| Author | Comment | Rafael Olmeda
(8/16/00 4:23:08 pm)
| Re: II Timothy 3:17
Re: Thoroughly v. Throughly...
VPW was obviously wrong about the implications of throughly rather than thoroughly, but there is one thing he said about the whole thing that WAS correct: it is important for us to read what is written, carefully, in order to understand it.
In this case, no harm done, since thoroughly and throughly are synonyms. But there are plenty of times when a careless reading of what is written will have a huge impact on your understanding of scripture.
VPW had the chance to teach something wonderful here, but he blew it.
Blame me. I'm with the media. | JBarrax
(8/17/00 11:14:50 pm)
| Man Shall not live by bread alone
At the beginning of chapter seven of Power for Abundant Living,, Dr.
Wierwille quotes Matthew 4:4.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Dr. Wierwille then proceeds to state that "Spiritual weakness and spiritual inability can be due to an improper diet, that is, the neglect of the Word of God." He then goes on to tout the importance of scriptural understanding, saying that spiritual anemia today is due to a lack of understanding when we read God's Word. "Who has taught us figures of speech? Who has taught us what revelation is? Who has shown us the accuracy of The Word?"
These are rhetorical questions to which the intended answer is, "Only you, O man of God!" The inescapable implication is that understanding how revelation works and what figures of speech are is essential for spiritual vitality. He builds on this premise on page 95 with the following statement.
"Some of us have been instructed to read the Bible once a day, but when we are through, reading our daily Scripture, what do we know?"
Thus, according to Wierwille, the lesson of Matthew 4:4 is that man must have a thorough and accurate knowledge of the Bible in order to be spiritually vital. But is this really what Matthew 4:4 is talking about? Once again, I think VP took a verse and ran with it, ignoring its context and sprinting off toward the reverence of knowledge--and therefore himself as the source thereof. The context of Matthew 4:4 is the temptation of Christ in the wilderness. What is the crucial issue in temptation? Whose will are you going to do, God's or yours. It's about obedience.
Since Matthew 4:4 is a quotation of the an Old Testament scripture, it makes sense to look at the original verse and see what the context and lesson of that scripture was as well. Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy 8:1-3.
1 All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.
2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.
3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live
Through the magic of bold type, I've highlighted what I *think* conveys the primary message. Man does not live by bread alone, but by obedience to God's will. The emphasis here is not on an accurate thorough understanding of the Scripture, although that is always a blessing. The emphasis is not on knowing, but on DOING. Not on understanding, but on HUMILITY. These are things that were hardly if at all mentioned in the 33 hours of PFAL. From the beginning, PFAL is about knowledge and personal benefits. The Word of God is about humility and service. That's what gives us spiritual strength. Jesus Christ reinforced this truth with another declaration in which he used food to convey truth about serving God. John 4:30-34.
30 Then they went out of the city, and came unto him.
31 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat.
32 But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of.
33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?
34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Jesus' meat was doing God's will. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. What are we to do with these words? According to
VP, they're given "...so that he may renew his mind and thereby manifest the more abundant life." According to Jesus Christ, they're given so we may have strength to do God's will and take part in His work. This is another of the many places in the class where VP twists things back toward carnal concerns; namely knowledge and abundance. Spiritual weakness and inability are not caused primarily by a lack of knowledge of figures of speech and revelation. Spiritual weakness is caused primarily by disobedience, known throughout the rest of the Christian world as "sin."
The examples of the children of Israel at the battle of Ai (Joshua 7:2-12), King Saul (I Samuel 15:17-28), and even Paul in Jerusalem tell us that when we disobey God's will, we stumble and fall. When we submit to God's will, we find strength and sustenance, with or without bread and meat.
Peace
Jerry
| ready writer
(8/18/00 4:46:31 am)
| Re: Man Shall not live by bread alone
Excellent work, Jerry.
Please don't let this next point I make cause you to be angry.
Part of what twi2 was trying to do was to emphasize the doing of the Word above the knowing of the Word.
Next point: I've been blessed to think through "meat" lately (on THE thread, of all places). With the milk of the Word we grow, and with the meat of the Word we function.
And please don't let this next point I make cause you to be angry, either.
I think, in all fairness, the answer to the rhetoric questions you cite is "No one has" rather than the egotistical answer you think vpw expected.
I have begun my study of "instruction"/discipline in the O.T.
In Hebrew it is this word:
muwcar {moo-sawr'} ¤ AV - instruction 30, correction 8,
chasten 4, chastisement 3, check 1, bond 1, discipline 1, doctrine 1, rebuker 1; 50 ¤ 1) discipline,
chastening, correction 1a) discipline, correction 1b) chastening
which does correspond with paideia in the LXX in its first use, Deuteronomy 11:2.
So far, so good, and I don't see "judgment" yet.
| JBarrax
(8/18/00 7:57:12 pm)
| re:
Paideia
Hi Ready Writer, God Bless!
No anger here. All opinions welcome. Remember though, as you're studying paideia, don't be too narrow in your definition and understanding. One of the problems with PFAL is Dr.
Wierwille's tendency to give very narrow, specific definitions that aren't always supported by the way the words are actually used in scripture
(apistia and laleo for instance). Think about what the context says as well and about the broader scope of the Word as a whole.
If you look at it that way, I think if you see chastisement, you've seen judgment. What is
judgment anyway? Punishment meted for a crime committed. Chastisement also carries this meaning. Its usage in Hebrews 12:6-11 bears this out.
