There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal
Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite
and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy
of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14;
Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter l:2; 1 Tim, 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

This question seems to belong in "the Son" thread, but it pertains to this thread more, perhaps...

Was Jesus always his Father's Son?

The 12th Volume of the SDABC (Bible Commentary) - that's the Handbook of SDA Theology, insists that he was not... Is that a wise disagreement with accepted Christian thought from early on till Ellen White's death - after which we changed the wording?

A rather complicated topic, I should think. A corollary of Christ's eternal preexistence would seem to preclude a 'beginning,' such as is implied in Sonship. Personally, I believe that Christ had always existed as One with 'Eloah' but, at some point in time, voluntarily, perhaps even at His own instigation, He took upon Himself the status of Sonship and, at a later time, the special relationship with His people as Yahweh. Now, as for 'accepted Christian thought' are you referring to the Nicene Creed?

I don't know if "proving" the Trinity is a worthwhile thing, as it goes in circles with semantics when discussing the topic from the perspective of our Creator being the One True Living God - the I AM that I AM.

I tend to approach the topic from the perspective of a three-dimensional hand interacting with a two-dimensional circle...the lack of the circle's ability to "see" beyond two dimensions causes the interacting fingers of one three-dimensional hand to be observed as one or more separate entities intersecting the two-dimensional world.

Thus, One Creator who is outside our 4-dimensional perceptions of space-time (3 dimensions of space, 1 of time) could be seen as interacting as 3 separate, individual beings intersecting the limited confines of our perceptions/observations of Creation.

That each "intersection" would carry the exact same identity and character of the whole could not be disputed, as also the point each would appear to have a different function in our existence as well. This would be in firm keeping with what we see in the New Testament regarding God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

There...the nerdy, geeky perspective of the Trinity...but it works for me how Three can be One, yet Three, all at the same time, in their intersection with Creation.

Then, there's the point of plurality when God talks to Himself regarding the creating of Man in Gensis...

At the present time, Jesus is a prince, our prince. During the Time of the End he will receive his Kingdom, namely us and our forlorn planet. At that time he becomes the ruler of the Earth, and its good king, then begins the process of turning our ruined world into a tropical greenhouse paradise.

We shouldn't be too shocked if we find out there are other kingdoms out there in space somewhere, with their respective kings.

Maybe the HS is limited to our sphere, maybe it is unbounded. For us, anyway, the Team of Three controls our destinies.

I couldn't agree more. This is one of those issues which we can spend our time and energy dissecting and discussing till the cows come home. However, in all likelihood will understand until we reach the new earth.

And, that's not a bad thing.

I spent the last year or so studying the subject of the nature of Jesus Christ. For what it's worth, the Bible directly calls Jesus "God" in a number of verses. For instance, the only legitmate way to translate the Greek of John 1:1, Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 is that He is God, and that is why virtually all modern translations of those verses read that way. (See NKJV and NIV and compare them with any standard Greek grammars that discuss those verses.)

When it comes to the writings of Ellen White, she wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets that Jesus was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. It is interesting to compare the latest Greek editions of the New Testament at 1 Corinthians 10: 9, where the word Christ is in the place of Lord, or Kurios, meaning that it was Christ whom the Israelites tested in the Wilderness and died from snake bites. By the way, that is how the vast majority of ancient Greek manuscripts read as well as the most ancient, manuscript P46, that is dated AD 200. The translations that read "Lord" do so primarily on the basis of two 4th century manuscripts from Alexandria, the Vaticanus and the Siniaticus.

Dozens of other verses might be referred to as teaching plainly that Christ is fully God.

Quote: "When it comes to the writings of Ellen White, she wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets that Jesus was the Jehovah of the Old Testament."

Meaning Jesus and Jehovah is the SAME person. There Could be No Trinity. Right?

It is clear from a careful study of the Pentateuch, in comparison with the gospels, that Jesus and Jehovah are, indeed, one and the same. However, Christ is the second person of the Godhead. The Godhead is described in the OT as 'Elohim,' the plural of 'Eloah.' Yahweh is the second person of the Godhead, Christ, the express image of the Father's person. The HOly Spirit is the third Person.

Dave

Hi yongttay

Can you please give us an exact page number in Patriarchs and prophets where you stated that Ellen White said "Jesus was the Jehovah of the Old Testament?" I would be interested to read the context of her statement there.

Ted, this is quite an interesting thought to read. I have never heard it before.

To me, the Bible seems to say that this kind of observation/hypotheseis from the physical world would not be able to hold all the keys to the subject of "the Trinity."

It should be noted, I think, that the Bible talks about "the mystery of godliness" and so I don't think we have the means to know, or the need to know everything about "God."

I put "God" in quotations because the Bible tells us "The LORD our God is one LORD..." (Deut.6:4). In some discussions I have had with jehovah's Witnesses, for eg., they tried to use this text to "prove" that there is only "one" God, and His name is Jehovah."

I had a few puzzling questions about all this until the day I sat down and analyzed this text closer. The word "one" as used in this text is intended in a collective sense, as in plural, but more literally meaning "another God." (atleast this is one of several possible renderings). The Hebrew word for "one" here is Strongs #0259: ‘echad ekh-awd’ If you wanted to do some further research on that.

This makes it easier for me to understand the "One God" in three persons concept. My idea here might cast a shadow upon the earlier mentioned concepts of space/time and how it affects us; and of people just thinking they were seeing three Gods; but in reality there was "only one God."

I was always taught that Jesus is just God in human form, and the Holy Spirit is God in spirit form.

Quote cubensis:

"I was always taught that Jesus is just God in human form, and the Holy Spirit is God in spirit form."

Then in what form is God the Father?

Quote David Koot:

"It is clear from a careful study of the Pentateuch, in comparison with the gospels, that Jesus and Jehovah are, indeed, one and the same. However, Christ is the second person of the Godhead. The Godhead is described in the OT as 'Elohim,' the plural of 'Eloah.' Yahweh is the second person of the Godhead, Christ, the express image of the Father's person. The HOly Spirit is the third Person."

Are you implying Jesus, Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh and the second person of the Godhead are all one and the same person?


yongttay

I thought He was....

Absolutely. More than implying.

Quote David Koot:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted By: yongttay

"Are you implying Jesus, Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh and the second person of the Godhead are all one and the same person?"


Absolutely. More than implying.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jehovah is also God the Father, the first person of the Godhead.

Therefore Jesus, Christ, Jehovah, Yahweh, the second person of the Godhead, God the Father and the first person of the Godhead are all one and the same person.

Meaning the first person of the Godhead and the second person of the God are one and the SAME person. There Could be No Trinity. Right?

The One we know as Jesus Christ has been called many other names, among which are Michael the Archangel, Michael the great prince, the Messenger of the Covenant, the Angel of Jehovah, and dozens of others. He was sometimes known by the Israelites in the OT as Jehovah. The Jews, of course, also called the Father Jehovah. The Jews did not understand as much about God as we do today because we have the advantage of the New Testament. Revelation is progressive, and as such, it was left for the Greek Scriptures to reveal the totality of what God wanted to reveal about Himself to humankind.

I believe in the Trinity because I have found it to be what the Bible teaches. I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and I believe they are all one God. They are one in purpose. The Godhead expresses itself as three persons. We only know as much about God as He has chosen to reveal to us.

Remember, the term God is a title like king; it is not a personal name. The name Jehovah, or Yahweh, is a reference to God's Eternity and power. It's from a Hebrew word meaning "to be," and signifies that Yahweh is self-existent; that is, He is not dependent on anyone or anything outside of Himself for His existence or being. He is who is He is and will be who He chooses to be. That is true of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three are equal and co-eternal.

What's confusing to a lot of people is that there are quite a few Christians who believe (a) that Jesus is "a god" but not Jehovah or the God; that is, they believe that Jesus is a creature who was made millions of years ago for the purpose of coming here as God's representative and dying for Adam's sin; and (b) that Jesus Christ is the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost.

Throughout the history of the Church, there have been many ways of viewing who Jesus is with respect to God. It took many centuries for the Church to come to a more or less common understanding of these things, and sadly, Christians have even come to blows and killed each other over them.

What I find interesting about this Trinity topic is that all of our pioneers in the SDA church, James White, Haskell, et. al., were non-trinitarians. They believed in the Godhead not the Trinity. If they were wrong, as has been indicated by some, then why did not EG White say so?
Perhaps we need to have a definition of Trinity and one of Godhead and then go from there.
daquick

Ellen White did say that they were wrong about Christ and the Holy Spirit. She said that Jesus Christ was the one who wrote the Ten Commandments and gave them to Moses at Mt. Horeb. She said in Desire of Ages that Christ was eternal, equal with the Father, uncreated, and did not have a beginning. She also said the Holy Spirit is a person, not an influence. All of these things are in direct opposition to what her husband and other Arians believed.

Three points are especially important to keep in mind:

1) The early Adventists, or former Millerites, came out of many different churches with various views regarding the Trinity. The nature of Christ was not what they believed was important. They were organizing a church around the Second Coming, the Sabbath, and the Sanctuary truths.

2) Even during those early years there were some disagreements between SDAs on the subject of the Trinity. Not all our pioneers were Arians. Some had come out of churches that held Trinitarian beliefs. However, the pioneers did not want to cause division over something they viewed as relatively minor at that time. This was the attitude of Ellen White while her husband was alive-- i.e., prior to 1890.


3) It was Ellen White's books Desire Of Ages and Patriarchs and Prophets which caused the SDA church to cease being Arian and eventually adopt the doctrine of the Trinity. After the publication of those books, virtually all SDA leaders ceased to agitate about the Trinity. The process of adopting the doctrine of the Trinity was not completed until about 1920.

