI. I wonder why. Definition of Incarnation - a person who embodies in the flesh a deity, spirit, or abstract quality…In I Tim. 3:16 Paul affirms the humanity and divinity of Christ. The mystery of godliness may refer to the Old Testament symbolic truths in sacrifices that foreshadowed the salvation and righteousness of Christ which produces holiness in believers. In a manner of speaking Christ was like God with skin on – what better way to relate to His people…I don’t have a beef with wierwille offering his opinion of God and Jesus Christ. I think the real treachery was wierwille’s self-assuming role as TWI’s high priest… In the Old Testament, the high priest served as a mediator between God and the people and was the only one who had close contact with the Holy of Holies…uhm…in case anyone missed it Jesus Christ took over the job of high priest Hebrews 2:17 Hebrews 4:14
I won’t get into deep theological and philosophical musings over the concept of God – but given the individuality / uniqueness / nurture / nature aspects of people, I’d venture to say – for those who profess to believe in a higher power – that everyone will probably have a concept of God / some higher power that differs more or less from everyone else…even if we factor in the experience of those who believe they interact with God / some higher power (through prayer, meditation, inspiration, illumination, etc.) there would probably be even more diverse impressions of God / some higher power even with all “believers” doing their best to articulate the experience…just as siblings in a large family would each have their own thoughts and feelings for their parents…just reflect on the dynamics of interacting with another sentient being - it's not a one-way form of communication - interacting is reciprocal - there is something shared...perhaps even transforming to both parties.
My intent in this digression is to point out the audacity of wierwille to dictate to followers the orthodox concept of God…and Jesus Christ.
Regarding the other 3 “problem verses” I will let some reputable commentaries counter wierwille’s nonsense.
~ ~ ~ ~
2. But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8
wierwille states Heb 1:8 is quoting Ps 45:6 and basically says it's referring to an earthly king
Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom Psalm 45:6
But Benson’s commentary on Ps. 45:6 says it speaks to more than an earthly king:
Psalm 45:6. Thy throne, O God, &c. — It is evident that the speech is still continued to the same person whom he calls king, Psalm 45:1; Psalm 45:11; and here God, to assure us that he doth not speak of Solomon, but of a far greater king, who is not only a man, but the mighty God, Isaiah 9:6. For though the name Elohim, or God, be sometimes given in Scripture to some creatures, yet, in those cases, it is always clogged with some diminishing expression, signifying that they are only made, or called gods, and that only for a certain time and purpose; (see Exodus 4:16; Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6; and it is nowhere put simply and absolutely for any person but him, who is God, blessed for ever, Romans 9:5. Is for ever and ever — Namely, properly, and in thine own person, in which, as he lives for ever, so he must necessarily reign for ever; whereas David, whose throne was said to be established for ever, 2 Samuel 7:16, was a mortal man, and therefore that promise was not intended of, nor could be fulfilled in, his person, without including his seed, and especially the Messiah. And, as he here gives to the Messiah the name of God, which was never given to David nor Solomon, so he ascribes an everlasting kingdom to him, in such a sense as was never given to them. So Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre — The sceptres of earthly princes are often swayed with great injustice and manifold iniquities, which lay the foundation of their overthrow; but thou rulest with exact righteousness and equity, and therefore thy throne is established, Proverbs 16:12. From Psalm 45:6 Benson commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28
Ellicott’s comments on this are short and to the point:
My Lord and my God.—These words are preceded by “said unto him,” and are followed by “because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed;” and the words “my Lord” can only be referred to Christ. (Comp. John 20:13.) The sentence cannot therefore, without violence to the context, be taken as an exclamation addressed to God, and is to be understood in the natural meaning of a confession by the Apostle that his Lord was also God. from John 20:28 Ellicott’s commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
4. For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6
it's noteworthy Ellicott’s commentary says the Hebrew word for God is only used in reference to deity:
His name shall be called Wonderful.—It is noticeable that that which follows is given not as many names, but one. Consisting as it does of eight words, of which the last six obviously fall into three couplets, it is probable that the first two should also be taken together, and that we have four elements of the compound name: (1) Wonderful-Counsellor, (2) God-the-Mighty-One, (3) Father of Eternity, (4) Prince of Peace. Each element of the Name has its special significance. (1) The first embodies the thought of the wisdom of the future Messiah. Men should not simply praise it as they praise their fellows, but should adore and wonder at it as they wonder at the wisdom of God (Judges 13:18, where the Hebrew for the “secret” of the Authorised version is the same as that for “wonderful;” Exodus 15:11; Psalm 77:11; Psalm 78:11; Isaiah 28:29; Isaiah 29:14). The name contains the germ afterwards developed in the picture of the wisdom of the true king in Isaiah 11:2-4. The LXX. renders the Hebrew as “the angel of great counsel,” and in the Vatican text the description ends there. (2) It is significant that the word for “God” is not Elohim, which may be used in a lower sense for those who are representatives of God, as in Exodus 7:1; Exodus 22:28, 1Samuel 28:13, but El, which is never used by Isaiah, or any other Old Testament writer, in any lower sense than that of absolute Deity, and which, we may note, had been specially brought before the prophet’s thoughts in the name Immanuel. The name appears again as applied directly to Jehovah in Isaiah 10:21; Deuteronomy 10:17; Jeremiah 32:18; Nehemiah 9:32; Psalm 24:8; and the adjective in Isaiah 42:13. (3) In “Father of Eternity,” (LXX. Alex. and Vulg., “Father of the age to come “) we have a name which seems at first to clash with the formalised developments of Christian theology, which teach us, lest we should “confound the persons,” not to deal with the names of the Father and the Son as interchangeable. Those developments, however, were obviously not within Isaiah’s ken, and he uses the name of “Father” because none other expressed so well the true idea of loving and protecting government (Job 29:16, Isaiah 22:21). And if the kingdom was to be “for ever and ever,” then in some very real sense he would be, in that attribute of Fatherly government, a sharer in the eternity of Jehovah. Another rendering of the name, adopted by some critics, “Father (i.e., Giver) of booty,” has little to recommend it, and is entirely out of harmony with the majesty of the context. (4) “Prince of Peace.” The prophet clings, as all prophets before him had done, to the thought that peace, and not war, belonged to the ideal Kingdom of the Messiah. That hope had been embodied by David in the name of Absalom (“ father of peace “) and Solomon. It had been uttered in the prayer of Psalm 72:3, and by Isaiah’s contemporary, Micah (Micah 5:5). Earth-powers, like Assyria and Egypt, might rest in war and conquest as an end, but the true king, though warfare might be needed to subdue his foes (Psalm 45:5), was to be a “Prince of Peace” (Zechariah 9:9-10). It must be noted as remarkable, looking to the grandeur of the prophecy, and its apparently direct testimony to the true nature of the Christ, that it is nowhere cited in the New Testament as fulfilled in Him; and this, though Isaiah 9:1 is, as we have seen, quoted by St. Matthew and Isaiah 9:7, finds at least an allusive reference in Luke 1:32-33. from Isaiah 9:6 Ellicott’s commentary
~ ~ ~ ~
I think wierwille pitting 50 verses that say Son of God to 4 verses that refer to Jesus Christ as God is like comparing apples to oranges after you mix all of them together in a blender.
As I explained in a previous post What does “Jesus Christ the Son of God” mean? - see here - In the Bible a son is a male begotten by a father. In a broader sense sonship denotes a range of familial, hereditary, social, and theological relationships. Biblical references to sons need to be understood in the context of the extreme value that ancient cultures placed on sons…There are approximately 150 NT references to Christ as “the Son”, “Son of God” or “Son of Man.” As a trinitarian term, sonship images relationship between Christ and the Father. Building on the image of human sonship noted above, it is also a designation of honor and exaltation, heightened by the epithet “only begotten.”
In my opinion wierwille tended to water down…and worse obfuscate the unique, exalted, and divine characteristics of “the Son of God” which obviously refers to a literal physical relationship between Jesus Christ and God. How he downgraded it was by equating it with the adoption of sons Romans 8:15 Galatians 4:5 . An adopted son does not have a literal physical relationship with his father…and to add to the confusion wierwille’s fundamentalism interpreted being born again of incorruptible seed as something that was literally true - I have presented counterarguments to wierwille’s literalism earlier on this thread - here - and here - so I don’t see the need to rehash that again.
Edited by T-BoneThe editor was keeping score: 50 obvious typos versus 4 suspect typos…but plagiarism is at 100% due to copying and pasting from online commentaries :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I first saw that errant problem in the late 1970s when I was listening to a tape of one of VPW's Sunday teachings. He mentioned the doctrine of the Pope being the vicar of Christ and agreed with that Roman Catholic doctrine. That inspired or motivated me to, a few years later, write the first draft of the chapter in my book titled: "Lordship of Jesus Christ Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
My man in Amsterdam! Thanks, T-Bone.