Note that verse 5 says "nor faint when thou art rebuked of him." No one is rebuked for doing well. A rebuke is a stern response to error. So the use of the words "chastening" and "chastisement" are to be understood in this light. With that in mind, take another look at Deuteronomy 11:2 and its context.
2 And know ye this day: for I speak not with your children which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of the LORD your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm,
3 And his miracles, and his acts, which he did in the midst of Egypt unto Pharaoh the king of Egypt, and unto all his land;
4 And what he did unto the army of Egypt, unto their horses, and to their chariots; how he made the water of the Red sea to overflow them as they pursued after you, and how the LORD hath destroyed them unto this day;
the children hadn't seen the "chastisement of...God." Verses 3 and 4 tell us what that chastisement was. The chastisement of God was the plagues of Egypt and the drowning of Pharoah and his army in the Red Sea. I'd call that judgment. More importantly, so would God. Note Exodus 12:12
12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.
(See also Exodus 6:6, 7:4, and Numbers 33:4)
So judgment and chastisement may not be the same Greek word, but they communicate the same thing.
Peace
Jerry
PS. The reason paideaia is often translated instruction is the use of punishment to teach children "right from wrong". As Proverbs says he who spares the rod hates his son. Hebrews takes that principle and applies it to God's spiritual family. Clear as mud? Good. 
| JBarrax
(8/20/00 5:29:28 pm)
| John 1:1
Chapter 8 of the PFAL book begins with John 1:1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Dr. Wierwille explains that the word translated "word" is logos, which is used three times to refer to three different things: God Himself, Jesus Christ the Living Word, and the written Word. Then VP states,
"The key to understanding John 1:1 and 2 is the word "with." If any other Greek word were used for the word "with" other than pros, the whole Bible would crumble. The word pros means together with, yet distinctly independent of. That is exquisite semantic accuracy."
Here again we have a gross distortion of the truth. Dr. Wierwille's definition of pros is more accurate than his definition of apistia, but only slightly. According to Bullinger's lexicon, the meaning of togetherness yet distinct independence applies to pros only when used in the accusative case. Out of the 674
ocurences of this word, there are only 42 such usages, all translated "with" in the KJV. Furthermore, many of those cannot accurately by translated "together with, yet distinctly independent of". For instance, should Mark 9:10 be translated, "And they kept that saying together with, yet distinctly independent of themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean."? Of course not. The proper translation of pros here, should be "among". This is also the case in Luke 6:11. Some of the
occurences of pros should be interpreted "against" (Acts 11:2, 15:2, and 17:7).
Of these 42 occurences of pros in the accusative case that are translated "with" in the KJV, only about 13, including John 1:1 & 2, can possibly be interpreted "together with, yet distinctly independent of". Others simply mean 'with'. Look at II Corinthians 5:8 for instance.
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with (pros) the Lord.
We are willing to be together with, yet distinctly independent of the Lord. We don't want to get too close. He might be radioactive. It simply means 'with'. The concept of being one with the Lord in the ONE body of Christ is undermined by VP's definition. This is also the case in I Corinthians 2:3, 16:6, and Galatians 4:20. So VP's definition of pros only applies to about 13 of the 674 New Testament uses of this word.
What of VP's assertion that if any other Greek word were used, the whole Bible would crumble?
What about the Greek word meta? It too is translated "with" and is so similar in meaning, that the two words are used in the same verses in the same context. Consider II Corinthians 6:14-17.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with kai [and] unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with pros darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with pros Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with meta an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with meta idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
What exquisite semantic accuracy demands that pros be used in verses 14 and 15, and meta in verse 16? To draw arbitrary distinctions between these two prepositions and declare it "exquisite semantic accuracy" is to invite folly. To use Wayspeak, it's "private interpretation". The only reason for VP's unsubstantiated claim about the use of pros in John 1:1 is to counter the Trinitarian argument that the verse means that Jesus preexisted his physical birth. The Trinitarians may be wrong, but grossly distorting the truth to dispute error cannot be justified.
This verse isn't the only one VP slanted in order to stunt the arguments of others. His assertions that there's no water baptism in the book of Acts are equally erroneous. The Apostles forgot the commandment of the Lord and water baptized people for years. VP apparently reasoned that if he presented it accurately, the Baptists' theology would be supported, so he distorted the truth to undermine their theology with his.
This study says a lot about Dr. Wierwille's assertion that each word in the Word is perfect and that the order of the words is perfect. This idea has taught us to focus too narrowly on a specific usage of one or two Greek words and ignore context, and the larger truths of the Bible. The fact is, those of us in the "word study" school, have been following the example of a man who faked it. The Word, as VP presented it, doesn't "fit like a hand in a glove". It fits like a square peg pounded into a round hole.
Peace
Jerry
| Mandii
(8/20/00 8:02:33 pm)
| Re: Jerry
Great work you're doing here, Jerry. I wish I had a printer so I could print this all out.
Just two thoughts. About not living by bread alone, but humility and obedience and God's Will first. I thought about the scriptures in the gospel where Jesus told the people not to follow him because he feed them, but rather to 'labor for the meat that doesn't perish.' In obeying the Lord and seeking more than just having our bellies full.