Today there are some SDAs who are striving to take the church back to its Arian roots. It's opposed by both the Bible and the writings of Ellen White.

(Evangelism (1946), Chap. 18 - Dealing with False Science, Cults, Isms, and Secret Societies)

To me, this quotation explains and clarifies a lot about the actual work of The Holy Spirit (His "responsibilities"), and the magnificent role He plays (especially in our fallen world, which is the battlefield) in the the big controversy between Jesus and Lucifer.

The Trinity and the Godhead are the same thing.

Some may be interested in the following article (short version) I put together about a change that occurred in the SDA church regarding the Trinity doctrine.

There can be no denying that in the early days of Adventism, the majority of our prominent workers were Anti-Trinitarian. This is clearly no longer the case. A definite change in our denominational stance has taken place, and today we openly teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

Many contend that this change did not occur until the 1930’s (more than 15 years after the death of Ellen White), and a growing number believe that the change involved significant conspiracy. However, I am confident that the following few thoughts will show that this view cannot be sustained.

James White, Bates, Smith, Andrews, Loughborough (and others) all came to Adventism with strong Anti-Trinitarian views, but this fact carries little weight in my view, because as early as 1869 God was working through Mrs. White to alter those views. The change was brought about gradually, and in my view it needed to be a gradual work, as the primary focus during that time was necessarily elsewhere.

In 1869 she wrote that Christ “was equal with God.” (2T 200). This point had been something the majority of workers had not believed. They held that Christ was in some sense a created being and that He was therefore inferior to God. They also held that the Holy Spirit was an influence emanating from God, and that that emanation could not in any sense be thought of as a distinct Person. Yet by the agencies of God these things began to be met, and a change was gradually effected. Then in 1897 came a statement that many Adventists struggled to believe could have been written by Mrs. White.

Speaking of Jesus she said:
“In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.” (5BC1130.)
An Adventist named M.L. Andreasen visited Mrs. White and asked to see her original handwritten papers. He wrote of this visit in October 1953:

“In her own handwriting I saw the statements which I was sure she had not written—could not have written. Especially was I struck with the now familiar quotation in Desire of Ages,
p. 530: “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.” This statement at that time was revolutionary and compelled a complete revision of my former view—and that of the denomination— on the deity of Christ.”

“In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived.” To effectively say that the Son did NOT derive His existence from the Father, severely shook many of our leading men, and before long it was clear that a once cherished view had been dealt a heavy blow. Just as Andreasen says -- it brought about a “complete revision” of the SDA presentation on the deity of Christ.
Christ’s equality with the Father was being established. But at the same time the Holy Spirit was being presented as a distinct Personage – the third Person of the Godhead. This work also involved the overturning of the contrary, once cherished view.


Speaking to the students at Avondale College in 1899 Mrs. White said,
“we have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.”
(7MR 299, Ev 616) Today a growing number of SDA’s hold the view that, while referring to the Holy Spirit, Mrs. White actually means Jesus. Yet this, in my view, is a desperate measure that seems to defy the very sense and language employed.


Note 1.
D. M. Canright, in an article entitled “The Holy Spirit”, printed in The Signs of the Times (July 25, 1878), expressed the view held by many:
“All Trinitarian creeds make the Holy Ghost a person, equal in substance, power, eternity, and glory with the Father and Son. . . . But this we cannot believe. The Holy Spirit is not a person. ”



Regards,
Stewart

I believe in the three in one, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost...

The Holy Trinity, the Godhead--are the same thing.

When we talk of God being "One God" this is defendable from scripture Deut.6:4. It says here that Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah. It is interesting to compare other scripture to understand this passage.

For instance Gen 19:24 where Jehovah had been visiting with Abraham about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Then as the destruction takes place it is recorded "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven". Not withstanding the omnipresence of Jehovah God, it might be seen that the name Jehovah is applied to two different Divine beings.

It is also worth comparing Gen. 2: 24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” The original language uses the same word to describe the union of Adam and Eve as one as is used in Deut. 6:4 when one speaks of One Lord.

This appears to be interesting... and yes exciting.

Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the LORD (Jehovah); and beside me there is no saviour.” The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is our Savior (Matt. 1:21) The rest of this 43rd chapter of Isaiah through the 47th chapter seems to show clearly how Jesus is identified with Jehovah Lord. It is quite revealing.

I appreciate the comparison you showed from the original language concerning Adam and Eve becoming one when they united, as well as Deut. 6:4 claims there is one Lord. That is fascinating and inspiring. I try never to put cart before the horse.

Completely agree with your post. Excellent quotes and info. Thanks.

There are some problems with using the word "trinity" because the doctrine does carry some historical and theological "baggage" that SDAs are not in agreement with.

For instance, the Roman Catholic view of it is what many think of when they hear the word, and we SDAs don't believe everything they teach about it.

Also, we aren't coming to the Trinity doctrine on account of the Church creeds. So our viewpoint is more biblical and not influenced by the language used by church councils and creeds. Our church was against the Trinity doctrine for a long time, and that's why Ellen White never used the word. It would have been divisive since so many had been completely opposed to the Trinity up to that point. To use the word in that way would have caused a lot of people to feel we were betraying the "truth" once delivered to the saints.

I'm "talking" to some SDAs and former SDAs who believe the same thing today.

Could you tell me about anything more you know about M.L. Andreasen in relation to his views on the Godhead. He must have changed his position. I am very interested in him. I am sure he used to be anti-Trinitarian and that he then changed.

Here is very interesting, important quote from Ellen White on the Holy Spirit:

Speaking to the students at Avondale College in 1899 Mrs. White said,
“we have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, that the Lord God is our keeper, and helper. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind.”
(7MR 299, Ev 616)

Ellen White wrote things about God that were totally contrary to what those men believed and taught.

It's important to understand that in the times we're talking about, there were other doctrines that were considered of greater importance, such as the central "pillars" of our faith: the Second Coming, the Three Angels Messages, the Sanctuary and 1844, the Sabbath, the state of the dead, etc. We were building a church. Ellen White wasn't interested in causing division over a doctrine which she believed was less important than the central beliefs and teachings of the church.


So, while she wrote the truth, God didn't see fit to lead His prophet to tell people that they had to give up those false teachings at that time. The change would come but not through direct confrontation. It would come as men studied, reflected, and were convicted by the Holy Spirit. The men who held antiTrinitarian beliefs stopped agitating about them after DA was published. J.H. Waggoner may have written something about it, and a few remarks about it were written by Uriah Smith and E.J. Waggoner, but beyond that, SDA leaders were generally quiet about the Trinity from that time on.

There are plenty of clear statements in the writings of Mrs. White, before the death of her husband, where she wrote of the divine character and power and position of Christ.

James White was a intentional antitrinitarian. He took over for Sutherland in printing and spreading a pamphlet on antitrinitarianism. Some twenty years before Mr. White’s death she was already convinced of Jesus equality with the Father. But it appears as long as her husband was alive God did not direct her to put emphasis on this topic.

It is possible that timing was just as important then as it always has been. Martin Luther knew of the Sabbath but it appears was not convicted by the Spirit because there were more important things that he must carryat that time, specifically Righteousness by Faith.

I believe the young Adventist church was growing as God intended and it may have been a detriment to have the two main leaders of this struggling body of Christ to be at odds with each other. Very soon after James White died Ellen Whites writings took on an intentional emphasis on the divine nature of Christ. Timing was everything and the young church was now ready!

Couldn't agree with you more.

I'm sorry that I'm unable to offer any more information about M.L. Andreasen's views relating to the Godhead. But from what I've read, it is certainly clear that Andreasen changed his position on the subject.

(In my view Andreasen was an important man in our recent SDA history. Of course he held senior positions in the church for many years, but eventually had his ministerial credentials revoked... only to have them reinstated almost immediately after his death in 1962. I believe his story is one of courage and resolve to stand for the right.)

Also, in connection with your 7MR 299/Ev 616 quote, I'd like to offer a comment:

SDA Anti-trinitarians today point to the fact that the sentence in Evangelism starts in the middle of the original sentence, and that the comma after "grounds" is replaced by a period. They assert that this editing has changed/corrupted the original meaning of the EGW statement.

One of the main adherents of the Anti-Trinity teaching (a man named Allaback) taught that,

"The original and intended meaning of the quotation is NOT to prove the Holy Spirit to be "another God" along with the Father and His Son. But rather, that the "Lord" who "instructed us," "the Holy Spirit" who "is walking through these grounds," the "Lord God" who "is our keeper" and "helper" and who "hears every word" and "knows every thought," is one and the same person -- The glorified Jesus Christ.... Ellen White is saying the same thing as the Bible. Jesus, "is as much a person" as God the Father "is a person." Jesus "is walking through these grounds." Jesus "is our keeper, and helper." Jesus "hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind."


But as I commented earlier, I think that the reasoning employed by Mr. Allaback is a desparate measure.


Regards,
Stewart.

We're in agreement on Andreasen. A good man.

By the way, have you read a book that was recently published called A Fork In the Road, by Herbert Douglass? He of course was there when the QOD was being written and knew the authors as personal friends. A very important book.



For about two weeks now I've been "dialoguing" with SDA, former SDA, etc., who must be disciples of Mr. Allaback, because they repeat the same beliefs as Mr. Allaback holds.

By the way, are you familiar with Ellen White's statement in MR 14, page 23, where she says, "The Holy Spirit is Himself [Christ] divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent."

They are taking this to be more evidence that the Holy Spirit and Christ are one and the same Person. Of course, what Ellen White is really saying is that since the Holy Spirit is the personal representative of Christ, it as the same as if Christ were actually present with us.

I didn't even know such people and beliefs existed in our church until I started visiting a certain forum.

I recall that Ellen White said that "whatever can be shaken will be shaken." That indeed is happening today right before our eyes. There will be more, much more.

