Did VPW plagiarize JCING?

[TheInvisibleDan]

bump

[Mark Sanguinetti]

quote:

---

A question for those who may have been involved with the Way at the time (circ.1975):

Did anyone happen to notice a decline in the frequency of healings, miracles and the like shortly following the release of "JCNG"?

I'm curious.

Thank you.

---

NO

I was a collegiate soccer player, goalie. I was slender, but very aggressive and used to get injured on a regular basis. For example, twice I tore ligaments in my fingers, badly sprained my thumb on another occassion and got badly bruised hips playing indoor soccer while diving for the ball on gymnasium hardwood floors. Later on I got a little smarter and wore hip pads and goalie gloves and the number of my injuries went down dramatically. In the mean time, I saw God heal me and others that I prayed for a number of times. This was in the mid to late 1970s, from about 1975 to 1980. And yes, I did read a copy of JC Is Not God when this book first came out in 1975. As I recall the first chapter shows the many places that Jesus Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" in scripture. This sure is not rocket science.

Actually, when the healings and miracles stopped in the Way ministry was when the Way Tree hierarchy and papal authority snuffed it out. Never again my friends.

P.S. I almost forgot about my knee injury. I had one of those too, but God healed me.

[This message was edited by Mark Sanguinetti on February 14, 2004 at 0:55.]

Edited February 14, 2004 by Guest

[TheEvan]

I know you know this, Mark, but just so the Trinitarian position is'nt misrepresented, saying Jesus is God is not tantamount to saying he's not the Son of God. i bring this up because of your reference to the number of times "Son of God" appears in the first chapter.

Tell a trinitarian of all these references containing "Son of God" and I'd imagine that either their eyes would glaze over or they'd answer something to the effect of "Yes. And your point is...?"

The hackneyed rhetoric and logic that Wierwille presented as "irrefutable" on this topic is embarassing. It was only made worse by the arrogance of those arguing the points.

The doctrine of the Godhead is an arguable point. The trinitarian position has many merits as do some of the several unitarian positions. Why all the big arguments? Many even huff & puff over the issue. Like, who's big enough to explain God? Now, I respect the Bible greatly and wish to adhere to its tenets, but unless I missed something I see no clear didactic revelation of the precise nature of the Godhead in the Bible.

[TheEvan]

Danny, I've thought about your question many times. I never saw much of the miraculous during my Gulag years, just a bunch of wishful thinking. But I did see more of the supernatural my first few years. It seemed to choke down after the "Coastal Coup" when Wierwille brought the east & west coast under his control and his first corps grads were sent out....just my experience.

[Mark Sanguinetti]

My point was to give a little flavor of this book as I remember it. Yea, it has a lousy and provocative title, "Jesus Christ Is Not God". Tear off the cover stating the title and basically I think it is a good book. The book is at least good enough to sell on E-Bay. Currently, I have 5 Way publications for sale on E-Bay now.

Yes Evan, I agree. The politics and hierarchy of the Way denomination caused it to self destruct. However, Wierwille wanted his power. I am just glad the only time I ever talked to him in January of 1984 I told him that I could not remember his name. I was kidding him, but by this time I was sick of all the name tags and the religious caste system which he gave us.

Neither do I have even luke warm regard for some of the councils throughout history which tried to dictate how believers should think, and have faith and worship. Far to much of this was nothing more than the council of pharisees.

Edited February 14, 2004 by Guest

[TheInvisibleDan]

Evan and Mark,

Thank you for very much for your thoughts.

Let me clarify that I pose my question with beliefs in mind of B.G. Leonard, Branham and the "oneness Pentecostals" concerning the Godhead brought up earlier in this thread.

Not all Charismatics held to the doctrine of the Trinity as formulated by the councils (with the possible exception of Stiles), though it's striking to consider the common manner in which they considered the "Holy Spirit" as a personality, or another mode of God or Jesus - without reference to the Trinity.