I was wondering. When Peter went before the Church in explaining why we went unto the gentiles, was he making a bigger explanation of how he dared to defy the old law in doing so or was explaining his use or non use of water baptism? I know VP (from my recollection) leaned more heavily on this verse to say that the 'greater replaced the lesser,' and that water baptism was out. But when I read the verse, I see more of an emphasis on Peter justifying his visit to the gentiles and declaring how God had made the gentiles righteous also.
Mandii | JBarrax
(8/20/00 10:42:00 pm)
| Peter in Jerusalem
Thanks Mandii.
I agree that the contention in Jerusalem was not about water baptism, but about Peter having broken the law. As I recall VP did mention that later in the class when he taught about the Gentiles having received holy spirit. The enormity of Peter having gone to a Gentile's house is difficult for us to understand, but some of it can be seen in the preceding chapter of Acts by noting how hard it was for God to get Peter to step beyond the Law. ["Not so Lord!...]
Btw, I'd like to offer a word of further explanation about the danger of word studies. Our penchant for word studies if fueled I think by the way Dr. handled specific Greek words and their definitions. As I've posted above, his definitions were not always based on thorough study, but there's a deeper problem. It is inherently unwise to do a "word study" and think we're looking at the inherent accuracy and precision of God's Word. Ironically the reason why is provided by VP himself in PFAL.
Remember the teaching about how we got the Bible? Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, and the men wrote what God told them, using *their vocabularies*. But not all the prophets of the Bible had equal vocabularies. So what happens if you're trying to study a certain subject and you do a 'word study'? Well if you want to study our adversary and decide to learn all there is to know by doing a word study of "diabolos", you'll start in Matthew and proceed through the New Testament and end in Revelation. But you won't find this word in Mark. Perhaps Mark didn't have the word "diabolos
[or its Aramaic equivalent, for all you gmir fans]" in his vocabulary. You'll
completely ignore Mark's gospel and miss whatever God revealed to Mark in *his* vocabulary.
There are other instances in which a word may be used by different writers in a slightly different sense. Perhaps because of the differences in their understanding and usage of the same words, their will be variations in their usages of it. The Greek word
katalambano, for instance is used by Mark, John, Luke, and Paul. But Mark and John use it to mean
'seize or take forcibly' (Mark 9;18, John 1:5, 8:3 & 5). Paul uses it in a similar sense meaning to 'attain' or "receive" (Romans 9:30, I Cor. 9:24, Phillipians 3:12 & 13). But Luke uses the same word in Acts as 'perceive' (Acts 4:13, 10:34, 25:25). so if we were to follow VP's example and offer an exquisitely accurate definition of "to take by force; to seize violently or overcome" we'd be right in Mark and John. But what would we have in Acts and Paul's epistles? "Error upon error."
So what of Dr. Wierwille's teaching that the words of the Word are perfect? Not so. The meanings of the words in the Word
fluctuate according to the writer's vocabulary and usage thereof. So we can't trace a word through the Scripture and treat it like a molecule in a test tube. This is why we must also consider the context, the topically related scriptures, and the scope of the entire Word.
Peace
Jerry
| srkingsley14
(8/20/00 11:04:55 pm)
| mis-quotes
One of the things I noticed on about my third time through the class on tape, but never dared to speak of lest I get "reproved" is that Dr. Wierwille literally mis-reads, mis-quotes, the first five scriptures he turns to.
Just an observation,
Stephen
| Sunlight8
(8/21/00 8:20:33 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
Jbarrax, first I would like to express my gratitude for this thread. I have regained my desire and joy to study again because of it. That is a big deal for me.
While we’re on the subject of study skills, I wanted to point out some basic elements of critical thinking skills. Not only must we look for things like have been mentioned, but also for unsupported leaps in logic, or concepts arbitrarily stuck together that are also unsupported. Also unsupported interpretive meanings.
For example (I know this has been brought up, but I wanted to bring out some specific points):
John 10:10. This is the BIG TWI verse. We were told the thief is the adversary. The context doesn’t support that. Jesus was speaking directly to the Pharisees, contrasting his ministry against theirs who did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Establishing that bias (the thief is the adversary) provided the basis for an entire ministry and thousands of teachings all relating back to a false premise. If the foundation is faulty, the rest of the building is…? You can get the adversary in on verse 12 (the wolf). Maybe. Until then he is describing “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: (verse 8) . All implies more than one. If the thief of verse 10 is the adversary, then we are really in big trouble, because that means there are many. The word for both thief and thieves from what I can tell is the same word, kleeptes. That’s as far as my knowledge of Greek can take me on this. Whether singular or plural, verses 11 and 12 cont. to elaborate on verse 10, this time substituting the thief for hireling. The adversary can’t be a hireling. As far as I know God never put the adversary in charge of the sheep, but rather leadership who were fallible and sometimes false shepherds who fed themselves of the flock (see EZ 34). The promise of the one true shepherd as expressed here and elsewhere is that Jesus could and would do what leadership (men) could not and would not do because the sheep did not belong to them.
Next we are told in so many words that God wants us to have an more than abundant life, which is true (at least I am pretty confident God doesn’t wish us harm). But, we are led to believe something different than Jesus really intended by abundant. To know what Jesus meant, we have to look at the context where we learn it consists of 1. Saved, shall go in and out, find pasture (verse 9), 2. Protection (verse 12), 3. Not plucked out of his hand (Jesus or God’s), never perish, eternal life (verse 28) .