The Trinity in Seventh-day Adventist History


Merlin D. Burt, PhD, is director of the Center for Adventist Research, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, United States.

The last decade has seen increased antitrinitarian activity within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Four reasons for this activity should be mentioned. (1) The availability of information through the Internet. (2) Several other Adventist groups that emerged from the Millerite movement continue to hold to an antitrinitarian perspective. Examples would be the Church of God (Seventh Day), also known as the Marion Party; the previous view of the Worldwide Church of God; the Atlanta Church of God in Georgia (formerly of Oregon, Illinois, or the Age to Come Adventists), and Jehovah’s Witnesses (that branched from the Advent Christian Church). It should be noted that the Advent Christians, like Seventh-day Adventists, have embraced the trinitarian view. (3) Some think that the Trinity doctrine comes from Catholic theology and therefore must be false. Many have not realized that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity has differences from the Seventh-day Adventist biblical doctrine of the Trinity. These include eternal generation of the Son and Divine impassibility, which are influenced by Greek philosophy. (4) Perhaps most significant, over the last few decades, some Seventh-day Adventists have thought to return to early historical Adventist faith, or what might be called neo-restorationism.

Some have failed to recognize the dynamic nature of Seventh-day Adventist theology. Historically, our doctrines have developed in the context of the original distinctive core of the three angels’ messages and kindred concepts. A small, though significant and growing segment of “historic” Adventists, are advocating a return to an antitrinitarian stance. Sabbatarian Adventism and Seventh-day Adventists have always been Bible-centered in their theology and doctrine. They have rejected a static creed and have ever sought to study, understand, and follow the Bible as the source of doctrine and the guide for experience. Consequently, it should not be surprising that Adventist doctrine has developed over time building upon previous and new Bible study.

As Sabbatarian Adventism emerged during the late 1840s, it brought various Christian truths and placed them in the framework of fulfilled prophecy and ongoing discovery of biblical teachings. A cluster of biblical teachings explained what had happened in 1844 and why Jesus had not come. The heavenly sanctuary, the end-time ministry of Jesus in the Most Holy Place, and the Sabbath as the seal of God were a particular focus. Adventist understanding of various theological perspectives continued to develop and improve over time. Two examples are the Sabbath and tithing. Early Adventists initially concluded, through Joseph Bates’s influence, that the Sabbath should begin and end at 6:00 p.m. It was in 1855, nearly a decade after the initial Sabbath emphasis, that J. N. Andrews’s biblical and historical presentation influenced believers to adopt sundown as the correct time to begin and end the Sabbath. Tithing first began in 1859 as systematic benevolence and had little or no link to the biblical teaching of 10 percent. It was not until the 1870s that a careful restudy of the topic led Seventh-day Adventists to adopt the tithing framework we practice today. A similar process is evident in Adventist understanding on the nature of God and the Trinity.

The purpose of this article is to outline the historical development of the Trinity view of Seventh-day Adventists from its beginning to the present day.



Up to 1890: Antitrinitarian period

Until near the turn of the twentieth century, Seventh-day Adventist literature was almost unanimous in opposing the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit. During the earlier years, some even held the view that Christ was created. It is very important to understand that Adventist views were not homogeneous. Theological tension within Adventism began during the Millerite movement and is illustrated by the two principal leaders, William Miller and Joshua V. Himes.

Miller, being a Baptist, was a trinitarian. He wrote, “I believe in one living and true God, and that there are three persons in the Godhead. . . . The three persons of the Triune God are connected.”1 Himes, a close associate of William Miller, was of the Christian Connexion persuasion. The northeastern branch of the Christian church “rejected the Trinitarian doctrine as unscriptural.”2 It is important to note that Millerite Adventists were focused on the soon coming of Jesus and did not consider it necessary to argue about the Trinity.

Two of the principal founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Joseph Bates and James White, like Himes, had been members of the Christian Connexion and rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. Joseph Bates wrote of his views, “Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God.”3 James White wrote, “Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away [with] the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ.”4 Both Bates and White were anxious to maintain the separate personalities of the Father and the Son. This concern was caused, in part, by the strong spiritualizing influence among Bridegroom Adventists during 1845 and 1846. A similar problem would resurface around the turn of the twentieth century with the de-personalizing of God and J. H. Kellogg’s pantheistic views.5

Though James White rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, he did believe in the three great Powers in heaven reflected in his first hymnbook.6 Though opposed to the Trinity, he did not believe that Christ was inferior to the Father. In 1877 he wrote, “The inexplicable trinity that makes the godhead three in one and one in three, is bad enough; but that ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse.”7

Not all agreed with James White on the equality of Father and Son. During the 1860s, Uriah Smith, long-time editor of the Review and Herald, believed that Jesus was “the first created being.”8 By 1881, he had changed to the belief that Jesus was “begotten” and not created.9

A selective list of Adventists who either spoke against the Trinity and/ or rejected the eternal deity of Christ include J. B. Frisbie, J. N. Loughborough, R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews, D. M. Canright, J. H. Waggoner, and C. W. Stone.10 W. A. Spicer at one point told A. W. Spalding that his father, after becoming a Seventh-day Adventist (he was formerly a Seventh Day Baptist minister), “grew so offended at the antitrinitarian atmosphere in Battle Creek that he ceased preaching.”11

In surveying the writings of various pioneers, certain concerns frequently appear. In rejecting the Trinity, some saw the orthodox Christian view as pagan tritheism. Others argued that the Trinity degraded the personhood of Christ and the Father by blurring the distinction between Them. While the early positions on the Trinity and deity of Christ were flawed, there was a sincere attempt to oppose certain legitimate errors.

By about 1890, Adventists had come to a more-or-less harmonious position that viewed Jesus as the begotten or originated Divine Son of God. He was seen as the Divine Creator with the Father. The nature of the Holy Spirit was lightly discussed, though the Holy Spirit was generally considered to be the omnipresent influence from the Father or the Son rather than a person.

(Cont.)

From 1890 to 1900: Emergence of trinitarian sentiment

As the 1890s began, two of the key thinkers on each side of the righteousness by faith/law in Galatians issue agreed on the derived divinity of Jesus. E. J. Waggoner wrote in his 1890 Christ and His Righteousness, “There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God . . . but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.”12 In 1898, Uriah Smith wrote in Looking Unto Jesus, “God alone is without beginning. At the earliest epoch when a beginning could be,—a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity,—appeared the Word.”13

The period after the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference saw a new emphasis on Jesus and the plan of salvation. This led to a consideration of His deity and what it meant for the redemption of humanity. A. T. Jones was among the first (with the exception of Ellen White) to suggest that Christ was eternally preexistent. Jones emphasized Colossians 2:9 and the idea that in Christ was the “fullness of the Godhead bodily.” He also described Christ as “ ‘the eternal Word.’ ”14 Though he avoided the word Trinity, in 1899 he wrote, “God is one. Jesus Christ is one. The Holy Spirit is one. And these three are one: there is no dissent nor division among them.”15

Ellen White played a prophetic role in confirming the eternal deity of Jesus and the Three-Person Godhead. As early as 1878, she referred to Jesus as the “eternal Son of God.”16 In The Desire of Ages, she wrote, “[Christ] announced Himself to be the self-existent One” and “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived.”17 She wrote of the Holy Spirit as the “Third Person of the Godhead.”18 Ellen White played an important role in urging the church toward a biblical trinitarian position. However, for years after the publication of The Desire of Ages, the church generally avoided these and other statements. While she never used the term Trinity in her published writings, she repeatedly conveyed the concept.

M. L. Andreasen questioned whether Ellen White had actually written some of her statements in The Desire of Ages and other books. During 1909, Andreasen spent three months at Elmshaven, California, and was convinced of the accuracy of her published position.19



From 1900 to 1931: Transition and conflict

During the first three decades of the twentieth century, the church remained divided in its position on the deity of Christ. The use of the word Trinity in print continued to be avoided. W. W. Prescott and A.T. Jones, both editors of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, were key supporters of the full and eternal deity of Jesus. During the 1890s, Prescott was slower than Jones to accept the new view.But after 1900, as editor of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, he published articles on the personhood and eternal nature of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.20 Still Prescott believed that Jesus had a derived existence from God the Father. At the 1919 Bible Conference, he presented a series of eight devotionals for the conference titled “The Person of Christ” that expressed this view. Careful discussion at this conference showed that there were varying opinions.21

The early twentieth century saw Adventists and Protestant Fundamentalists battling higher criticism and the “new modernism” growing in Christianity. Liberalism rejected the deity of Jesus and His virgin birth. Adventist articles defending the Bible view began to appear more frequently in church papers. Irrespective of individual differences on details, Adventist ministers pulled into line against liberal views. Naturally, those who rejected the eternal preexistence of Christ did not want to speak of His beginning and weaken the argument against higher criticism. Even articles on the Trinity were tolerated.22 The result was an increased appreciation of the full deity of the Son of God.



From 1931 to 1957: Acceptance of the trinitarian view

F. M. Wilcox was crucial in facilitating the final transition to an accepted Seventh-day Adventist view on the Trinity through his guidance in the 1931 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs and his articles in the Review and Herald.23 Doctrinal summaries were carefully avoided during the first decades of the twentieth century, due in part to conflict on the Trinity. According to L. E. Froom, Wilcox was “respected by all parties for his soundness, integrity, and loyalty to the Advent Faith—and to the Spirit of Prophecy—he, as editor of the Review, did what probably no other man could have done to achieve unity in acceptance.”24 It was not until 1946 that the General Conference session officially voted a Statement of Fundamental Beliefs.25

During the 1940s, an ever-increasing majority of the church believed in the eternal, underived deity of Christ and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, yet there were some who held back and even actively resisted the change. These were mainly comprised of a few older ministers and Bible teachers such as J. S. Washburn, C. S. Longacre, and W. R. French. In 1944, Uriah Smith’s Daniel and the Revelation was revised and his comments on the derived nature of Christ’s divinity were removed.26

In 1957, the book Questions on Doctrine anchored the doctrine of the Trinity or Godhead for Adventists. While the book produced theological conflict in other areas, there was virtually no dissent on the book’s clear teaching of the Trinity.27 The current unambiguous statement on the Trinity in the Seventhday Adventist Fundamental Beliefs was revised and voted at the 1980 General Conference Session.

