Great question! There’s various ways to answer that. I’m not sure that I’m correctly reasoning out this conundrum…anyway…my 2 cents is partly based on a key word in the Greek text of John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
In the Greek text of John 3:16 - only begotten is from monogenē which is # 3439 in Strong’s numbering system and you can see two ideas in the Greek word – mono = one and genos = offspring, stock…we could say Jesus was one of a kind. Unique…In one of my earlier 2-bit-theological-musings ( here ) I imagined Jesus as a unique hybrid in a superhero origin story…a hybrid is the offspring of two plants or animals of different species or varieties. So I think in Jesus we would find a being with a mix of qualities from two natures – human and divine…so technically I would think Jesus began in Mary…
But
there’s also the Logos to consider
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.John 1: 1, 2 & 14
Logically the concept in John 1 predates Jesus’ beginning in Mary. How do we imagine the coming together of the two distinct natures? I don’t know. How is it possible to cram godhood into a human being? Don’t know. Was “some stuff” left out? My pea-brain thinks so. I’m thinking Jesus’ brain and body was pushed to its fullest potential – and if there was a need to fill in any knowledge or wisdom gaps – or if there was a need for any miraculous power, maybe that’s where the Holy Spirit came in.
And what’s that? A connection to Marvel’s Quantum Real? A divine manipulation of the fundamental forces of the cosmos? Lots of things for me to get lost in speculation. Is there something to superstring theory? What happened when Jesus Christ was raised from the dead? Then his physical body was miraculously altered to something otherworldly…with capabilities beyond human reason. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 . I don’t really understand what that verse is talking about. But time-wise I believe it’s referring to Christ in his resurrected…changed…exalted form.
I think it was Dr Robert Solomon on The Passions, maybe someone else . . . But a person on the inside is more of a committee. . . . Not in a crazy, dissociative way . . . But we are many systems with opinions that are more important at different times. Like hunger, it's handy and directs us at times, but not all the time.
If that made any sense a Gawd should be far more mysterious than that.
Couple all that with our collective understanding changing throughout time.
Well how does accepting a Trinity a trick of an Adversary?
Isn't The Adversary's existence what needs to be questioned? I think someone did earlier.
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” Colossians 2:9 . I don’t really understand what that verse is talking about. But time-wise I believe it’s referring to Christ in his resurrected…changed…exalted form.
WOW T-Bone you may type very fast. Unless you use software that allows you to speak with your words turning into type. You would be a typing genius or a super typer. Regarding the context of Colossians 2:9. This relates to Jesus Christ as the head of the body, which also is explained by Paul with more detail towards the end of 1 Corinthians chapter 12. Here is at least some of the context of Colossians 2:9.
Quote
Colossians 2:8-12
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. (NIV)
That was like a begotten Christ from an earlier time?
Tom Bombadil tends to induce a number of questions as well.
Neither guy wore a Corps ring. That's how much raw power they had.
I think many have said this. As you've pointed out before, begotten Christ figures are everywhere in ancient literature and scripture.
But what about this threat from the johniam? We are to enjoy it while we can. I get that part. That's easy. But when we CAN'T. Is he saying we won't be able to enjoy it when we can't?
I think many have said this. As you've pointed out before, begotten Christ figures are everywhere in ancient literature and scripture.
But what about this threat from the johniam? We are to enjoy it while we can. I get that part. That's easy. But when we CAN'T. Is he saying we won't be able to enjoy it when we can't?
Yeah Malchizadek showed up on my feed last night, I had never paid any attention before. Scripture had always interpreted itself before.
I don't think anyone is directly threatened by johniam. It's clearly a defense mechanism for that reality. We each have our own reality but then we tend to interact with lots of people. So I guess shared realities are helpful. Maybe even worth arguing over. Maybe we could each change our own just a little at a time. Maybe that would change the larger shared reality.
Or we could elect a king and they could just tell us which reality to pick. And use the sword to help those not up to speed.
1 Corinthians 15:20-28
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (NIV)
A person who believes that Jesus Christ is literally God could have much difficulty with these scriptures, especially when being adamant about this subject, while hearing or reading these scriptures. Jesus Christ being the first man or human to be raised from the dead by God to live eternally with God the Father placing all authority under Christ for the salvation of humanity. Jesus Christ must reign at least spiritually until he has put all figuratively under his feet or under Christ. When the goal of God is reached with all under Christ his Son, then the Son will be made subject to God or turn all authority back to God his Father, so that God may be all in all. A question for the Trinitarians, does this mean that all humans will be God also??? I do not believe that. Instead all could be like God with God reigning supreme over all in the new heavens and earth. I explain this in the last two chapters of my biblical teaching book from the last chapters of the book of Revelation.
The Arains still had Jesus, THE Logos, begotten before creation and having creation made through him.
That is still very different than Wayworld.
Did Jesus begin in Mary or way before that?
Chronologically, in the order the books and letters of the Bible were written, the Christ who was begotten before the foundation of the world preceded the one whose existence appears to have begun when he was born of Mary.
You would think it would be the other way around. Why weren't the earthly biographies/gospels first, leading to later embellishments that ultimately led to the gospel of John and the otherworldly Jesus of Paul? That's what you would expect if Wierwille were right about Jesus being "just" a man.
A person who believes that Jesus Christ is literally God could have much difficulty with these scriptures, especially when being adamant about this subject, while hearing or reading these scriptures. Jesus Christ being the first man or human to be raised from the dead by God to live eternally with God the Father placing all authority under Christ for the salvation of humanity. Jesus Christ must reign at least spiritually until he has put all figuratively under his feet or under Christ. When the goal of God is reached with all under Christ his Son, then the Son will be made subject to God or turn all authority back to God his Father, so that God may be all in all. A question for the Trinitarians, does this mean that all humans will be God also??? I do not believe that. Instead all could be like God with God reigning supreme over all in the new heavens and earth. I explain this in the last two chapters of my biblical teaching book from the last chapters of the book of Revelation.