Danny

Edited February 14, 2004 by Guest

[TheEvan]

Well, rather than try to relate the miraculous or the supernatural to the adoption of this or that belief system, how about relating simple "spirituality" to them?

When I don't think it's a fault of the doctrine per se, I find in general unitarians lacking in "spirituality" compared to Trinitarians. Now that could be because of some defensiveness about their doctrine (underdog syndrome) and a tendency to be doctrinally oriented. Outside of Calvinists, I've known few Trinitarians whose religious paradigm is doctrinal. It tends to be evangelistic (in the case of Baptists) or faith-actions (in the case of older-line Protestants such as Episcopal or Methodist) or mystical (in teh case of Catholics). In all cases, I've seen more of a tendency to reach for the spirituality exemplified by the Sermon on the Mount than I have in more doctrinally oriented groups.

The fact that I worship and reverence Jesus as God only enhances my spirituality, as far as I can tell...

[Mark Sanguinetti]

Evan, I understand that alot of what we might call Unitarians were murdered in the middle ages by the army of the Roman Catholic church. Entire tribes of people were slaughtered because they would not worship the pope as God's divine representative and believed that Jesus' life began at his birth. Other than, of course, God's plan for mankind's salvation from the beginning. I heard this from a Trinitarian. If this was the case I can see why the Trinitarians would greatly out number people that might be refered to as Unitarians. So I guess it is true that an alive Trinitarian Christian would exhibit more fruit of the spirit than a dead or nonexistant Unitarian Christian.

Edited February 15, 2004 by Guest

[TheEvan]

But are "biblical unitarians" or Trinitarians more "spiritual"?

Is there a demostrable effect on the person's life that is notable superior to that of the other belief? Or is it just about 'being right'?

[ex10]

Excellent points, Evan.

I know for me personally, even though I consider myself to be a "unitarian" as opposed to "trinitarian," I have found more common ground with the trinitarians when it comes to living my life as a christian. I think it's mainly because trinitarians don't have the hangups about worshipping Jesus and exalting him as Lord that many unitarians do.

Trinitarians seem to really "get it." And I must confess, the only unitarians I know are exwayfers, who because of Wierwillian theology, have some trouble understanding such things as praise and worship, and Jesus as Lord, Saviour, King, Friend, and everything he is to us.

Worship was virtually non-existant in twi, along with Jesus. :(--> As always, my opinion and experience only.

[TheEvan]

Well, ex10, you could always hook up with a 'oneness' Pentecostal church (UPC being the largest group). There's no question they worship & honor Jesus. They are definitely unitarian when it comes to the Godhead. How do look with you hair in a bun & long denim skirts? :D-->

[Mark Sanguinetti]

quote:

---

But are "biblical unitarians" or Trinitarians more "spiritual"?

Is there a demostrable effect on the person's life that is notable superior to that of the other belief? Or is it just about 'being right'?

---

Was I suppose to answer that? This would depend on the individual of course. If someone with Trinitarian views shows godly spiritual fruit I will compliment them. If someone with Unitarian views shows godly spiritual fruit I will compliment them also. One of my closest friends believes in the Trinity. I never argue with him about it. I am not afraid to share some of my written biblical works with him and he is not afraid to offer prayer for me and to share some of his insights. One of the more recent times that we prayed together he offered an outstanding prayer and for this I freely complimented him.

Enough said.

Edited February 15, 2004 by Guest

[ex10]

Thanks for the suggestion, Evan, but I'm content with being a mainly free-lance Christian, and a part-time Methodist (on Sunday mornings) :D--> :D--> :D-->

[The Skeptical Texan]

Rafael,

When you noted that Nicea was not convened to put an end to the Arian heresy, you made a subtle, but accurate, distiction. Indeed, the Council was formed to unify the doctrine of the new state religion.

The most objective account that I've read on the topic is in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon describes the build up of the doctrinal conflict at length. Athanasius argued Jesus was homo ousion (of the same substance) with the Father; Arius argued he was homoi ousion (of similar substance) with the Father. At one point, Gibbon reports that tradesmen in Constantinople would engage strangers in a diatribe about Jesus being homo or homoi ousion. Gibbon notes that never had there been such debate over a single letter; an iota at that!