The process of adopting the Trinity continued from 1900 to 1950. Key influences in the change were (1) repeated published biblical studies on the topic, (2) Ellen White’s clear statements, (3) Adventist response to the attacks of modern liberalism on the deity of Christ and His virgin birth, and (4) F. M. Wilcox’s statement of Fundamental Beliefs and his Review and Herald editorials.

We may learn several lessons from the history of the development of doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventhday Adventist Church. First, we must acknowledge that the development of Adventist theology has usually been progressive and corrective. This is clearly illustrated in the doctrine of the Trinity. The leading of the Holy Spirit is dynamic. Other doctrinal concepts developed in a similar manner. This development never supposed a paradigm shift that contradicted the clear biblical teaching of the heavenly sanctuary ministry of Jesus and the prophetic foundation of the church. Second, the development of the Trinity doctrine demonstrates that doctrinal change sometimes requires the passing of a previous generation. For Seventh-day Adventists, it took more than 50 years for the doctrine of the Trinity to become normative. Third, Ellen White’s unambiguous statements subdued controversy and provided confidence to transition to our current view. Finally, Adventist theology is always supremely dependent upon Scripture. The Bible tells us that the “path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.”28 Hebrews 2:1 reads, “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard.” It was ultimately the Bible that led Seventh-day Adventists to adopt their present position on the Godhead or Trinity.

Source: http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2009/February/the-trinity.html

the meaning of the word translated "Jehova" is eternal, self-existent and is used as such by the messenger of the Lord. the original word for "one" is echad and not yachid. echad is used more to mean "united" in the bible than "one" while yachid means literally "one".

Elohiym is translated by ellen white as "Powers" which at least one hebrew student has decided is the best interpretation.

"LORD" as is translated by the kjv also means "eternal, self-existent".

when the israelites said "Jehova" they would automatically understand "eternal, self-existent". we lose that understanding in the translation.

John317. Good explanation of the development of the understanding of the Trinity Doctrine from Ministry Magazine. Thanks!

teresaq.

Thank you for the information that you gave on the word Jehovah. No matter what the explanation of the word Jehovah is it is interesting that Gen 19:24 seems to apply the name to two different individuals.

The word “one” applied to Adam and Eve in Gen 2 is the same word that is applied to the oneness of God in Deuteronomy 6:4, ’echad. The significance is that Adam and Eve can be seen as separate individuals and be seen as “one” at the same time. It is therefore possible to see that Deut.6 could be speaking of God being seen as "one" but not negating the individuality of the three beings who are divine.

Thankyou John317. Interesting thoughts.
I've not read the book "A Fork in the Road", but I am sure it would be most interesting.
And no, I am not familiar with the 14MR p.23 quote you've referred to. I've just had a look at it though, and some other quotes that carry the same thought.

But to me it is looking like the thought applies to the Holy Spirit "Himself" rather than to Christ "Himself".

That same thought also appears in DA (and in other places) as,

"The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth..." (DA 669.2)

It seems unfortunate to me that the 14MRp.23 quote is used the way it is by those who want to believe in a Duality rather than a Trinity.

Thanks again for the thoughts.

Regards,
Stewart.

Thinking it might be worth quoting the 14MR reference slightly extended.

"Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent. "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall (although unseen by you), [THIS PHRASE WAS ADDED BY ELLEN WHITE.] teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you" [John 14:26]. "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will come not unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you" [John 16:7]." {14MR 23.3}

_____________

Stewart

Yes, you're right. I thought that was at least a possible explanation also. The DA quote is very similar but it omits the sentence, "The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof."

Tomorrow I'm going to the White Estate for another reason. but while there, I will ask the director there what his understanding is of that sentence.

Here is the quote in its full context:



It's interesting that in the very next sentence, Ellen White wrote, "He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent."

I take this to mean that "He [Christ] would represent Himself [Christ] as present in all place by His [Christ's] Holy Spirit, as [i.e., who is] the Omnipresent."

This makes clear that she is not saying the Holy Spirit is Christ, but rather that Christ is present in all places by the Holy Spirit, who is Omnipresent.

Another important point is that the previous paragraph begins with the sentence, "Although our Lord ascended from earth to heaven, the Holy Spirit was appointed as His representative among men." Then Mrs. White quotes John 14: 15-18.

That sentence seems clearly to indicate that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are two different, distinct Persons.

How could Jesus Christ and the Spirit be the same Person and yet it be said that the Holy Spirit is Christ's representative?

A "representative" is an agent of someone else. A representative is never one and the same as the Person it is representing. That would make absolutely no sense at all. Therefore it seems to me utterly impossible that Jesus Christ is the same Person as the Holy Spirit.

What do you think?

John317, I agree with your reasoning, especially the thought about a representative being the agent of someone, rather than another mainfestation of the person....

Very clear, thankyou.

Stewart

This post is being dated within Adamah Republic© on the Seventh Day of the week and on the First day of Unleavened Bread, that is on Aviv 15, within the 5929± year after the beginning recorded in Genesis One and within the 2025th year after the beginning recorded in Luke 1:26-33 [April 11 in the 2009th year after the beginning of the reign of Caesar Tiberius]




























Names are Words. Words have Meaning.
Names are not mere Appellations!
Especially Not in the Word of God…



I find this topic a most interesting and very valuable line of discussion…

Yet, there are some very fundamental and obvious flaws in the above line of reasoning. Or so it appears to me.




The Trinity defined

First of all, let’s rid ourselves of the false concept that the Trinity is a reference to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit of the Bible. It is not! The Trinity is a reference to a most unholy family; the father of which was named Tammuz and who is referenced in Ezekiel 8:14; the son of which was Baccus, the god of the wine bibbers; and the mother of which was Semiramis, who married her son Baccus after Tammuz died. This Trinity is most assuredly not the God of the Holy Writ though it is no doubt the god of a great many people upon this planet. (Cf also The Formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity - by Lynnford Beachy.)







Jesus is not synonymous with God


Jesus makes a clear distinction between Himself and God.






Jesus and Christ are two different words


Jesus and Christ are not two interchangeable appellations pointing always to one and the same thing.




Jesus


The appellation Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Yeshua or Yehoshua. The best and most comprehensive meaning of the Hebrew word Yeshua that I am aware of is the definition provided by Jesus Himself:



Each of the four elements “I am,” “way,” “truth,” and “life” may be discovered in the roots of the name Yehoshua.

The name Jesus is the appellation used for the Man in the New Testament who called Himself the Son of Man, or per Shem Tov’s Hebrew Matthew: The Son of Adam.




Christ


Although the term Christ is appropriately applied to the living man called Jesus, it is a great mistake to use it as an appellation to be used exclusively and interchangeably with the appellation Jesus. Christ is not correctly used as a surname or even as a title.

The word Christ is the common Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. Per Obadiah 1:21 there are more than one Messiah:




The meaning of the word Messiah has to do with being anointed, that is, having one’s head rubbed in with the oil used for bringing light (cf. Strong’s H3467, H4899, and H4886.) Thus more than anything else the word Christ should remind us of the rays of light, provided anyone and each one among us, from the God of Truth and Light and whose name is “I am what I am” and “I shall be what I shall be.”




The Family of God consists of more than three persons

As identified in Genesis 1:27, the foundation of each family is a man and a woman united in covenant. The fruit of such a family will by and by increase the number of persons in the family by the addition of sons and daughters.



The family as such is a concept visible to the minds eye but not as such to our physical eye. Likewise the Holy Spirit is a concept visible only to the minds eye as such. Yet, the Holy Spirit is indeed a person, i.e. a representative of the Family of God or even of any family characterized by that which the Word of God teaches us that God, i.e. Yahweh Elohim, is. Indeed, any One member of a true family of God may be imbued with the Holy Spirit such that the Holy Spirit my be said to be personified through such a One. Yeshua is a perfect example and object lesson for each of us to learn from and apply each in our lives.

Yeshua is not the only Son of God. Nor is He the only first born or first begotten Son of God. Think about the instructions in the Torah re the sacrifices that first open the wombs of their mothers. There were many more than one such sacrifices, were there not? Indeed, Israel, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham was called by the Lord “Israel is my son, even my firstborn:”




Thus, the implication is that each of us are called to be firstborn Sons and Daughters of God. These are not to be used or understood as mere titles or appellations, for if that is all they are, they are not what they may seem to be. The essential thing is that they are descriptive characteristics associated with all the key characteristics of true Sons and Daughters of God, and in contradistinction to such characteristics as are represented by the imperfections of a status quo, non-improving, being. The latter being being represented in Revelation by the numbers 600, 60, and 6, or 666, i.e. missing the most important Oneness of God, the Source and Creator of all.




The Word of John chapter One

The word ‘word,’ i.e. the Greek ‘logos,’ is not to be considered yet another synonym for Jesus or Christ. The word ‘word’ is a distinct and separate word and is to be used and understood as such. The fact that John 1:14 makes clear that “the Word…,” i.e. the blue print designed and transformed into reality by the Great Potter, i.e. by God the Creator, “became flesh and dwelt among us…” is not by far the same as saying that “Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us…” That is very different indeed and is representing nothing but the accumulated errors of thought of the theological hierarchies of the Roman Catholic Church, their predecessors and associates. Let’s disassociate ourselves from all such errors and teachings step by little step and precept upon precept! The sooner the better for all of us… and for coming generations!!!