I’m far from being an expert or a dyed-in-the-wool Trinitarian but I don’t see the alleged problem you’re talking about. A note on I Corinthians 15:28, page 2076 from The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible does a far better job of squaring away everyone’s role in the future: "The Son himself will be made subject. The subordination of the Son to the Father is not one of divinity or dignity but one of function: God the Father is supreme, not subject to anyone; Jesus the Son, fully divine, carries out the Father’s will; the Spirit (not mentioned here) communicates the reality of God’s presence, truth, and salvation."
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
I had touched on this idea in my very first post on this thread ( my first post on this thread ) under point # 7 where I said:
“For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence.”
“The Trinity” is a short and simple way of referring to the intertwining functionality of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Of course that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.
T-Bone about 20 years ago at a church a person who aggressively wanted to preach that Jesus Christ was God. I was teaching at that church and doing some research for a teaching that I was doing. While doing research before my teaching. This person was very aggressive with me and was trying to distract me from my research. I did not have time for this person. Another person who I was working with had time to talk to this person. He read from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 with verses between 20 and 28, while explaining scriptural things to him. Then asked him when "God may be all in all" does this make us God also? Then and only then did the aggressive person walk away.
In contrast, most people who believe in Jesus Christ that I have talked to that had a denominational church teaching of the trinity were NOT even close to as aggressive as this person was. One coordinator who is called father at a local Nativity of Christ Greek Orthodox Church here in California even purchased a copy of my book to read from. Because the word trinity is not in any version of the bible that can be found. Therefore I leave this word out of my biblical teaching book.
T-Bone about 20 years ago at a church a person who aggressively wanted to preach that Jesus Christ was God. I was teaching at that church and doing some research for a teaching that I was doing. While doing research before my teaching. This person was very aggressive with me and was trying to distract me from my research. I did not have time for this person. Another person who I was working with had time to talk to this person. He read from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 with verses between 20 and 28, while explaining scriptural things to him. Then asked him when "God may be all in all" does this make us God also? Then and only then did the aggressive person walk away.
In contrast, most people who believe in Jesus Christ that I have talked to that had a denominational church teaching of the trinity were NOT even close to as aggressive as this person was. One coordinator who is called father at a local Nativity of Christ Greek Orthodox Church here in California even purchased a copy of my book to read from. Because the word trinity is not in any version of the bible that can be found. Therefore I leave this word out of my biblical teaching book.
Not sure what your point is.
Are you saying I am being aggressive or belligerent?
Are you saying I am distracting you from your research, and / or detracting from your book promo?
Are you saying you don’t have time to discuss the Trinity using the Socratic method – which involves a thoughtful dialog between 2 or more people – with a view to exposing and unraveling deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say?
What were you doing that was so much more important than what the person you were working with was doing – that you had to have them run interference for you?
Is it possible there might be another reason why that “aggressive-Jesus-Christ-is-God-preacher” (or AJCIGP ) walked away after your interference-runner read I Cor. 15: 20- 28 with your infamous follow-up question? There’s a lot of reasons! Sometimes people just walk away from an argument – NOT because they’ve been bested – but because they see it’s pointless to argue with someone who acts like they’re always right.
Trying to have a conversation with a narrowminded person can be like talking back to the TV. I do that a lot…but my TV is never interested in anything I have to say.
I was responding to what you said: “A person who believes that Jesus Christ is literally God could have much difficulty with these scriptures, especially when being adamant about this subject, while hearing or reading these scriptures”. ...My response to you was to indicate that I – as someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity – I do NOT have any difficulty in reading I Corinthians 15; and I thought the comment I quoted from the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible was clear enough on explaining the subordination of Jesus Christ was in regard to his role – NOT his divinity.
I did not respond to your other point: “A question for the Trinitarians, does this mean that all humans will be God also???” because your question seemed to me to be a non sequitur. Your statement does not logically follow from what I Corinthians 15: 20 – 28 is talking about – which is establishing new roles – NOT new identities. For that matter, would you ask a similar question of Colossians 3:11 where it says “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” In other words, would your logic ask of that verse, “Does that mean we all become Christ also?”
Perhaps we – you and I… and Johniam have been talking past each other. And maybe that’s because we each have a different idea of what we mean by the Trinity…To be honest, I think it may be a mischaracterization or misunderstanding on your part, if you think I’m saying God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are identical - one and the same. I’m saying they’re all divine…they each have different roles, yet they work together as one in unity. The three testify of each other…I really don’t care what you want to call their arrangement. I think maybe you guys might have an ax to grind cuz you’re stuck in one of wierwille’s anti-Trinity-polarizing polemics…but that’s just a wild guess – I could be wrong.
You said: “Because the word trinity is not in any version of the bible that can be found. Therefore, I leave this word out of my biblical teaching book.” So what ?!?!
as I said in my my first post under point # 7 7. Also I don’t buy into the lowbrow arguments like wierwille used – saying “the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Scriptures” is rather narrowminded …and for that matter neither are a lot of other high concept words like theology (the study of the nature of God and religious belief), hamartiology (the biblical study of sin, it’s origin, the cause and effect, its consequences, repentance /forgiveness/ reconciliation dynamic in the Christian life, etc.), eschatology (study of the end times), hermeneutics (science and art of the interpretation of Scripture) , soteriology (the study of salvation). I call these high concept words because they easily summarize big topics…
For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence...Even in the Old Testament, prophets spoke of the “symmetry” of God. Like in Isaiah 57:15 “For this is what the high and exalted One says— he who lives forever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.”
end of quoting my earlier post
~ ~ ~ ~
Maybe youshould try using the word "Trinity"...Be a leader and not a follower...you might get some more Trinitarians to listen.