Next, we are told how to receive it. WAIT. Does the context tell us the way to receive the more than abundant life is by way of VPW’s five keys and the law of believing ? No it doesn’t. There are actions on the part of the sheep that are indicated. Verses 24-28 make it plain that those who are his sheep will believe Jesus was/is the Christ, and therefore know and hear his voice, and follow. The access to the more than abundant life seems to be first be one of the sheep, and second is to believe he is the Christ. The hearing, knowing and following relate to respond to the call to get born again. We are not asked in John chapter 10 to do more than that as far as I can see. If the condition to receiving the more than abundant life is to get born again, and if we are, then why are we doing VPW’s keys to receive something we already have???? I’ll tell you why. VPW said most Christians fail to live an abundant life, never mind more. And that is based on? It is a false test to convince us it is possible to be born again and not have what we already have. Therefore we must do something more. Also, we must protect ourselves from the thief (by our believing) so he can’t steal it. Yes, well.
I guess the thing that galls me the most, is in the class we are directed to do the opposite of what John 10 teaches, which is, we are to direct our reliance on the Shepherd and not the hireling (he does after all know the Word like it hasn’t been known…). Further, Jesus Christ is the door, the entrance, the way into the more than abundant life, so why do we need VPW’s substitute entrance (keys)?
What thinkest thou, Waydalers?
Sunlight
Edited by Sunlight8 at: 8/21/00 8:20:33 pm
| Sunlight8
(8/21/00 5:23:50 pm)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW
OK, I confess, I am confused. I originally wrote my above post in a word processor, and copied it here. Unfortunately my eights transcribed as smiles, which I have tried unsuccessfully to edit. The first smile should be verse 8. The second should be verse 28.
Sunlight
| JBarrax
(8/21/00 7:06:49 pm)
| smiley sheep
HI Sunlight. Great post. I'm thrilled this thread has blessed you. I think you'll find some of your observations echoed in my original post on VP's having taken John 10:10 out of context. Your comments on the definition Jesus gave for the more abundant life are well stated.
I think if you re-edit your post and uncheck the emoticons option in the "Posting options" box at the bottom of your screen your numbers will read properly.
Peace
Jerry
| Sunlight8
(8/21/00 8:26:55 pm)
| PFAL review
Thanks, J, it worked!!!
Re this thread, it is honestly the best I have read on Waydale so far, in terms of being productive for me personally. I had about given up on knowing what in the world to do with the Bible, or if I even wanted to.
Thanks again J for igniting that fire for God in me one more time.
Much love, sunlight
| JBarrax
(8/26/00 8:26:25 pm)
| In the beginning was the Word
Hi again all. I've had my hands full the past 8 days or so studying John 1:1 and its implications. I still have a few questions, and I'm sure some here will object to my conclusions, but I have at least arrived at what I think is a clear opinion of what VP wrote about this verse.
There are two aspects of this topic I'd like to address; Dr. Wierwille's definition of the word logos as it's used here and his explanation of the Word being with God in the beginning.
First the logos: On pp 101-102 of PFAL, VP wrote, "The word used in this verse is both the written Word, which we speak of today as the Bible, and Christ, the word in person."
At first, I was concerned that this was another example of unfounded opinion being inserted in the text because there is no mention of the written word anywhere in the context of John chapter one. This passage goes through verse 18 and it is quite clear that here the word "Word" means Jesus Christ.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.
The Word of verse 14 is obviously not the Bible, it's the Word in person, Jesus Christ. So it appears at face value that Word of verse one would be Jesus Christ also. And it is. But the
written Word must also be included because the living Word and the written Word are
inseparable. And, as VP stated, the Word and God are inseparable. That's why, when it says, "...and the word was God.", it doesn't mean Jesus was or is God, but that God and His Word, (living and spoken and written) are one.
John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
So the words of Christ cannot be separated from the person of Christ and the person of Christ cannot be separated from the person of God. This explains the statement in John 1:1 "...and the word was God.".
Now for the IN THE BEGINNING teaching. As we've noted above, Dr. Wierwille's explanation of the "in the beginning" part falls short. His limited definition of pros is intended to
dispute the belief that Jesus was in some way present in the beginning with God. He then goes on to say Jesus was present only in God's foreknowledge.
"This is its remarkable usage because it refutes the erroneous teaching that in the
beginning, Jesus Christ was with God to start everything...The written word was also with him. How? In what you and I would express as, "in the mind of God." "
While it is true that God foreknew both Christ and us, I don't think this interpretation gives us a full understanding of John's gospel. According to John, Jesus repeatedly stated that he had an existence in heaven prior to his earthly ministry.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
John 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
This is not, btw, a comprehensive list, but you get the point. John is loaded with
declarations that Jesus existed with God before his birth. If this was only in the mind of God, he would not have been special in this regard because God is omniscient and foreknew all of us. So if Jesus "was before" only in God's foreknowledge, these statements are illogical and meaningless. The following is one of the most remarkable in this regard.
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Jesus had glory with God before the world began. This statement cannot be fully explained by the mind of God teaching. So what do we do with it? Of course, most Christian ministers would interpret this as an endorsement of the divinity or deity of Christ. I don't think that argument holds water either. So we have two doctrines neither of which explains these verses. What to do? Invent a new one! lol Seriously, I think a new look at Jesus preexistence is necessary.