These concepts and these words as used by Ellen White

It has been my experience that the concepts being explained within this post are consistent with the writings of Ellen White as well as with the teaching and usage within the Scriptures. Yet, because of my initial preconceived ideas it took me quite some time before these things eventually became clear in my mind. No doubt most, if not all, of the readers of this post will have to go through a period of adjustment and re-think before the reality and truth of the above will be accepted and recognized as true.

Hopefully the above will be perceived as valuable thoughts worthy of serious consideration at least by some…




Happy First Day of Unleavened Bread and Happy Seventh-day Sabbath,

Tree of Life©

the Trinity has always existed and always will be "I am in the Father and He is in Me" as well "I send you a helper" the Spirit of God was withdrawn at the fall of man as well a veil was on our eyes from spiritual things.People in Christ's day weren't aware of these as they were taken away when Adam and Eve fell.As well Christ is talking to His Father in Genisis "let us make man in our own image" proves Christ was there in the begining with God.The trinity is made clear in the new tesiment.As well we see the fortelling of Gods sacrifice through Isaac ad his son.

I believe in this doctrine from the Bible

If we are more properly a "progressive movement towards infinite truth"
(than a static church that camps HERE)
shall we not allow for each of us some wiggle room?
Shall we not then also allow God HIS prerogative?

Believing one or the other has some exclusive truth....
excluding all other (tainted, limited, divisive) human logic
(constrained by semantics, lexical difficulties, personal bias),
etc, ad nauseum...
precludes that the I AM God has, can, and will reveal Himself as He deems.
That transcendent God, with no need for chronos and fully kairos, no need for either time,
nor limited by one space, or thing (or any dimension)
surely far outpaces our ability to describe Him in our thoughts...words...or theology.

Shall we argue that God is only a burning bush?
A smoldering pot?
An earthquake?
A whirlwind?
A still small voice?
A helpless baby born to an unwed virgin?
An angry scientist, destroying His failed experiment?
A jealous God with an eternal frying pan?
A magician who grants wishes asked in the "secret" way?

I trust that God is beneficent Father,
able to manifest Himself appropriately.
I believe He will bring those who seek truth,
who love His commands (think ROYAL command)
and exhibit the undying faith OF Jesus
to the place HE needs us to be.

Was it CS Lewis quoted as saying that many argue factious contentions....
and too few agree on incontrovertible truth?

Can we trust that God's grace, love, and mercy is unbounded by human reasoning and ability?
Just as is His essence, nature, character and righteousness are.

I mere trust, believe, and stake my life on THAT promise,
promise of new land, of greater love, of redemption, recreation...

hope this simplistic view helps...i've wondered why the argument over the "personhood" status of the HS....and have sadly, seen it it divide many.

Jesus leaving words...."I will NOT leave you orphans...I will send you the Comforter"

I have often said that God is not limited to a "Trinity". It pains me that someone even dreamed up that term. Thanks for your input, HeartSeeker.

Yet of course Jesus was not denying that He was good or without sin. In fact, that verse shows that He considered Himself God. Remember His statement, "I and My FAther are one." And, "Which of you convinces me of sin?" John 8: 58, "Before Abraham was, I AM." The Jews showed by their reaction that they understood perfectly well what He was saying.

Jesus was the human name given to the Word, the pre-existent Christ, who had been in close association with the Father from all eternity before He came to live among us. John 1: 1 says that what God was, the Word was. Whatever you can say about God, you can also say about the pre-existent Word.

The Word became flesh, or a man. Even while on earth this Word was as much deity as God the Father. His deity was hidden in the flesh. He didn't have the form of God because He took the form of a servant but He didn't cease to be God during that time. Col. 1: 17 says that Christ made everything and then continued to hold everything in the universe together. See Col. 2: 9; Phil. 2: 6; Hebrews 1: 3, 6, 8, 10. The Bible refers clearly to Jesus Christ as God. See John 20: 28; Titus 2: 13; 2 Peter 1: 1.

In Dialog with John317…

- Re: Jesus is not synonymous with God












Dear John 3:17,


Thanks for your feedback on this one! I have no doubt but that you have thoroughly considered this answer of yours before posting. As always, I highly value the thoughtful thoughts you are sharing with me and others on this forum. Thanks again!

I am sorry that this post is so lengthy. Yet, considering the great implications of, and the great importance of, the message built into the Bible passages touching upon ‘the Word’ vs. ‘Jesus,’ and how these same passages of the Bible are being misconstrued, I do hope that at least one reader will find it a valuable help along the path towards the Kingdom of God…

I’ll do my best to share such things as I may perceive as adding value to our ongoing dialog… As follows:



I agree. Yet, Jesus’ not denying is not the same as Jesus claiming “that He was good or without sin.” There is a difference, isn’t there? If we ignore the difference, aren’t we in effect adding to the Word of God by our own presumption?





I don’t see that this verse shows that, yet He made that plain elsewhere, for instance by these words of His, that indeed He did consider Himself God:




Yet, please notice carefully that in thus calling Himself “god” Jesus in no way made a distinction between Himself and anyone among men.

Each one among us is given the exact same choice as was given Jesus, which choice is the same as was also given Adam per Genesis 2:16-17. That is, the choice to stay within the realm of God or to exit ourselves from God’s protective powers. The ever present choice – even after having exited the realm of God – the choice to begin heeding the still small voice of our Creator, or not. That is, the ever present choice to accept God’s salvation, or not to accept.

Jesus clearly accepted the offer given Him by our Father. Each one among men is offered the same opportunity. Yet, each is free to not accept His offer.

Each is free to accept His sacrifice. Each one is free to learn the lessons inherent in the Word of God and in all that each of us experience in life. Or not to accept… And there is always a point of no return. Just as there is mostly some room for delay, a period of grace…

Consider especially Jesus’ own words as portrayed in John 17! That is, who Jesus is in His relationship relative to our Father, and who each of us is being called to be relative to the same Father of Jesus.

So indeed, I see Jesus correctly claiming that He was the Son of God, that is one with God. By choice. Am I entitled to make the same choice? Am I entitled to make the same claim? How about you or anyone? Yet, just as Jesus did, we each need to recognize always that even being in perfect harmony with the will of the Father in no way makes any one of us being the Father. Being one member of a family doesn’t make anyone another member of the family, does it? So also within the Family of God, each of us may be one with, and of, the Family of God. Yet, even then each of us retain each our own unique characteristics…





Clearly, by these words of His, Jesus is claiming that He is acting in accord with His conviction and with all that wisdom and knowledge that has thus far been revealed to Him at that point of His life (cf. Luke 2:52.) Although humbly challenging anyone to prove to Him that in some particular He was missing the point or trespassing (i.e. ‘sinning’,) it appears as though this passage indicates that no one was able to meet His challenge.

It is true that Jesus is identifying Himself with His Father. That is by no means the same as saying that He was claiming to be the Father. It is like someone identifying himself with the State of which he is a citizen. Most people will not thereby be intentionally claiming that they are the State, only that they are a part of it and that they are submitting under its government. [Notice though that in court you’ll often hear the attorney representing the State being referenced in terms of actually being the State. However, this claim will stand only so long as it is not being challenged.] In the end, this matter of identification is all about claims of ownership. Jesus was identifying Himself as property of His Father. Only for very brief periods of time was there a cloud upon the Creator’s title of ownership re Jesus. In each instance this clouded title occurred in consequence of a trespass by another, for instance: 1. When Peter made a promise to the tax authority re Jesus and himself (cf. Matt 17:24-27,) and 2. when Judas sold Jesus to the chief priests (cf. Matt 26:14-15.)





Is it possible that you or I are so much identifying with the same type of thinking as “the Jews” that we mistakenly claim that the “Jews showed by their reaction that they understood perfectly well what He was saying?” Perhaps the Jews, based upon their own false presumptions as taught them by tradition, misconstrued Jesus’ words to the point of heresy, even to the point of taking “up stones to cast at him…” (cf. John 8:59.) Could it be that we are being misled by similar presumptions as they were? Or isn’t it true that most all strife and conflict between men is caused by misunderstandings based upon false accusations and all to superficial understanding of the specific subject matter at hand?

Could it be that the words translated “I AM” (Gr. ‘ego eimi’) are simply a reference to Yahweh, the great I AM? Indeed, so it seems to me. Yet, as with all of us, so also Yehoshua, Jesus, was designed and initiated as a living being even before the conclusion of the Sixth Day of the creation week when the Creator created Man into His own image.

It’s really a matter of who each of us claims to be. Yeshua, Jesus, understood this matter much better than most. He was truly oriented x 3 within the Kingdom of God. Most of us living today are disoriented x3 relative to the Kingdom of God. We may be considered oriented x 3 relative to our respective State [of illness,] but who among us can correctly identify ourselves x 3 in terms of the Kingdom of God (cf. Matt 16:3?) Jesus knew who He was, where He was, and what time it was in terms of the Kingdom of God. Most of us living today are considered oriented x 3 in terms of our respective societies of likeminded people, and only such as are classified as having Alzheimer’s disease etc. are being considered disoriented. Well, much more may be said re this, but that’ll do for now…

Thus, I for one will stand up and disagree: The Jews showed by their reaction that they DID NOT UNDERSTAND understood perfectly well what He was saying.