Edited by T-Bone Trinity...infinity...Fruit of the Loom T
Are you saying I am being aggressive or belligerent?
Are you saying I am distracting you from your research, and / or detracting from your book promo?
NO, this literally happened about 20 years ago. The person about 20 years ago deliberately tried to change my mind into his theology. However, before I taught at a church building to other people I had much more scripturally productive things to do and that includes reading the bible.
Years ago when I was at a Roman Catholic high school and on a basketball team, the coach wanted us to say before the game the following: “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit”. I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church still has that view? Do you have that view of the trinity?
In addition with your following statement. Thank you for helping me laugh.
Quote
Maybe youshould try using the word "Trinity"...Be a leader and not a follower...you might get some more Trinitarians to listen
Different adherents to The Trinity doctrine have different views on what it means. One hard-line explanation of The Trinity is that all 3 parts are Co-Equal. One time, way back in twi, I asked a Roman Catholic if he believed that Jesus was the Son of God or if he was God. When I phrased the question that way, he said, with a look of "obviously", that he believed Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't sound like he believed that The Trinity was Co-Equal. However, I strongly suspect that, had I asked him if he believed in The Trinity, he would have said he did- again, with a demeanor that it was obvious.
So, there's room for different concepts of The Trinity, including ones where, in practice, it doesn't SOUND like a "trinity" to us. There's also a practice, around the world, of being a Roman Catholic but not embracing everything about it, feeling free to ignore or disregard official doctrines here and there. The name for that in the US is "cafeteria Catholic." (For example, the RCC officially rejects birth control methods as devices of any type, whether chemical or physical. Most RC's in the US completely disregard that, and have for more than a generation.)
So, don't be too shocked if some people's idea of The Trinity includes a concept of Jesus where he's not actually in a "trinity" while officially being in "The Trinity."
Chronologically, in the order the books and letters of the Bible were written, the Christ who was begotten before the foundation of the world preceded the one whose existence appears to have begun when he was born of Mary.
You would think it would be the other way around. Why weren't the earthly biographies/gospels first, leading to later embellishments that ultimately led to the gospel of John and the otherworldly Jesus of Paul? That's what you would expect if Wierwille were right about Jesus being "just" a man.
Then again, I've been reminded of something when watching politics in the US right now. [Specifics redacted.]
So, some people may feel no need to take action when they think something is self-evident and requires no explanation. Only when someone either messes up explaining it- or challenges it- would they need to offer an explanation, or would need to be articulated.
(To phrase it differently, if one explanation resulted in people misunderstanding, another explanation might follow, meant to correct the misunderstanding, with both explanations being correct but one more prone to being misunderstood.)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[34][35][36]
Wayferisms:
The Word, The Word, Nothing but The Word.
The Word of God is The Will of God.
It is Written.
The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ
The Word Says it, I believe it.
Do The Word.
Standard of God's Word.
Claim The Word.
God Magnified His Word above His Name
Word Word Word . . . Word is The Word . . . . . . . . (no . . . I made this one up)
4 hours ago, Bolshevik said:
The Word was there in The Beginning. John wasn't written in The Beginning. Isn't John a book in "The Word"?
The Bible is not necessarily "The Word" . . . right??
Dang Bolshevik ! We can always count on you to ask the $64,000 questions ! definitely need that for discussions in About the Way and Doctrinal forums…Socrates must be so proud of you…have you heard about the new bestseller “Is Socrates Alive Now?”
Maybe off-topic but I think when you get into a DOCTRINAL discussion on the Trinity – and since Jesus Christ is included in the formula for the Trinity and He is also called the Logos - you’re going to get into how one views the Bible and how you define the Logos... (defining the Logos is a whole other deep topic...so not getting into that right now)
And besides that, it might help us understand some sneaky and perhaps unintended consequences…and how when we were followers of TWI got “from there to here” – i.e., shifting our focus from the central figure of Christianity - which we falsely assumed PFAL was all about - to focusing on what wierwille SAID about Christ and other Christian and pseudo-Christian ideas - which is what PFAL was really about…yeah ironically wierwille tipped his hand when he made that supposedly “profound” statement “The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ”.... My ex-TWI secret decoder ring translates that as wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible replaces Jesus Christ… overrides the exemplary life, the compassionate and profound teachings, the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ… overthrows the Lordship of Jesus Christ…I don’t care what you call it I just want to see…or rather expose the deformed “baby” of his legacy that was dead on arrival...in my humble opinion, PFAL was wierwille's bad-a$$ Kool-Aid - a dietary substitute for The Logos - Jesus Christ.
Anywho…your recent posts got me to reflect on the changes to my view of the Bible after I left TWI. I’ve mentioned elsewhere on Grease Spot, ”, that scholars who have wrestled with your question have proposed many theories of how much of the scriptures are the Word of God and how much is attributable to the human authors; four of the most common are:
1. Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors.
2. Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups.
3. Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors and ancient concepts of physical science and life science may be found.
4. Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.
I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets and applies the Bible... assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos - omniscient and omnipotent - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient concepts of physical science and life science - that rules out for me the dictation theory.
I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. I believe wierwille leaned more toward # 2 or # 4.
Another fascinating sideshow of wierwille-mania is to observe that in the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 175, Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his studies and influences: “I don’t remember much of the past. I’ll have to renew my mind. Oh yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty – that’s preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses.
And in the years that followed, there were many men I learned from: Glenn Clark, Karl Barth from Switzerland, E. Stanley Jones, Paul Tillich, Starr Daily, Rufus Mosley, Dr. John Gaynor Banks, and there were many, many others. I tried to get all I could from anybody.”