How could Jesus exist and have glory with God before he was born? Well remember Enoch? Genesis and Hebrews tell us that since he pleased God, God translated him that he should not see death (Genesis 5:11-24, Hebrews 11:5). If you'll recall, back near the beginning of this thread, I
theorized that God translated Enoch by moving him forward in time to the third heaven and earth. Of course there's no way to determine for certain, but, as Rafael said, it "fit the facts". Well, if God could and would translate Enoch forward to be with him in paradise...(taking a deep breath) certainly God could and would translate Jesus Christ backward in time to be with Him in the beginning. That Jesus was present in the beginning is attested to not only in John but in Colossians. The KJV mistranslates these verses to indicate that it was Jesus who did the creating, and TWI misrepresented them to say that it was God who was the subject, but I think they speak of Jesus having been present at the time of creation.
John 1:2 All things were made by (dia: through) him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by (en: in) him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by (in) him, and for (eis: unto) him:
17 And he is before all things, and by (in) him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
According to these verses, God created all things in heaven and earth by and through Jesus Christ. He could do that because he lifted Jesus out of the linear time stream and brought him backwards. So this begs the question, 'when did God do this'? Well, purely my opinion here, but I think it happened, from our linear perspective, when he took him up into heaven. When he lifted Jesus out of the confines of physical space, he lifted him out of the confines of time as well and placed him at the starting point. Remember John 17:5? As the time of his crucifixion and resurrection drew near, Jesus prayed, "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. He was anticipating the point in physical time at which God would take him up to heaven and back to his preexistent glory.
Thus Jesus existed in heaven before his physical birth. That's why he said repeatedly that he had come down from heaven, and asked his disciples "what and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?" Heaven is not just a place above earth. It's the spiritual realm, in which time has no meaning (" But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day").
Well, that's enough heresy for now I guess.
Peace
Jerry
| Larry P2
(8/27/00 10:13:29 am)
| Re: mis-quotes
For all of us who noticed EXACTLY what srkingsly14 noticed - the realization that VPW was dishonestly and willfully misconstruing scripture over and over again - it was a gut-wrenching,
devastating experience. And believe me, that was the LAST thing I wanted to notice.
I worked hard at getting those impressions out of my head, setting them aside, suppressing them, trying to keep an open mind receptive. I lived uneasily with this blatant fraud for about another two years, and when my twig leader quipped that "Dr."
Wierwille taught the Holocaust never happened, that was the end of my association with this swill.
For VPW, scriptures were a malleable, fluid sort of product, easily manipulated in various and sundry self-serving directions.
I still don't know whether I will ever recover enough to read the Book in any depth again.
| swankeep
(8/27/00 1:45:00 pm)
| PFAL REVIEW: "PRE-EXISTENCE"
LARRY P2 said:
"I still don't know whether I will ever recover enough to read the Book in any depth again."
Well, Larry, THAT explains some things: Your hilarious responses in another thread about perfect sperm frozen in space to impregnate Mary. (No offense intended, by the way. It was a perfectly LOGICAL series of responses in light of the "information" which had been presented there!)
On 7/22 MOSES848 said:
"God is in the paradox not in the mathamatical exactness..." and "don't always look for the logic..."
I just began reading this thread this morning, and am only about half-way through it. I came over here because I've been keeping up with the "Administrations" thread started by Steve Lortz, and he recommends this one as well.
(MANDII, sometimes I wish I *didn't* have a printer! I've used up so much expensive toner in my laser printer!)
Having said all that (and now, OH LORD, MORE TONER WHEN I PRINT IT OUT!) I really wanted to comment on the very points this thread is presently addressing, and how they cooincide with the above comments by both Larry and Moses.
Once I heard a very trinitarian minister speak of the pre-existence of Christ this way: "He was in the loins of the Father from all eternity."
Although I am not aware of any actual scripture verse which says such a thing, it has always stayed with me as a marvelous figurative way to express the reality that Jesus was ALWAYS the Father's center and cause and focus for His plan! (Rather than the "come-from-behind" approach which says He simply came to patch up Adam's mistakes.) It reminds me in a "condecencio" way of earthly fathers who plan out their whole estates with their first-born son in mind!
As for the Word being in the beginning, remember that the Word was the spoken Word before it was the written Word, and after that the Word made flesh...
I recently had a conversation with a Jewish man who, upon translating for me, word by word, the very first verse in the Bible, (Gen. 1:1) followed with: "The foundations of the universe were erected with this word, hence lamb slain from the foundations of the earth/author of life."
What strikes me again and again when I speak to people who understand and think in the Hebrew language is that the Word is not something which can be CAPTURED AND KNOWN, but must be PURSUED CONTINUALLY. The reverence for God and the Word of God is not less in such people, but more!
My earliest experiences as a graduate of PFAL were related more to the idea of "capturing" the Word! (I'll never forget going to my Baptist neighbor, back in 1974, the week I graduated, and telling her about 4 crucified!!)
Thanks for this thread!
SHALOM!
| D A Reed
(8/27/00 6:43:13 pm)
| PFAL Review
Greetings!
JBarrax, in response to your recent post I have a few comments and questions. You are correct to say that the NT clearly teaches that Christ pre-existed his
earthly ministry. However, to be honest, your new interpretation of this fact has several logical and exegetical problems.