To me, your quoted words represent a commonly held misinterpretation of the words as written in the Word of God. Why? I agree that, as translated, those introductory words of John may seem enigmatic. That which is not immediately crystal clear is all too often being misunderstood. Consider this:

Some things in life are a one way street. Other things can go both ways. In mathematics or chemistry this is represented by symbols such as ==> and <==>. In John 1:14 we find an example of the first, that is of ==>: “And the Word was made flesh…” In other words, it cannot be inferred that “the [previously existing] Word [that] was made flesh…” is identically the same as that “flesh” which was made in consequence of said Word.

That is to say, I find it contrary to the words as written and contrary to the principles of simple logic and reason, to say that ‘Jesus is identically the same as the Word.’ I find it incorrect to read John 1 while thinking that the words ‘the Word’ are synonymous with ‘Jesus.’

The bodily abode of Jesus was certainly created in consequence of the word of God. More than that, it was created in consequence of Joseph and Mary heeding God’s messenger to them. Even more than that, the man Jesus continually made choices in life that were in harmony with the will of His Father. Thus, in more ways than one, it is true that “the Word was made flesh…” Yet, the Word of God remains as it was, unchanged, before the event described by those words “the Word was made flesh…” The Word of God is what it is forever. As Jesus said:




Proverbs chapter 8 is, as I see it, a very important parallel passage to John chapter 1. The word ‘wisdom’ as used in Proverbs 8 is, I believe, describing much the same concept as the word ‘logos’ in the Greek version of John chapter 1. It is much the same as that which is represented in Genesis chapter 1 by the words ‘God said…’

The words ‘Christ’ and ‘Messiah’ reference a symbolic act of anointment by means of the oil used in lamps, that is, olive oil (cf. the parable of the ten virgins.) Thus light is most intricately woven into the word ‘Christ.’ The very first thing that God is recorded as having spoken into existence was light. Light is a most important thing. Indeed, everything in the universe is electromagnetic wave forms, i.e. light (cf. e=m*c^2.) Thus, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the intelligence of God, Wisdom, Logos, Light, ‘the Word’ was at the beginning of time. Yet, the man we know as Jesus cannot be correctly said to be, or have been, identically the same as any of those things. [The name ‘Jesus’ is another matter. I certainly believe that the four elements found in the roots of that name, and thus also the name Jesus and all its built in principles, were present at that beginning of time.]

To believe the teachings taught us by tradition, for instance re ‘the word’ == ‘the one named Jesus,’ over and above the written words of God, to me is contrary to that which is meant by the words ‘Sola Scriptura.’ I find such traditions baseless and without a foundation in either the Word of God or in that reality which is being created by the One that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. I find such traditions being of much the same nature as all that which Satan is.





Aye, aye…





I perceive those words of yours as largely a reiteration of such teachings of men as has been influencing all of our minds and all of our patterns of thought for all too long a period of time.

It is now time for each of us to find our way back to the beginning, back to our foundations, back to the Creator. In every specific. Re each and every word we are using. There is altogether too much yet for us to learn and unlearn before we be ready for that great advent we are all looking forward to. Yet, there is hope, none of us should have cause for feeling disconcerted, because salvation is in walking the walk, not in standing still, or remaining, at any point of ultimate perfection of any one particular.

Specifically, re your last quoted words, I would suggest doing a deep dive into the roots of each of the words ‘word,’ ‘deity,’ ‘God,’ ‘Father,’ ‘hidden,’ ‘flesh,’ ‘to be,’ and ‘that time’ (cf. that post of mine to which your quoted words are responding. [Pressing the bracketed link within the top portion of the frame of any post will bring you to the post referenced.]

In fact, isn’t doing that part and parcel of the point of Jesus’ parable re the ten virgins?





No, that is not what Col. 1:17 says! The reference is not to ‘Christ,’ but to “his dear Son,” isn’t it? Cf. Col. 1:13. Yet, I do not disagree that the same things could likely have been said of Christ, but making the presumption that the word ‘Christ’ may automatically and without more replace the words “his dear Son” is only that, presumption, on my part, or isn’t it? Let’s be precise when studying the Word of God! Or isn’t it true that the Creator of the Universe is being exceedingly precise, even into the most minute detail of His creation… and of His Word?





Again no! The reference is not to “Jesus Christ” but to “Christ.” There is a difference. – Yet, I don’t doubt that some may think of me as being too nitpicky in saying so…





Again no! Not “Jesus Christ,” but “Christ Jesus.” Perhaps there is a difference, perhaps not?





No again! The reference here is to the “Son,” not to “Jesus Christ.”

- Notice that when we make A=B=C=D=E=F=G… everything becomes a soup of confusion. In order to begin clearly discerning the details of every particular we must learn to perceive not only the similarities, but also the differences!

BTW, the word ‘son’ in Hebrew also means ‘consequence’ and thus, in a sense and to a certain degree, every thing in God’s creation may be included by that word. Yet, that most certainly, and most particularly, includes also the man we have learnt to recognize as our Savior par excellence, the man we generally think of when using the words “Jesus Christ.”





Those are Thomas’ words, aren’t they? Yet, it is true that Jesus chose to respond to Thomas’ exclamation. Whether those words of Thomas were intended as an appellation addressed to Jesus, or as an exclamation with reference to God the Father, is anyone’s guess. The Bible doesn’t tell us, does it?





The words “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” are pointing to two different things aren’t they? Or isn’t that indicated by the word ‘and?’ Yet, I certainly agree that, per Jesus’ prayer as recorded in John 17, the two are very much in harmony and very much cooperating towards the very same ends.

And shouldn’t each one among us aim to be part of that oneness too?!!







Notice: “Like precious faith with us…” Oneness! Yet all of the following five are being named as unique entities within that oneness: ‘Simon Peter,’ ‘Jesus Christ,’ ’us,’ ‘God,’ and ‘our Saviour Jesus Christ.’



Let’s keep on adding oil for our lamps… :)




Shabbat Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

Look carefully at 2 Peter 1: 11 and tell how many people it is speaking of in the words, "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." What is the rule of translation governing this verse? How do you know how many people it's referring to?

Compare that construction with 2 Peter 1: 1. How many people is that verse referring to?

According to well-known, established rules of Greek grammar, the only correct way to translate Titus 2: 13 is "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (See NASB; NKJV; NIV; ESV; YLT.)

Here is Young's Literal Translation:

13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ

How many definite articles are there in that clause? Are you familiar with the rules of Greek grammar dealing with the definite article?

Here it is stated in a standard college text on Greek grammar, Ray Summer's Essentials of New Testament Greek, p. 130 :

One of the Sons in the Family of God













Dear John 3:17,


Thanks for adding oil to my vessel! Thanks for yet another tool for my tool box!

Yes, you are making it quite clear that only one is being referenced in each of 2 Peter 1:1, 11 and Titus 2:13. In my prior post I was reading and quoting Titus 2:13 out of the KJV. Having at that time no reason for looking deeper I saw no reason for looking into yet another translation of that passage. Thanks for pointing it out for me!

Notice though, how clear that makes the picture of who Yehoshua, Jesus, was in terms of the Family of God: The word ‘God’ (Gr. ‘theo’) corresponds, if I am not mistaken, to the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ meaning ‘Powers,’ that is, the plural of ‘power,’ ‘mighty,’ etc.. Elohim is the ‘us’ of Genesis chapter 1 (cf. Strong’s G2316 and G1682 and Matt 1:23.) Thus, ‘God’ (‘Elohim’ and ‘Theo’) is the term referencing the Family of God which includes all of its members, that is, not only the Father and the Mother, but also every Son and Daughter within the realm of that family.

It follows that the authors of both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 recognized the man Yehoshua, Jesus as a Son of God, that is, as one of the Sons in the Family of God.

It does not follow that the man Jesus that we know from the New Testament was alive or active prior to that beginning which occurred in the Sixth Moon (August) referenced in Luke 1:26, does it? Or are we to infer that there is a reality behind the experiences referenced by the term ‘past life regressions’ to the effect the Hindu teachings re reincarnation are valid? Were the Hindu teachings valid in regard to Yehoshua, Jesus only, but not to the rest of us? That is to say, was Jesus an exception to the Christian disbelief in reincarnation? I don’t see the Bible teaching us that. On the contrary, I believe that there is a mix-up between the concepts of ‘reincarnation’ as taught within Hinduism on the one hand, and on the other hand, that which the Bible is teaching re ‘being born again’ (cf. John 3:3-21.) Indeed, isn’t this teaching, re the pre-existence and reincarnation of the man Jesus, to be seen as little more than yet another example of that infamous first lie being recorded in Genesis 3: “Ye shall not surely die…” Or isn’t it true that for Jesus to have been born as recorded in e.g. Luke chapter 1, following a prior active life as a Creator, He would then first have had to die? That is, prior to His being conceived and delivered as a baby in Bethlehem? When would that prior death of His have happened? But if He died more than once, then what happens to the ‘once and for all…’ sacrifice of Christ?

No, I for one choose to believe the Word of God through Paul:





Yet again, there are things I do not understand and things that I am not yet prepared to understand. As Jesus said:



In the meantime I am satisfied with accepting such teachings as God is making clear to me from the Scriptures under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the still small voice of God.



Shabbat Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

Good post Treeoflife, please allow me to share what I have learned from my research on this--if you will?

Ex.3:2-18 Here we see that this "God" or "Lord" was also called "The Angel of the Lord" in verse 2. Please note that this Angel is to be called "I AM".

Ex.23:20-23 Here you will also see God's angel.

Dan. 7:13 Here we see a vision of one like The Son Of Man who was not the same as the Ancient of Days.

Dan. 9:25: Here we see that the Messiah is none other than the Prince (not yet the King of the Kingdom of Heaven)

Dan. 10:13 and 21 Here we see for the first time that this "Angel of the Lord" and "Prince" is called "Michael" who is now called the Prince of Daniel's people.

Dan. 12:1 Here is the verse that confirms that Michael is the Prince over the 'sons' of Israel.