Now think about wierwille’s supposed “pedigree” in light of his professed stance on the Bible being the revealed word and will of God…yeah I know – we don’t have to go over wierwille’s peculiar and dubious litany of qualifiers and half-a$$ed “research” techniques (or WPADLOQAHART for short ) – so okay – even allowing for that – for me wierwille’s pretentious claims do not ring true. It’s kinda odd to drop Karl Barth’s name – since he was one of the leading proponents of Neo-orthodoxy (see my above notes # 1 of the four popular theories on how the Bible was written ) – which holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. I remember in PFAL that wierwille was very emphatic in stating the Bible (or WPADLOQAHART ) DOES NOT CONTAIN the Word of God but rather The Bible IS The Word of God.
Here’s another idiosyncratic feature I noticed in wierwille’s-quirky-domain…which is why I highlighted in bold red Karl Barth and Paul Tillich in Whiteside’s quoting wierwille. Both Tillich and Barth are mentioned ...They are among the more important thinkers of the 20th century whose work exhibits existentialist themes. The entire existentialist theology movement has been strongly influenced by the 19th century Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard, besides the impact of others like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. In general, existentialist theologians attempted to understand a transcendent God in relation to the clear and definite form of existing humans. Maybe it’s just me – but my little pea-brain sees existentialist theology as the antithesis of Gnosticism…but who knows – leave it to wierwille’s signature intuition to play host to a potluck dinner of eclectic ideologies.
Oh yeah…back to your question, Bolshevik. In my opinion, the Bible CONTAINS the word of God. Aren’t you glad you asked?
Edited by T-Bone Neo-Grease-Spot Theory of editing…this post is not the exact words of T-Bone…it only contains…or restrains the ideas of T-Bone…I wish you could read the original draft…it’s just yo-yo
Dang Bolshevik ! We can always count on you to ask the $64,000 questions ! definitely need that for discussions in About the Way and Doctrinal forums…Socrates must be so proud of you…have you heard about the new bestseller “Is Socrates Alive Now?”
Maybe off-topic but I think when you get into a DOCTRINAL discussion on the Trinity – and since Jesus Christ is included in the formula for the Trinity and He is also called the Logos - you’re going to get into how one views the Bible and how you define the Logos... (defining the Logos is a whole other deep topic...so not getting into that right now)
And besides that, it might help us understand some sneaky and perhaps unintended consequences…and how when we were followers of TWI got “from there to here” – i.e., shifting our focus from the central figure of Christianity - which we falsely assumed PFAL was all about - to focusing on what wierwille SAID about Christ and other Christian and pseudo-Christian ideas - which is what PFAL was really about…yeah ironically wierwille tipped his hand when he made that supposedly “profound” statement “The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ”.... My ex-TWI secret decoder ring translates that as wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible replaces Jesus Christ… overrides the exemplary life, the compassionate and profound teachings, the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ… overthrows the Lordship of Jesus Christ…I don’t care what you call it I just want to see…or rather expose the deformed “baby” of his legacy that was dead on arrival...in my humble opinion, PFAL was wierwille's bad-a$$ Kool-Aid - a dietary substitute for The Logos - Jesus Christ.
Anywho…your recent posts got me to reflect on the changes to my view of the Bible after I left TWI. I’ve mentioned elsewhere on Grease Spot, ”, that scholars who have wrestled with your question have proposed many theories of how much of the scriptures are the Word of God and how much is attributable to the human authors; four of the most common are:
1. Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors.
2. Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups.
3. Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors and ancient concepts of physical science and life science may be found.
4. Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.
I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets and applies the Bible... assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos - omniscient and omnipotent - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient concepts of physical science and life science - that rules out for me the dictation theory.
I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. I believe wierwille leaned more toward # 2 or # 4.
Another fascinating sideshow of wierwille-mania is to observe that in the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 175, Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his studies and influences: “I don’t remember much of the past. I’ll have to renew my mind. Oh yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty – that’s preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses.
And in the years that followed, there were many men I learned from: Glenn Clark, Karl Barth from Switzerland, E. Stanley Jones, Paul Tillich, Starr Daily, Rufus Mosley, Dr. John Gaynor Banks, and there were many, many others. I tried to get all I could from anybody.”
Now think about wierwille’s supposed “pedigree” in light of his professed stance on the Bible being the revealed word and will of God…yeah I know – we don’t have to go over wierwille’s peculiar and dubious litany of qualifiers and half-a$$ed “research” techniques (or WPADLOQAHART for short ) – so okay – even allowing for that – for me wierwille’s pretentious claims do not ring true. It’s kinda odd to drop Karl Barth’s name – since he was one of the leading proponents of Neo-orthodoxy (see my above notes # 1 of the four popular theories on how the Bible was written ) – which holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. I remember in PFAL that wierwille was very emphatic in stating the Bible (or WPADLOQAHART ) DOES NOT CONTAIN the Word of God but rather The Bible IS The Word of God.
Here’s another idiosyncratic feature I noticed in wierwille’s-quirky-domain…which is why I highlighted in bold red Karl Barth and Paul Tillich in Whiteside’s quoting wierwille. Both Tillich and Barth are mentioned ...They are among the more important thinkers of the 20th century whose work exhibits existentialist themes. The entire existentialist theology movement has been strongly influenced by the 19th century Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard, besides the impact of others like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. In general, existentialist theologians attempted to understand a transcendent God in relation to the clear and definite form of existing humans. Maybe it’s just me – but my little pea-brain sees existentialist theology as the antithesis of Gnosticism…but who knows – leave it to wierwille’s signature intuition to play host to a potluck dinner of eclectic ideologies.