You suggest that God transported Christ back to the beginning of the universe (similar to the way in which you believe God transported Enoch forward in time to the Kingdom). This seems highly dubious for several reasons. First, it does not seem to survive a shave with Ockham's razor - which states that one should not add to a theory any more than is sufficient. Another way to put this is to say that the simplest explanation is usually the accurate one. Christianity's theological reflection about this was determined long ago during the first few decades of the Christian Church. Second, I find it almost impossible to believe that this is what John and Paul were thinking when writing these things down for the Church to hear, understand, and apply to life. Such an esoteric doctrine as the one you suggest would need to have been explained, defended and applied to the life of believers at the time. Clearly, it is not done - at least in the NT. Rather, it was universally believed and taught by the apostles and their successors that Christ was not only present at the creation of the world, but He, in fact, also had a role in its very creation. Third, you propose that John 17:5 be considered as evidence for God lifting Jesus out of time and placing Him back at the beginning. However, if we read and understand Jesus' words literally, this is not what He means. If it was, Jesus would have needed to use the future tense and not the aorist tense (past). In other words, Jesus would needed to have said, "glorify Me with the glory which I will have with You before the world was." Instead, Jesus uses the aorist (past tense) to indicate that He is recalling the glory He had with the Father - not a glory that He has yet to experience.
This leads to another exegetical statement you made. You claimed that the KJV "mistranslates" Colossians 1:15-20 to suggest that Jesus did the creating. You also state that "I think that they speak of Jesus having been present at the time of creation." However, what the passage is saying about Christ does not line up with your suggestion. To illustrate this, let me include some paragraphs from a post I made on another thread recently (these are interwoven along with my discussion of JBarrax's post).
Colossians 1:15-20 is one of three examples of early Christian hymns found in Paul's writings. Most likely Paul did not author these himself, but quoted from songs which were familiar to both him and his readers for emphasis and edification. The other two are Philippians 2:6-11 and 1 Timothy 3:16. The identification of these passages as examples of early Christian hymns began with the German scholar Ernst Lohmeyer in 1928. This has become the dominant view - and mine as well. In Greek the beginning of the passage begins with "hos" which is similar to other hymn-like material in the NT - most notably, Philippians 2:6-11, I Timothy 3:16, and even Hebrews 1:2b-4. It is well known that the Mediterranean world in the first century was full of pagan hymns. A former professor of mine once wrote that the early Church may have composed hymns to Christ to "match or outstrip" the religious thinking of their culture. Also, the structure of the passage, identified as a V-shaped narrative pattern (depicting Christ's cosmic victory) strongly suggests it is a hymn or hymn fragment. The lack of traditional Pauline language and syntax structure also lends to this idea. The reason I state this is to illustrate that Paul was using lines that were likely already familiar to his readers. They already understood them to mean what they were plainly stating. To summarize, in this passage Christ is identified as the Creator, sustainer and redeemer all wrapped up into one person - Jesus of Nazareth.
There are two strophes (stanzas) in this hymn. Each begins with "hos" (Who) - one in verse 15a ("Who is the image") and the other in 18b ("Who is the beginning"). Each of these phrases is followed by a relative clause that begins with "hoti" (because). In verse 16 it reads "because in Him all things were created." The particular use of the preposition "en" here is refered to as an instrumental of agency. This indicates that the subject is the personal agent either upon whom or by whom the verbal clause is referring. Clearly, Colossians 1:16 states that it was "in Christ" that "all things were created."
In addition, you seem to be making a distinction between the meanings of "dia" and "en" in reference to John 1:3. The preposition "dia" used here is an ablative of agency - meaning that the subject is the agent (doer) of the verbal phrase. Hence, Jesus is agent who is the one responsible for the making of "all things" according to John. You seem (I assume) to want to say that it should rather be taken as an accusative of relationship. This is impossible since in John 1:3 "dia" is in the genitive case and no the accusative case.
Getting back to Colossians now, the second strophe (stanza) begins in verse 19 and reads, "because in Him the fullness..." Also note that each portion of this hymn has similar phrases near their end. In verse 16 it states that "whether thrones or dominions...", and in verse 20 it states "whether things on earth or things in heaven..." The passage continues to pound home the same theme - in Him, through Him, for Him, He Himself - all stressing the Christological focus of the hymn of praise to the cosmic Christ (if I may borrow a Barry McGuire phrase).
In reference to Colossians 1:15, the work "image" (eikon) carried one of two meanings in the first century. It may mean either "illustration" (as an image on a coin), or "depiction" (speaking of its being or essence). The context of the passage favors the latter.
Also, the KJV's translation "of every creature" is not the best way to translate this phrase. It should be rendered as "all creation." This is clearly the context, given the next phrase Paul uses refers to "all things." In another post I mentioned that one person argued that this passage teaches that Christ was a "creature" because it states that He was "born." Actually, it refers to Him as the First-Born - a metaphor intended to recall to the readers minds what YHWH said of the Davidic king in Ps. 89:27, "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Hence, Colossians does not state that Christ was merely a creature. In addition, the word "first" in "first born" is intended to indicate Christ's own priority over all things and not any sort of temporal succession. This hymn stresses Christ's priority and supremacy over creation, not His creatureliness.
Finally, this hymn has its origin in the Wisdom literature of the intertestimental period which personified Wisdom as coming from God by 1) itself being eternal, 2) perfectly representing God's nature, and which 3) had a part in the creation of the universe. Paul explicitly applies each of these ideas directly to Jesus Christ. To Paul Christ was the personal (not personified) and incarnate Wisdom of God.