Luke 1:35 Here we see that both the Most High (same as Ancient of Days) AND the Holy Spirit are the real parents of Jesus who is placed into Mary so that Mary's blood was not the same as Jesus.

John 8:58 Here we see where Jesus called Himself the "I AM".

Rev. 12 Here we see that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and had a battle with Satan.

John 15:26 Here we see all three of the 'God Head', who work as a team in perfect unity. ENJOY!

The man Jesus-- in a human body-- didn't exist until Bethlehem, or until conception by the Holy Spirit. But John 17: 5, 24 shows that the person we know of as Jesus Christ was the same person that existed as a divine person prior to his taking flesh. "The word became flesh," according to John 1: 14. Phil. 2: 6, 7 tells us that this person who took flesh, or a body, was in the form, or the nature, of God, in heaven. He looked different but He was and is God. John 1: 1 is referring to this same person under the name, "the Word" [ho logos]. The logos is not an abstract concept but is a living, divine person who was with God from eternity and is of the same essence or substance or nature as God. The original language shows that John is talking about two persons in close association together.



The Word becoming flesh is not related to reincarnation or to the nature of humans. Reincarnation is when people die and they are reborn in a new body. That is not what the Bible is talking about. The Bible is referring to God becoming human. He dies as a human on the cross, sacrificing his life for us and for our sins, but He doesn't die before becoming human. Also, it is not a process that others go through. Jesus alone became human in that way, coming from heaven. No one else does this. "The word was God," as John 1: 1 says. You and I are not God. We had no existence prior to being conceived in our mother's womb. Jesus did have existence prior to His coming here. The Bible teaches that He was in fact the one who made the universe. Phil. 2: 6 says He was in the form of God before He took the form of a servant, or man. This is what John 1: 1-3; Heb. 1: 3, 6, 8, 10-12; Col. 1: 16, 17; 2: 9; and other verses are telling us. The man Jesus had his beginning here at the time of his conception in Mary, but this man was more than a mere man-- He was God in human flesh, i.e., the God-man. 1 Tim. 3: 16.



Being born again, or born from above-- the same as being born of God, or being born of the Spirit-- has to do with receiving a new heart or new mind, new motives, from God. (When we are born naturally from our mother's, we have the nature that is in rebellion against God.) The Bible also describes the new birth as having the seed, or nature of God, implanted within us. This cannot happen through the human will but it comes from God through putting our complete trust in Christ and by believing that He is who He says He is. John 1: 13; 8: 24.

Let me know what you think and if these things make sense based on your study of the Bible.

I've studied Eastern religions, too, but I don't think they give us any insight into the truth about Jesus Christ or God. In my opinion, we're better off not allowing those religions to confuse the truth that God has revealed to us about Himself in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

Becoming a Son or a Daughter of God – as Jesus did…


A Conditional Offer Available to All!

- Are You Accepting the Terms? Am I?






Dear John 3:17,


Why is your current stand re the pre-existence of Jesus so important to you? Are you absolutely certain that your stand is based upon the Holy Scriptures alone and not upon a traditional interpretation inherited originally most likely from some genuine Bible students who unfortunately parted this life prior to having reached such a perfected understanding of these matters as likely they kept seeking for?

I don’t know what may be the corner stone of your belief system that ought to be addressed for the two of us to most effectively reach a heart to heart understanding in harmony with one another re this important particular? Do you?

Ellen White is emphasizing the importance of meeting people where they are… (cf. {CM 58.1}, {CD 284.2}, {CH 245.3}, {GW 381.1}, {3T 233.1} and {4T 260.4}.) Reading those paragraphs from Ellen White I am reminded of that first question God posed to Adam: “Where art thou?” My mind then goes to the principle of retracing one’s step back to the point of divergence when being lost…

I remember once hiking down the west side of Mt. San Jacinto beginning from the peak of the mount at the time of sunset. I believe it was at the end of a Sabbath some thirty years ago. My friend and I had not walked far before it was pitch black even to the point of barely being able to perceive the silhouettes of the trees against the sky. We had nothing to lighten our way. Neither one of us had ever walked that way before. I was walking first. I instructed my friend, who was, I believe, less used to hiking at night than I was, to follow me several steps behind, yet not so far that he’d lose track of me. I further instructed him to stop dead in his tracks whenever I told him to do so, such that I’d have a reference point whenever I felt I was losing touch with the path we were walking on. I was finding my way by means of sensing the path under my feet… Well, it worked. It took us about four hours before arriving at a road, probably somewhere near Pine Wood, where my mom and a very good friend of ours met us. It was about 10PM and they, our meeting party, were just about to give up on expecting our arrival that evening as the two of us were stepping out on the road. Again, the key to finding our way successfully was to retrace our step back to a certain reference point…

It’s good that we do indeed have a certain reference point in the Word of God as originally written, or don’t we? And isn’t that reference point ‘the Word?’ The same as ‘ho logos?’ The very words in the Word of God as addressed to each of us even here and now? The very words our Creator is speaking to us through His Sons and Daughters, who are speaking to us through the pages of the Bible, to the end that we may be able to remember our past, for it is our past, isn’t it? …and so as “to keep the way of the tree of life” (Gen 3:24.) Now, Jesus’ words are certainly part and parcel of that Word, yet many others among God’s Sons and Daughters have also been contributing their fair share towards that Word of God, have they not?

And, yes, isn’t it true that Jesus’ words “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” symbolically stand for the Holy Scriptures as a whole and for the still small voice of God and guidance of the Holy Spirit? So in that sense, that is, symbolically speaking, I can agree with the preexistence of Yehoshua, that is, in addition the principles inherent in the name Yehoshua and in addition to the pre-existing design of the Creator as I mentioned in my previous post. On the other hand, I do not find in any of the passages or elsewhere any reason for believing that the being we know of as Jesus had a conscious or active existence prior to His living as a man from the point in time referenced in Luke 1:26.

Given that you do claim to perceive such reason in the passages you are referencing, I’ll venture to share what I perceive in those passages, but first let me ask you a few questions:

1. Do you recognize that the promise of John 1:12 apply equally to any and all of us as it did also to the man Jesus and that that is the same promise upon which the Sonship of Yehoshua, Jesus, as the Son of God is built?

2. Do you agree that the ‘him,’ ‘he,’ and ‘his’ of John 1:10-12 are in reference to “the Light” named in John 1:4, 5, 7, 8, and 9?

3. Do you agree that said Light (per John 1:4) was the life that was in “him?” That is, the ‘him’ being referenced in John 1:1-4, which is (per John 1:1) “the Word?”

4. Do you agree that ‘the Word’ of John 1:1 is being defined in John 1:1 as ‘God?’

5. Do you agree that ‘the Word’ is not comprising all of what God is?, that is, given that it is said to be “with God?” Or else, what sense would it make to say that a thing is ‘with’ something else if indeed it already is both one and the other?

6. Do you perceive that there is power indeed in each and every word, and most especially in every word of truth?

7. Do you recognize that there are other powers of God besides words? Say for instance the force of gravity, electro-magnetic attraction, love, life, living beings, and many other things?

8. Do you recognize that all of those powers of God may be correctly grouped together and referenced by the plural word we recognize as the Hebrew word Elohim?

9. Do you recognize that, in consequence of that which is given us as an ‘image’ of the real thing (per Genesis 1:26-27,) the word Elohim is first and foremost pointing us to an entity that you and I would perceive as a family consisting of a male and a female and any number of Sons and Daughters of theirs? That is, to a most important relationship between living beings associated with light and truth, the Family of God?

10. Do you recognize that in a most important sense, even the youngest sibling of many, may reckon his or her beginning from the day their parents covenanted with one another to the end of forming a family?

11. Do you recognize that as a true Son of God, you too may correctly reckon the beginning of your beingness from those beginnings which are recorded for us in Genesis 1:1 & 26? Just the same as you are claiming that Jesus did?



Ok, perhaps that’s more questions than you care to answer, just as originally I thought only about the first of those questions. Perhaps you’ll care to give me an answer at least to that first question of mine?



Back to your post…:



Re: John 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Can you prove to me that the word ‘glory’ (Strong’s G1391 & G1380) is not primarily a reference to the ‘thoughts’ and plans that the Father had for Jesus from the very beginning and long before any substantiation of those ‘thoughts?’ Cf. the thoughts, hopes and plans that any parent to be may have for his or her future little ones…?



Re: John 17:24 KJV Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Can you prove to me that the word “lovedst” is not referencing His Father’s agape love for His future Son to be? Alternatively, can you prove to me that the original words translated “the foundation of the world” are not referencing something other than that which is recorded in Genesis 1:1, say for instance, the covenant between Joseph and Mary?

Based upon nothing but the above two verses, how do you arrive at your conclusion that these same verses show “that the person we know of as Jesus Christ was the same person that existed as a divine person prior to his taking flesh?”


Re: John 1:14 KJV 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.

You say: “"The word became flesh," according to John 1: 14. ”


I say: Aye, aye. The Father’s longstanding plans for this particular Son to be of His were being substantiated… The ever recurring miracle of life! Even more, all of that which this particular Son was to become! What a miracle!






Re: Philippians 2:6 KJV Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Re: Philippians 2:7 KJV But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

You are saying: “Phil. 2: 6, 7 tells us that this person who took flesh, or a body, was in the form, or the nature, of God, in heaven. ”

I say: What’s your basis for believing that the words “made himself” – words in reference to Jesus - are not a reference to a conscious decision of Jesus, even as late as when “Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age” (Luke 3:23?)

What’s your basis for believing that the words “was made in the likeness of men” is not a reference to an act of the Creator alone and not something in consequence of the words “But made himself…?”

Where in Phil. 2:6, 7 do you find any reference at all to “heaven?” What happens to your above sentence if you eliminate your words “in heaven?”