Oh yeah…back to your question, Bolshevik. In my opinion, the Bible CONTAINS the word of God. Aren’t you glad you asked?
Goodness . . . there's a lot to address . .
I found this link on the History of the Bible LINK
I've heard the Renaissance is partly because of The Eastern Roman Empire finally falling . . . and scholars seeking refuge in the West. East and West were once one, and Christianity followed. The Bible Canon appears to not be standardized until 200 years ago. Sounds like an ancient but not-ancient book. Slightly removed timeframe of the 1st Century.
Wayworld did "celebrate" Reformation Sunday . . . and like to quote "Sola Scriptura" . . . certainly makes it sound like The Bible was thing and only thing.
Dang Bolshevik ! We can always count on you to ask the $64,000 questions ! definitely need that for discussions in About the Way and Doctrinal forums…Socrates must be so proud of you…have you heard about the new bestseller “Is Socrates Alive Now?”
Maybe off-topic but I think when you get into a DOCTRINAL discussion on the Trinity – and since Jesus Christ is included in the formula for the Trinity and He is also called the Logos - you’re going to get into how one views the Bible and how you define the Logos... (defining the Logos is a whole other deep topic...so not getting into that right now)
And besides that, it might help us understand some sneaky and perhaps unintended consequences…and how when we were followers of TWI got “from there to here” – i.e., shifting our focus from the central figure of Christianity - which we falsely assumed PFAL was all about - to focusing on what wierwille SAID about Christ and other Christian and pseudo-Christian ideas - which is what PFAL was really about…yeah ironically wierwille tipped his hand when he made that supposedly “profound” statement “The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ”.... My ex-TWI secret decoder ring translates that as wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible replaces Jesus Christ… overrides the exemplary life, the compassionate and profound teachings, the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ… overthrows the Lordship of Jesus Christ…I don’t care what you call it I just want to see…or rather expose the deformed “baby” of his legacy that was dead on arrival...in my humble opinion, PFAL was wierwille's bad-a$$ Kool-Aid - a dietary substitute for The Logos - Jesus Christ.
Anywho…your recent posts got me to reflect on the changes to my view of the Bible after I left TWI. I’ve mentioned elsewhere on Grease Spot, ”, that scholars who have wrestled with your question have proposed many theories of how much of the scriptures are the Word of God and how much is attributable to the human authors; four of the most common are:
1. Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors.
2. Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups.
3. Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors and ancient concepts of physical science and life science may be found.
4. Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.
I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets and applies the Bible... assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos - omniscient and omnipotent - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient concepts of physical science and life science - that rules out for me the dictation theory.
I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. I believe wierwille leaned more toward # 2 or # 4.
Another fascinating sideshow of wierwille-mania is to observe that in the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 175, Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his studies and influences: “I don’t remember much of the past. I’ll have to renew my mind. Oh yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty – that’s preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses.
And in the years that followed, there were many men I learned from: Glenn Clark, Karl Barth from Switzerland, E. Stanley Jones, Paul Tillich, Starr Daily, Rufus Mosley, Dr. John Gaynor Banks, and there were many, many others. I tried to get all I could from anybody.”
Now think about wierwille’s supposed “pedigree” in light of his professed stance on the Bible being the revealed word and will of God…yeah I know – we don’t have to go over wierwille’s peculiar and dubious litany of qualifiers and half-a$$ed “research” techniques (or WPADLOQAHART for short ) – so okay – even allowing for that – for me wierwille’s pretentious claims do not ring true. It’s kinda odd to drop Karl Barth’s name – since he was one of the leading proponents of Neo-orthodoxy (see my above notes # 1 of the four popular theories on how the Bible was written ) – which holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. I remember in PFAL that wierwille was very emphatic in stating the Bible (or WPADLOQAHART ) DOES NOT CONTAIN the Word of God but rather The Bible IS The Word of God.
Here’s another idiosyncratic feature I noticed in wierwille’s-quirky-domain…which is why I highlighted in bold red Karl Barth and Paul Tillich in Whiteside’s quoting wierwille. Both Tillich and Barth are mentioned ...They are among the more important thinkers of the 20th century whose work exhibits existentialist themes. The entire existentialist theology movement has been strongly influenced by the 19th century Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard, besides the impact of others like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. In general, existentialist theologians attempted to understand a transcendent God in relation to the clear and definite form of existing humans. Maybe it’s just me – but my little pea-brain sees existentialist theology as the antithesis of Gnosticism…but who knows – leave it to wierwille’s signature intuition to play host to a potluck dinner of eclectic ideologies.
Oh yeah…back to your question, Bolshevik. In my opinion, the Bible CONTAINS the word of God. Aren’t you glad you asked?
VPW didn't just target Jesus and The Word, and as I now understand The Word means Jesus. (VPW said something about Jesus being The Word made flesh, but Jesus was subordinate to The Word, as God was to The Law of Believing)
The Holy Spirit was another case. . . . Get it?
God can't talk to you so he had to make you again so he could talk to the new you which in turn could talk to you. I think that's been covered here on GSC somewhere before.
He's added so many steps and this is somehow simpler than The Trinity?
It took me reading that several times - dang - that's a great one
I'm sitting here going "What the heck is Bolshevik talking about? the Holy Spirit is another case..." Then it finally dawned on me - you pointing out how wierwille subordinated God and Jesus...then - oh yeah, he didn't capitalize "Holy Spirit"...holy spirit in lower case!!!!
dang you're good! I had to work for that one....uhm I hope that was the joke - or did I misunderstand something?
and now I'll let you in on a little secret - I know we should capitalize a proper name - but the reason I don't capitalize "wierwille" is because there's nothing proper about him. and now you know the rest of the story.