Finally, Christ is not only the head of the Church in verse 18 He is also the Creator and sustainer of the world (Col. 1:15-16, Heb. 1:3).
Though you are correct to identify VPW's teaching that this passage refers to God the Father and not to Jesus the Christ for what it is - false. However, you seem to be trying to avoid what the NT clearly teaches about Christ. Having known many people from TWI I can understand why. I gently suggest that you consider that Jesus actually does share in the Divine nature. If so, I believe that these verses will become clearer and not have to be subjected to, at times, torturous attempts to fit them all together with a new teaching. The apostles and other early Church teachers laid down what they were saying about Christ.
Also, I feel I must also respond to Larry P2 said. I pray for all of those who have been spiritually damaged by VPW and TWI (in whatever formation). If you allow yourself to be open to God He can heal any pain or mental block that exposure to TWI may have created in your soul. God is all powerful, and that certainly includes TWI heresies. If you are interested in chatting with me about this, you can e-mail me privately. My address is in my profile (just click on my name).
Forgive the length of this post, but I thought the issue merited considerable attention.
Grace and peace,
- David
Colossians 1:13-14
| JBarrax
(8/27/00 7:12:42 pm)
| Re: The Living Word
"Thanks for this thread"
You're welcome Swankeep.
You make some excellent points regarding the living word. I was going to mention the spoken word
separately in my comment on John 1:1 but I deleted it, thinking it would cause confusion. When Jesus exhorted his disciples to continue in his word, they didn't have a stenographer on hand. They had to continue in his spoken word before they had the opportunity to continue in the written word.
This brings up another point that's been the subject of some controversy in Wayville. Dr.
Wierwille made the statement that the word takes the Master's place in our lives via the renewed mind. The first place this comes up is in at the end of "chapter nine".
This is one of the most commonly mentioned teachings when PFAL errors are discussed. CES has made a major effort to overturn this doctrine by teaching that Jesus isn't absent and that, as our Lord, his guidance is to be sought daily.
As much as I would like to believe this and have such a relationship with our Lord, I cannot concur. I've looked into this topic numerous times from the Word and have reviewed it yet again this week. From what I can see, both from John and the epistles, Jesus really is absent and His word and the gift of holy spirit are to be our comfort and guide until He returns. II Corinthians 5, in the context of Christ's return, speaks of being absent from the Lord. I don't see how we can accept that we are absent from the Lord and deny that the Lord is absent.
1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
Throughout the gospels we find Jesus' prophecies of his departure. He repeatedly told his followers he would only be with them a short time.
Matthew 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
John 7:33 Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.
34 Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither ye cannot come.
John 13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
So since Jesus was about to depart, what did he tell his disciples to do in his absence?
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
In his absence, he left the disciples his Word and the gift of holy spirit. These are to be our guidance in his place until he returns. You may say that's not much comfort, and I agree. We all still long for the personal presence of our Lord. Our "reunion" with him is our hope. He alluded to that hope and his eventual return in the same context in which he offered the promise of the comforter.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Consider also I Corinthians 1:7-9, which declares that we are called unto the fellowship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but does so in the context of the gathering together, and I Peter, in which Peter refers to Christ as one whom we love having not seen.
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
I Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not,
yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
If fellowship with Christ was still available after His ascension, I'm sure Peter would have known about it. Conversely, he declares that we see him not but look forward to praise and honour and glory at his appearing. Likewise I Corinthians 13:12 says "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." We see through a glass darkly, as opposed to the face-to-face relationship Christ had with his disciples because he is in heaven, where he ever liveth to make intercession for us.
Without going through each record in Acts, let me say briefly that I don't believe the scripture says Ananias or Stephen saw Jesus Christ in person. Paul did on the road to Damascus, and his account of that meeting reinforces VP's teaching that Jesus is now absent.
I Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Paul was the last one to see Jesus Christ on earth, and he said that meeting was "out of due time". If we were to be chatting with the Lord; if he were visiting saints around the world, as we would like to believe, this statement is meaningless. Finally, let's consider what Jesus Himself said to his disciples about asking him for guidance in this age. He spoke prophetically about that subject before his 'passion'. The record, as VP would say, is in John chapter 16.
19 Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me?
20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.
22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.
23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Jesus said he would see them again after the sorrow. I believe refers to his resurrection. At the resurrection, the sorrow of their loss was turned to joy. Of that time and of the age that followed, which includes ours, he said, And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. He instructed them to ask the Father in his name. That agrees perfectly with Ephesians 5:20, which exhorts us to give thanks always for all things to God and the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. "That day" refers to the age of grace which began 50 days after Christ's resurrection. And of this time, Christ said his disciples would ask him nothing but direct their petitions to God instead. So I humbly submit that those of us who have been lead to ask Jesus Christ for guidance and direction have been lead to do something he explicitly said we're not to do.
There are other scriptures that relate to this topic, but I don't wish to belabor the point--too late! :-) I know there are wonderful Christian people who believe the Lord answers their prayers and gives them revelation. I am not saying unequivocally that they are wrong, or deceived, or possessed. I'm just saying I can't find that doctrine or sufficient support for it in the Scriptures. What I can find, ironically, is Dr.
Wierwille's statement that the Word takes the Master's place in our lives. I wish I could say otherwise, but on this one, I think VP got it right.
Peace
Jerry
| JBarrax
(8/27/00 7:47:26 pm)
| Occam's razor and the Trinity
Hi D.A. God bless!