Philippians 2:6? Maybe this verse is handled in a different chapter, but it seems relevant here, even important. It's from one of the undisputed letters of the Pauline corpus speaking to the divine nature of Christ.
Victor placed Paul way above Christ, so it seems he would address what Paul wrote about this issue.
Thanks, again, T!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage Philippians 2:6 NIV
wierwille does handle Philippians 2:6 in the same chapter – but he gets into it over the word equality – “equal” in the KJV and compares verses like John 14:28 and I Corinthians 11:3 where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I” and Paul says “the head of Christ is God” – and John 5:18 about the Jews all in a huff because Jesus said God was his Father making himself equal with God
the problem I see with wierwille tackling these verses is that he seems so intent on disputing the divinity of Christ, he keeps mischaracterizing the doctrine of the Trinity…I have no problem understanding the Father is greater than the Son even though in some ways the Father and the Son share common characteristics – like being divine...well wierwille acted like a know-it-all and so he may have felt compelled to explain everything - whether he could or not.
how about I’ll let you and other Grease Spotters use the Bible Hub hyperlinks I’ve given to look at parallel Bibles, commentaries, Greek text, etc., for some extra credit.
Edited by T-Boneall things being equal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Perfect. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
cool, Mark that's some great insight for back then
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Is the Trinity idolatry?
wierwille’s most vehement attacks on the Trinity, were inflammatory and galvanizing remarks made at open meetings - and were never committed to written works .
One memorable diatribe of his used a mathematical argument - saying if you moved the decimal point in a fraction, you change the numerical value of the fraction. To the best of my recollection his position seemed to go along the lines of comparing the attributes of Jesus Christ to God’s - there’s obviously some differences - and like moving the decimal point - Jesus Christ can’t be God.
wierwille’s other more familiar mathematical argument against the Trinity was using addition : 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 …but I say - why limit oneself to addition? 1 X 1 X 1 = 1 so take that, Mathletes of the Spirit!
…well… anyway…according to wierwille’s numerology-theology-demonology-psychology of nonsense when it comes to worshipping the one true God and idolatry he surmised that no matter how close something resembled the one true God it was still idolatry.
On the other hand, if one cares to consult a reputable source that holds to logic and intellectual standards - one might find there’s other ways of thinking of the inseparable oneness of the Trinity - such as in the article below. Take note near the end of the article - I think wierwille’s
excessive adherence to the literal interpretation of the Bible would qualify as bibliolatry….anyway check out this article:
idolatry, in Judaism and Christianity, the worship of someone or something other than God as though it were God. The first of the biblical Ten Commandments prohibits idolatry: “You shall have no other gods before me.”
Several forms of idolatry have been distinguished. Gross, or overt, idolatry consists of explicit acts of reverence addressed to a person or an object—the sun, the king, an animal, a statue. This may exist alongside the acknowledgment of a supreme being; e.g., Israel worshiped the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai, where it had encamped to receive the Law and the covenant of the one true God.
A person becomes guilty of a more subtle idolatry, however, when, although overt acts of adoration are avoided, he attaches to a creature the confidence, loyalty, and devotion that properly belong only to the Creator. Thus, the nation is a good creature of God, but it is to be loved and served with an affection appropriate to it, not with the ultimate devotion that must be reserved for the Lord of all nations. Even true doctrine (e.g., true doctrine about idolatry) may become an idol if it fails to point beyond itself to God alone.
the same time, Christian thought has insisted upon the principle of mediation and has rejected the charge that attachment to a mediating agency is automatically idolatrous. The Christian scriptures are called “the Holy Bible” not because they have an intrinsic holiness or are themselves the source of such holiness but because the God who alone is holy is mediated and disclosed to humans through the words of the Bible. Christians are not in agreement about the agents of mediation—e.g., about the role of the Virgin Mary and of the other saints. But where such mediation is acknowledged to be present, it is also acknowledged that reverence shown toward it applies not to the agent of mediation in and of himself but to the one for whom the agent stands. A special instance is the human nature of Jesus Christ (which is worthy of divine worship because of its inseparable union with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity) and the consecrated Host in the Eucharist (which may properly be adored because it has been changed into the very body of Christ). Although the accusation of idolatry is thus a part of the polemic of Christian against Christian, so that Protestants are accused of bibliolatry and Roman Catholics of Mariolatry, the fundamental meaning of the term is the direct moral corollary of the Jewish-Christian avowal of the oneness of God: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.”
From: Britannica: idolatry
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.