Arius won the first round, and Athanasius looked like he was on the way out. In the end, though, the Council determined that Jesus was homo ousion with the Father and Arius' doctrine was denounced as heresy. This dogma was incorporated in the Nicean Creed, minor variants of which are still recited routinely today. The Council's resolution marks the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as the unifying state religion of the Roman Empire.

Those who reject the Trinity hold unorthodox Christian beliefs and are, by definition, heretics. Not long ago, both Protestants and Catholics would burn you at the stake for that.

The reason I say that Gibbon was objective is that he didn't care much about the Trinity debate. His thesis was the either way Christianity contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Guest

[Raf]

Hmm. I guess one iota does make a difference.

[def59]

Maybe Biblefan can weigh in on this one.

[Biblefan Dave]

I think that the most beligerent Way bashers have accused VPW of plagarizing every known writer on earth. But who is JCING?

[Biblefan Dave]

Never mind, figured it out. I have not read JCING in many years. To the best of my knowledge, there were numerous references and citations given in the book.

[Biblefan Dave]

There is also a theology called Binitarians who believe that the Father is God and the Son is God, and that they both comprise the Holy Spirit, as God is Spirit. I certainly don't believe that but there are some who do.

[Steve!]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biblefan Dave:

I think that the most beligerent Way bashers have accused VPW of plagarizing every known writer on earth. But who is JCING?

---

I don't see anyone "belligerently" bashing TWI. I see people decrying the evil that they do, and I see people bringing to light the sins of docvic(praise be his name), but I don't see anyone being belligerent about it.

But what I do see is anytime a poster feels like his theology is being cut across, that poster accuses other posters of being belligerent.

And that is part of the condition known as waybrain.

[Raf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biblefan Dave:

I think that the most beligerent Way bashers have accused VPW of plagarizing every known writer on earth. But who is JCING?

---

Simply not true.

Wierwille plagiarized Kenyon, Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger. I'm trying to remember if there are any other accusations, but none come to mind. If he plagiarized anyone else on his list of people he "learned" from, I'm unaware of it. After all, who has any of Glenn Clark's books?

I agree with you that there were numerous citations given in JCING, plus an extensive bibliography, which would by itself negate most charges of plagiarism.

[TheSongRemainsTheSame]

The Research Department

uhmm

Are there any real credentials concerning The Research Department?

REASEARCH DEPARTMENT

uhmm

EXcuse me, thinks ima gonna have guffaws of chortttttles pon me porch and a smoke and a~~~

REASEARCH DEPARTMENT

whaah ha ha ha ohohoho, the whole world depended upon that little note under the door ~~~ dreamy man, gist ~~~"... why , burp, I have forgotten more than I, I mean , He knows~~

like the research department were nominated for a run the Nobel Peace Prize!!! or rather "the NO BELL Prize"

hey look there's a comma/coma "today"

awrite, wiping the laughs from my cheeks, uhmm on my face.

Uhmm just a pass by.

These damn comets play hell all these gravitational pulls ~~~ hold on ~~~ fumbling for my trusty hitchikers guide to the galaxy while driving

Edited December 18, 2004 by oneyedjackswild1 ps

[TheSongRemainsTheSame]

whoa~~~ this is like an eight month later series of replys

[def59]

Better question

did vpw/twi plagiarize JCOur promised seed?

[Raf]

JCOPS is heavily footnoted, right there in the book, so I think it would be hard to accuse him of plagiarism for it (and even if there was plagiarism in that book, I'd argue it's a minor, minor quibble). Same goes for the Passover book.

I want to make something clear, something that I don't think has been made clear before:

Getting your idea from somewhere else is not plagiarism. There's a big difference between, say, a. crediting Ernest Martin with coming up with the star information and the birthdate of Christ while writing your own book on the subject; b. Writing about the holy spirit and failing to mention you're lifting whole passages from someone else's book.