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
Bolshevik
I think it was Dr Robert Solomon on The Passions, maybe someone else . . . But a person on the inside is more of a committee. . . . Not in a crazy, dissociative way . . . But we are many systems with opinions that are more important at different times. Like hunger, it's handy and directs us at times, but not all the time.
If that made any sense a Gawd should be far more mysterious than that.
Couple all that with our collective understanding changing throughout time.
Well how does accepting a Trinity a trick of an Adversary?
Isn't The Adversary's existence what needs to be questioned? I think someone did earlier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
These are great questions.
Is accepting a Trinity a trick of the adversary if one doesn't believe it is? Like when one behaves like a criminal in private.
Does the Adversary exist if one doesn't believe it does? Again, if no one is watching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
WOW T-Bone you may type very fast. Unless you use software that allows you to speak with your words turning into type. You would be a typing genius or a super typer. Regarding the context of Colossians 2:9. This relates to Jesus Christ as the head of the body, which also is explained by Paul with more detail towards the end of 1 Corinthians chapter 12. Here is at least some of the context of Colossians 2:9.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm trying to think about acting like a criminal in public but we don't discuss politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
So this Malchizadek character.
That was like a begotten Christ from an earlier time?
Tom Bombadil tends to induce a number of questions as well.
Neither guy wore a Corps ring. That's how much raw power they had.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
VPW said your criminality or devilish trickery, if unseen, is only problematic if you believe it is.
Based on this "foundational truth" I'm wondering: if you don't believe the acceptance of the Trinity is a devilish trick, is it?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I think many have said this. As you've pointed out before, begotten Christ figures are everywhere in ancient literature and scripture.
But what about this threat from the johniam? We are to enjoy it while we can. I get that part. That's easy. But when we CAN'T. Is he saying we won't be able to enjoy it when we can't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yeah Malchizadek showed up on my feed last night, I had never paid any attention before. Scripture had always interpreted itself before.
I don't think anyone is directly threatened by johniam. It's clearly a defense mechanism for that reality. We each have our own reality but then we tend to interact with lots of people. So I guess shared realities are helpful. Maybe even worth arguing over. Maybe we could each change our own just a little at a time. Maybe that would change the larger shared reality.
Or we could elect a king and they could just tell us which reality to pick. And use the sword to help those not up to speed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
A person who believes that Jesus Christ is literally God could have much difficulty with these scriptures, especially when being adamant about this subject, while hearing or reading these scriptures. Jesus Christ being the first man or human to be raised from the dead by God to live eternally with God the Father placing all authority under Christ for the salvation of humanity. Jesus Christ must reign at least spiritually until he has put all figuratively under his feet or under Christ. When the goal of God is reached with all under Christ his Son, then the Son will be made subject to God or turn all authority back to God his Father, so that God may be all in all. A question for the Trinitarians, does this mean that all humans will be God also??? I do not believe that. Instead all could be like God with God reigning supreme over all in the new heavens and earth. I explain this in the last two chapters of my biblical teaching book from the last chapters of the book of Revelation.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chronologically, in the order the books and letters of the Bible were written, the Christ who was begotten before the foundation of the world preceded the one whose existence appears to have begun when he was born of Mary.
You would think it would be the other way around. Why weren't the earthly biographies/gospels first, leading to later embellishments that ultimately led to the gospel of John and the otherworldly Jesus of Paul? That's what you would expect if Wierwille were right about Jesus being "just" a man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m far from being an expert or a dyed-in-the-wool Trinitarian but I don’t see the alleged problem you’re talking about. A note on I Corinthians 15:28, page 2076 from The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible does a far better job of squaring away everyone’s role in the future:
"The Son himself will be made subject. The subordination of the Son to the Father is not one of divinity or dignity but one of function: God the Father is supreme, not subject to anyone; Jesus the Son, fully divine, carries out the Father’s will; the Spirit (not mentioned here) communicates the reality of God’s presence, truth, and salvation."
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
I had touched on this idea in my very first post on this thread ( my first post on this thread ) under point # 7 where I said:
“For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence.”
Edited by T-Bone“The Trinity” is a short and simple way of referring to the intertwining functionality of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Of course that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong.
typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
T-Bone about 20 years ago at a church a person who aggressively wanted to preach that Jesus Christ was God. I was teaching at that church and doing some research for a teaching that I was doing. While doing research before my teaching. This person was very aggressive with me and was trying to distract me from my research. I did not have time for this person. Another person who I was working with had time to talk to this person. He read from 1 Corinthians chapter 15 with verses between 20 and 28, while explaining scriptural things to him. Then asked him when "God may be all in all" does this make us God also? Then and only then did the aggressive person walk away.
In contrast, most people who believe in Jesus Christ that I have talked to that had a denominational church teaching of the trinity were NOT even close to as aggressive as this person was. One coordinator who is called father at a local Nativity of Christ Greek Orthodox Church here in California even purchased a copy of my book to read from. Because the word trinity is not in any version of the bible that can be found. Therefore I leave this word out of my biblical teaching book.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Not sure what your point is.
Are you saying I am being aggressive or belligerent?
Are you saying I am distracting you from your research, and / or detracting from your book promo?
Are you saying you don’t have time to discuss the Trinity using the Socratic method – which involves a thoughtful dialog between 2 or more people – with a view to exposing and unraveling deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say?
What were you doing that was so much more important than what the person you were working with was doing – that you had to have them run interference for you?
Is it possible there might be another reason why that “aggressive-Jesus-Christ-is-God-preacher” (or AJCIGP ) walked away after your interference-runner read I Cor. 15: 20- 28 with your infamous follow-up question? There’s a lot of reasons! Sometimes people just walk away from an argument – NOT because they’ve been bested – but because they see it’s pointless to argue with someone who acts like they’re always right.