I figured my post would elicit such a response. You state that the idea of Jesus and Enoch having been moved in forward or backward in time violates
Occam's razor. I humbly submit that the worst example of such a violation is the Trinity. The most common complaint of believers regarding the Trinity is that is doesn't make sense. Just this week I received an e-mail wherein someone, in defense of the Trinity, related his frustration with trying to understand it. Not even his pastor could explain it to him. This is not the exception, but the rule. So I think it ironic that you say the idea that heaven transcends time is too complex an explanation for John 1:1, yet try to present the Trinity as a simple explanation.
Btw, the inherent paradox of being lifted into heaven where time does not rule defies the confines of aorist and future tenses. "...If it was, Jesus would have needed to use the future tense and not the aorist tense (past). In other words, Jesus would needed to have said, "glorify Me with the glory which I will have with You before the world was." Instead, Jesus uses the aorist (past tense) to indicate that He is recalling the glory He had with the Father - not a glory that He has yet to experience..." On the contrary, Jesus' heavenly existence cannot be fully described as past or future tense because it involves a paradox.
I didn't fully explain what I believe about Christ's relation to creation in Colossians. I don't see Jesus Christ as merely a "creature", nor the firstborn only in temporal
position. I agree that firstborn in Colossians means chief or head. Jesus was exalted from the beginning to a position second only to God almighty. Hence he is chief over all of God's creation, including all the angels and archangels (Colossians 1:16). But it is still GOD's creation and Jesus Christ is not God. I disagree with your assertion that the NT "plainly" says that he is. I know of not one verse in the NT or the entire Bible that
plainly says Jesus is God. Since there is another thread for this discussion, I won't drag out my "Jesus Christ is not God" verses and insert them here. However, if I think it pertinent, I might cross-post this uh...post in the Trinity thread. :-)
I've gotta go now, my son say's I'm burning up my wife's teapot. :0
Peace
Jerry
| evanpyle
(8/28/00 2:58:52 pm)
| Re: In the beginning was the Word
Jerry, nice work in showing the gaping fallacies in Wierwille's 'exegesis' of John 1:1
Interesting theory, never thought of it before. Though I'm not declaring unequivocally your theory to be untrue, may I point out what i see as a break in your logic?
You stated "Jesus had glory with God before the world began. This statement cannot be fully explained by the mind of God teaching. So what do we do with it? Of course, most Christian ministers would interpret this as an endorsement of the divinity or deity of Christ. I don't think that argument holds water either..."
I think it is your rejection of the divinity or deity of Christ that leads you farther afield in your reasoning, rather than see the more obvious picture. It is saying "well it sure seems to be saying THIS, but it Can't be this."
Why can't it be "this"? Because you have formed an opinion based on your other reading and study. Yet a straight reading of the Bible seems to bump up against your currently held belief. I submit that as you direct your sharp gaze to more topics you may find more of scripture bumping up against these beliefs.
Regarding your statement above, in my opinion the answer is found by a simple reading and accepting the most obvious conclusion: the divinity or deity of Jesus.
I realize we will (amicably) disagree on this point for now. I bring this up because, in my mind, this is the first case of your straying from the remarkable incisiveness you have brought to shining a fresh light on the 'work' of Wierwille.
Keep it coming. I am receiving great insight from this thread.
| Larry P2
(8/28/00 3:06:09 pm)
| The Bible Gopher
I'M ALL RIGHT, NOBODY WORRY ABOUT ME.....
Dont be all worried DA Reed. Although I have largely rejected the Bible as a credible source of truth or wisdom, that does not mean I have rejected Christianity or slid into the dark abyss of unbelief.
The Bible - insofar as it is strictly limited as a garbled and chaotic sketch of Christ, his life and his mission - is somewhat useful within those severe confines. After my TWI experience, I do not now believe the Bible is perfect or even that it is a holy book. It is journalism before journalism adopted an accuracy fetish.
Must more credible and honest, in my opinion, is the outright humanistic humanity-affirming work product of the Counsel of Nicea, wherein Jesus Christ won a landslide election to Godhood. In studying the history of that counsel, and acknoledging my own philosophical predispodition, it recently occurred to me that Jesus deserved unambiguous election to Godhood regardless of any scriptural authority in favor of the proposition, or lack thereof. Whether the issue can be settled one way or another by the Bible does not interest me in the slightest anymore. However, it WAS settled by the electrifying vote taken at Nicea.
We deserve to explicitly choose who our God will be. Jesus deserves Godhood because he EARNED it. The "deity" proprosed by TWI lacks the slightest legitimate claim for our allegiance outside of implied threats, bullying, and coercion. I guess TWI's god deserves SOME grudging credit for winning an All-Star role in his Vanity Press biography. Yet the average Kansas City divorce lawyer has a more accute sense of right and wrong and justice and empathy for suffering than TWI's "god" does.
Who ELSE would make an worshipeable God other than an executed 33 year-old Jewish carpenter? (Executed for blasphemy I might add). And nothing about the Counsel of Nicea's procedures particularly bother me either, including the fact it was presided over
heavyhandedly by a pagan King. (Spiritual matters are just too darned important to leave in the hands of experts.)
In a word, the work product of Nicea is far more honest and reliable than anything I've seen in the Bible. And that is why I - perversely I am sure Jerry will add here - remain a Christian.
|
|