Trying to have a conversation with a narrowminded person can be like talking back to the TV. I do that a lot…but my TV is never interested in anything I have to say.
I was responding to what you said: “A person who believes that Jesus Christ is literally God could have much difficulty with these scriptures, especially when being adamant about this subject, while hearing or reading these scriptures”. ...My response to you was to indicate that I – as someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity – I do NOT have any difficulty in reading I Corinthians 15; and I thought the comment I quoted from the NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible was clear enough on explaining the subordination of Jesus Christ was in regard to his role – NOT his divinity.
I did not respond to your other point: “A question for the Trinitarians, does this mean that all humans will be God also???” because your question seemed to me to be a non sequitur. Your statement does not logically follow from what I Corinthians 15: 20 – 28 is talking about – which is establishing new roles – NOT new identities. For that matter, would you ask a similar question of Colossians 3:11 where it says “Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” In other words, would your logic ask of that verse, “Does that mean we all become Christ also?”
Perhaps we – you and I… and Johniam have been talking past each other. And maybe that’s because we each have a different idea of what we mean by the Trinity…To be honest, I think it may be a mischaracterization or misunderstanding on your part, if you think I’m saying God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are identical - one and the same. I’m saying they’re all divine…they each have different roles, yet they work together as one in unity. The three testify of each other…I really don’t care what you want to call their arrangement. I think maybe you guys might have an ax to grind cuz you’re stuck in one of wierwille’s anti-Trinity-polarizing polemics…but that’s just a wild guess – I could be wrong.
You said: “Because the word trinity is not in any version of the bible that can be found. Therefore, I leave this word out of my biblical teaching book.” So what ?!?!
as I said in my my first post under point # 7
7. Also I don’t buy into the lowbrow arguments like wierwille used – saying “the word Trinity is not mentioned in the Scriptures” is rather narrowminded …and for that matter neither are a lot of other high concept words like theology (the study of the nature of God and religious belief), hamartiology (the biblical study of sin, it’s origin, the cause and effect, its consequences, repentance /forgiveness/ reconciliation dynamic in the Christian life, etc.), eschatology (study of the end times), hermeneutics (science and art of the interpretation of Scripture) , soteriology (the study of salvation). I call these high concept words because they easily summarize big topics…
For me the Trinity is shorthand referring to how God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit work together. I didn’t say they’re identical / one and the same - nor do I see them portrayed that way in Scripture. So while the word Trinity is not found in Scripture - the concept of the Godhead is - which blends together God's transcendence and immanence...Even in the Old Testament, prophets spoke of the “symmetry” of God. Like in Isaiah 57:15 “For this is what the high and exalted One says— he who lives forever, whose name is holy: “I live in a high and holy place, but also with the one who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite.”
end of quoting my earlier post
~ ~ ~ ~
Maybe you should try using the word "Trinity"...Be a leader and not a follower...you might get some more Trinitarians to listen.
Edited by T-BoneTrinity...infinity...Fruit of the Loom T
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
NO, this literally happened about 20 years ago. The person about 20 years ago deliberately tried to change my mind into his theology. However, before I taught at a church building to other people I had much more scripturally productive things to do and that includes reading the bible.
Years ago when I was at a Roman Catholic high school and on a basketball team, the coach wanted us to say before the game the following: “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit”. I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church still has that view? Do you have that view of the trinity?
In addition with your following statement. Thank you for helping me laugh.
.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - I do NOT have that Roman Catholic view of the Trinity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Different adherents to The Trinity doctrine have different views on what it means. One hard-line explanation of The Trinity is that all 3 parts are Co-Equal. One time, way back in twi, I asked a Roman Catholic if he believed that Jesus was the Son of God or if he was God. When I phrased the question that way, he said, with a look of "obviously", that he believed Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't sound like he believed that The Trinity was Co-Equal. However, I strongly suspect that, had I asked him if he believed in The Trinity, he would have said he did- again, with a demeanor that it was obvious.
So, there's room for different concepts of The Trinity, including ones where, in practice, it doesn't SOUND like a "trinity" to us. There's also a practice, around the world, of being a Roman Catholic but not embracing everything about it, feeling free to ignore or disregard official doctrines here and there. The name for that in the US is "cafeteria Catholic." (For example, the RCC officially rejects birth control methods as devices of any type, whether chemical or physical. Most RC's in the US completely disregard that, and have for more than a generation.)
So, don't be too shocked if some people's idea of The Trinity includes a concept of Jesus where he's not actually in a "trinity" while officially being in "The Trinity."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Then again, I've been reminded of something when watching politics in the US right now. [Specifics redacted.]
So, some people may feel no need to take action when they think something is self-evident and requires no explanation. Only when someone either messes up explaining it- or challenges it- would they need to offer an explanation, or would need to be articulated.
(To phrase it differently, if one explanation resulted in people misunderstanding, another explanation might follow, meant to correct the misunderstanding, with both explanations being correct but one more prone to being misunderstood.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos#Christianity
Christianity[edit]
In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason')[2] is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The concept derives from John 1:1, which in the Douay–Rheims, King James, New International, and other versions of the Bible, reads:
Wayferisms:
The Word, The Word, Nothing but The Word.
The Word of God is The Will of God.
It is Written.
The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ
The Word Says it, I believe it.
Do The Word.
Standard of God's Word.
Claim The Word.
God Magnified His Word above His Name
Word Word Word . . . Word is The Word . . . . . . . . (no . . . I made this one up)
Edited by BolshevikMagnification is for those who need glasses
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Word was there in The Beginning. John wasn't written in The Beginning. Isn't John a book in "The Word"?
The Bible is not necessarily "The Word" . . . right??
Edited by BolshevikIn The Beginning Was My Post . . . And My Post Needed Editing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Dang Bolshevik ! We can always count on you to ask the $64,000 questions ! definitely need that for discussions in About the Way and Doctrinal forums…Socrates must be so proud of you…have you heard about the new bestseller “Is Socrates Alive Now?”
Maybe off-topic but I think when you get into a DOCTRINAL discussion on the Trinity – and since Jesus Christ is included in the formula for the Trinity and He is also called the Logos - you’re going to get into how one views the Bible and how you define the Logos... (defining the Logos is a whole other deep topic...so not getting into that right now)
And besides that, it might help us understand some sneaky and perhaps unintended consequences…and how when we were followers of TWI got “from there to here” – i.e., shifting our focus from the central figure of Christianity - which we falsely assumed PFAL was all about - to focusing on what wierwille SAID about Christ and other Christian and pseudo-Christian ideas - which is what PFAL was really about…yeah ironically wierwille tipped his hand when he made that supposedly “profound” statement “The Word Takes the place of The Absent Christ”.... My ex-TWI secret decoder ring translates that as wierwille’s interpretation of the Bible replaces Jesus Christ… overrides the exemplary life, the compassionate and profound teachings, the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ… overthrows the Lordship of Jesus Christ…I don’t care what you call it I just want to see…or rather expose the deformed “baby” of his legacy that was dead on arrival...in my humble opinion, PFAL was wierwille's bad-a$$ Kool-Aid - a dietary substitute for The Logos - Jesus Christ.
Anywho…your recent posts got me to reflect on the changes to my view of the Bible after I left TWI. I’ve mentioned elsewhere on Grease Spot, ”, that scholars who have wrestled with your question have proposed many theories of how much of the scriptures are the Word of God and how much is attributable to the human authors; four of the most common are:
1. Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors.
2. Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups.
3. Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors and ancient concepts of physical science and life science may be found.
4. Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message.
Notes are from Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey, pages 24 to 26
I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets and applies the Bible... assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos - omniscient and omnipotent - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient concepts of physical science and life science - that rules out for me the dictation theory.
I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. I believe wierwille leaned more toward # 2 or # 4.
Another fascinating sideshow of wierwille-mania is to observe that in the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 175, Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his studies and influences:
“I don’t remember much of the past. I’ll have to renew my mind. Oh yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty – that’s preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses.
And in the years that followed, there were many men I learned from: Glenn Clark, Karl Barth from Switzerland, E. Stanley Jones, Paul Tillich, Starr Daily, Rufus Mosley, Dr. John Gaynor Banks, and there were many, many others. I tried to get all I could from anybody.”
Now think about wierwille’s supposed “pedigree” in light of his professed stance on the Bible being the revealed word and will of God…yeah I know – we don’t have to go over wierwille’s peculiar and dubious litany of qualifiers and half-a$$ed “research” techniques (or WPADLOQAHART for short
Here’s another idiosyncratic feature I noticed in wierwille’s-quirky-domain…which is why I highlighted in bold red Karl Barth and Paul Tillich in Whiteside’s quoting wierwille. Both Tillich and Barth are mentioned ...They are among the more important thinkers of the 20th century whose work exhibits existentialist themes. The entire existentialist theology movement has been strongly influenced by the 19th century Danish philosopher-theologian Soren Kierkegaard, besides the impact of others like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. In general, existentialist theologians attempted to understand a transcendent God in relation to the clear and definite form of existing humans. Maybe it’s just me – but my little pea-brain sees existentialist theology as the antithesis of Gnosticism…but who knows – leave it to wierwille’s signature intuition to play host to a potluck dinner of eclectic ideologies.
above info from page 266 of Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Oh yeah…back to your question, Bolshevik. In my opinion, the Bible CONTAINS the word of God. Aren’t you glad you asked?
Edited by T-BoneNeo-Grease-Spot Theory of editing…this post is not the exact words of T-Bone…it only contains…or restrains the ideas of T-Bone…I wish you could read the original draft…it’s just yo-yo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Goodness . . . there's a lot to address . .
I found this link on the History of the Bible LINK
I've heard the Renaissance is partly because of The Eastern Roman Empire finally falling . . . and scholars seeking refuge in the West. East and West were once one, and Christianity followed. The Bible Canon appears to not be standardized until 200 years ago. Sounds like an ancient but not-ancient book. Slightly removed timeframe of the 1st Century.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Wayworld did "celebrate" Reformation Sunday . . . and like to quote "Sola Scriptura" . . . certainly makes it sound like The Bible was thing and only thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
VPW didn't just target Jesus and The Word, and as I now understand The Word means Jesus. (VPW said something about Jesus being The Word made flesh, but Jesus was subordinate to The Word, as God was to The Law of Believing)
The Holy Spirit was another case. . . . Get it?
God can't talk to you so he had to make you again so he could talk to the new you which in turn could talk to you. I think that's been covered here on GSC somewhere before.
He's added so many steps and this is somehow simpler than The Trinity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
wow wee wow!
It took me reading that several times - dang - that's a great one
I'm sitting here going "What the heck is Bolshevik talking about? the Holy Spirit is another case..." Then it finally dawned on me - you pointing out how wierwille subordinated God and Jesus...then - oh yeah, he didn't capitalize "Holy Spirit"...holy spirit in lower case!!!!
dang you're good! I had to work for that one....uhm I hope that was the joke - or did I misunderstand something?
and now I'll let you in on a little secret - I know we should capitalize a proper name - but the reason I don't capitalize "wierwille" is because there's nothing proper about him.
and now you know the rest of the story.
Edited by T-Bonebig E...little editor
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.