What happens if you apply instead those words of Paul to a conscious decision of Jesus to claim a promise such as is being recorded in John 1:12? (Cf. my first question to you at the top of this post.)



John 1:1 KJV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


You say: John 1: 1 is referring to this same person under the name, "the Word" [ho logos]. The logos is not an abstract concept but is a living, divine person who was with God from eternity and is of the same essence or substance or nature as God. The original language shows that John is talking about two persons in close association together.

I say: I do not see any basis for any one of these claims of yours. Could you please be more precise without using anything over and above the Bible alone?







Re Phil. 2:6 and John 1:1-3, please see my comments above!


Re Heb. 1: 3, 6, 8, 10-12:

First, isn’t “the worlds” of Heb. 1:2 a reference, not to the Gen 1 creation, but to ‘eons of time’ such as may begin at any time, specifically at such times as are referenced in the subsequent verses.

Secondly, aren’t these words of verse 2, “in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,” and these words of verse 3, “when he had by himself purged our sins” a specific reference to the beginnings of such ‘eons?’

Thirdly, isn’t verse 5 a specific reference to such an event as is being portrayed by John 1:12?

Fourthly, rather than being a reference to time at all, isn’t verse 6 and the words “the firstbegotten” a descriptive reference to anyone of God’s many “firstbegotten” Sons, as indicated not only by Exodus 4:22 re Israel, but also by the numerous symbolic firstborn sacrificial animals and by the very fact that Jacob was to be considered the firstborn while in fact having been delivered second?

Fifth, aren’t the words “for ever and ever” of verse 8 a reference to the throne of God rather than to the Son sitting upon it?

Sixth, re verse 10, isn’t the word ‘earth’ in the phrase “laid the foundation of the earth” a reference primarily to soil and a region rather than to the entire planet?

Seventh, isn’t it quite possible, even likely, that the word, in verse 10, translated ‘heavens’ is originally derived from the plural masculine form of the Hebrew word ‘shem,’ meaning name or title, as in a true Man King taking title to property?

Eighth, is there anything remaining, from Hebrews chapter 1, in support of the traditional teaching in support of the pre-existence of Jesus prior to His beginning as recorded in Luke 1:26-33?



Re Col. 1: 16, 17; 2: 9;

This is a most interesting and powerful passage in support of my above contentions re the Family of God, and the conditional offer available to any and all amongst us re becoming a Son or a Daughter of God, that is, as expressed in John 1:12 (as well as in Gen 1:26-2:3 and in the first three Commandments.) Who amongst us are willing to accept this offer at face value? Didn’t Jesus, our example par excellence prove to me and you that it can be done? Or was His life and death an exercise in futility in showing only that none but God Himself would ever be able to meet the required conditions for becoming a true Son or Daughter of God?

Notice, beginning in Col 1:12, the words “the saints in light!” The focus here is upon the light of God, that same light which is the very essence being symbolized and embraced by the word ‘Christ,’ which word is being used generally in verse 27, i.e. “Christ in you,” and specifically re Jesus in verse 28, i.e. “Christ Jesus.”

And re Col 1:13, although certainly being also a reference to Jesus as our example per excellence, aren’t the words “hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” also, and most importantly, a general reference to each One among God’s Sons becoming kings and priests under none but God the Father? Cf. not only John 1:12 above but also 1 Peter 2:9-10 and 1 Col 4:8 and many more re the Kingdom of God!

Thus, re Col 1:16-17, aren’t the words ‘him’ and ‘he’ all in reference, not only to Jesus, but to each and every One among the true Sons and Daughters of God, even since the very beginning of time?




Re 1 Timothy 3:16

Isn’t this particular verse a most explicit clarification re the nature of each and every Son and Daughter of God, a clarification applicable to any and all among the members of God’s Family, not alone to Jesus who was indeed our example par excellence?










Re John 1: 13:

Again, this is clearly a reference to the “sons of God” (plural) specified in verse 12, which sons, God’s remnant People, are being found here and there throughout history, mostly living quite inconspicuous lives in the service of others, though under the authority of none but the Creator, while more rarely receiving recognition for whom they really are or for the importance of the work they really do.




Re John 8:24

The key phrase of this passage for our purposes is, I believe, “if ye believe not that I am he...” Certainly this is in reference to the indwelling Spirit of God, specifically in reference to the man Jesus, yet generally, and, in consequence of what we may each learn from John chapter 17, also in reference to each and every true Son and Daughter within the Family of God.

Yet, whomever amongst us who is not paying close attention to Jesus’ warning within this very verse is not very likely to reap the blessings inherent in accepting the inheritance due each and every true Son and Daughter of God, are they?!




Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

The fundamental reason is that it's what the Bible teaches and that it's directly connected to salvation.

Read, for instance, Hebrews 1: 2, 3--

[God] hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds;

who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Compare carefully John 1: 1-18; 8: 24, 58; Phil. 2: 5-8; Col. 1: 15-17; 1 John 1: 1-5; 1 Cor. 10: 9 (KJV & NKJV) (UBS 4th ed.); 2 John 7.




Yes, I'm absolutely certain. I've been studying these things for well over 30 years from the Bible. I'm absolutely certain that the Bible teaches Jesus Christ is the Word who lived in heaven with the FAther before He left heaven to be born here as a human.

The last clause of John 1: 1 is describing the Word as being of the same essence or quality as the God with whom the Word has been.

The Greek construction of that clause shows that the Word is not being identified as the same person as the God with whom the Word is in close association. It is saying essentially the same thing as Hebrews 1: 3 says when it tells us that the Son is an exact copy of God's being. The New English Bible gives the sense: "And what God was, the word was."



It is not saying that God and the Word are the same being or person. It is saying that the Word and God are of the same substance, or essence, or nature. The construction shows that whatever can be predicated of God can be predicated of the Word. For instance, if God is eternal and all powerful, so is the Word.



It comes directly from the verse itself. Have you studied Koine Greek?

Below I parse and translate the second clause of John 1: 1--

an pros ton theon--English "was with the God"

We'll parse and translate the word, "an" in the phrase,"an pros ton theon." It's in the second part of John 1: 1.

This is the beginning of a very important part of the verse because it tells us much about the Logos and about the relationship between the Logos and God. What exactly it tells us will become clearer as we work our way through the phrase.

The word "an" is a verb, being precisely the same as the word that occurs in the first part of John 1: 1. As you may recall, it means "to be, to exist."

The Lexicon form is "eimi." That is the word which you would look up in the Greek-English Lexicon, since it won't appear in the Lexicon under the form, "an."

"an" is in the Imperfect tense, and is active, indicative, 3rd person singular.

The "Imperfect tense" means that the word "an" expresses action as going on in the past time. In this particular context, it is a descriptive imperfect. That is, it indicates linear or progressive action that was going on in the past time. It is similar to an imperfect tense in Matt. 8: 24, where it says Jesus "was sleeping."

"an" is active voice. "Voice" indicates how the subject is related to the verb. It describes the subject-- the logos, or word-- as directly performing or causing the action.

In this instance, it shows that the Word is causing the action rather than being passively acted upon. Hence, the Word is active in relation to God.

The Mood, or Mode, is indicative.

This verbal idea defines the relationship of the action to reality, or whether it is a fact, a probability (subjunctive), an intention (imperative), or a possibility (optative).

It simply means that the action is a fact. It's the mode of asserted certainty, the unqualified statement or presentation of fact.

In John 1: 1, "an" is a declarative indicative. It states a simple fact.

As said already, "an" is "third singular" in number.

The Word, then, was really and actively doing something in relationship with the noun, God.

The second part of John 1: 1 should be translated, "and the Word was..."

Next we will look at the part of speech that expresses what the Word was doing.

"pros" is a preposition of association.

The words "ton theon" are in the accusative case, which means they are the direct object of the subject "the word" and the verb, "as" (was).

Therefore we say that we have the preposition "pros" plus the accusative. "pros" + accusative = with.

It means "(in company) with." (See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, p. 718.)

This preposition carries the same meaning in the following texts: Mark 6: 3; Matt. 9: 19; 2 Thess 2: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 6, 7; Gal. 1: 18; 4: 18; and 1 John 1: 2. There are many more examples.

Especially compare how the Apostle John uses "pros" to describe Jesus' relationship with the Father in 1 John 1: 2: pros ton patera-- "WITH the Father."

(The words "with" in 1 John 1: 3 are all translated from a different preposition, "meta," which in that context has exactly the same meaning as "pros" does in v. 2)

This phrase, "pros ton theon," distinguishes God from the Word. It also asserts the distinct personality of the logos, as well as the inner substantial union between the logos and God. That is to say, "And the Word was with" signify that the Word is not an abstraction but a Person, and that this Person is distinct from the accusative noun, although they are in close association.

Next we will parse and translate the noun "theon" and its definite article "ton".

1) "ton theon," a definite article + the noun.

The definite article and its noun always agree in case, number, and gender.

The basic function of the definite article is to identify. The thing emphasized is identity. Here it is used to identify the divine Person, God.

Koine Greek-- the common Greek of the first century AD-- does not have an indefinite article, "a," as English does.

2) theon. Like the definite artilce, it is in the accusative case, singular, masculine. The fact that it's in the accusative case indicates that it's the object of the verb, av (was).

The Lexicon form of theon is spelled "theos," which is nominative, singular, masculine.

The accusative case is the case of limitation. It marks the limit or the end of an action. The main usage is that of direct object of a verb.

The statement, "The Word was (in company) with God," could not be said of anyone but persons. The Word is shown to be not an abstraction, nor a personification, nor the speaking word of God-- but a person. It is not an attribute of God, but an acting reality.

Jesus Christ is "Son of God" in a unique sense, by virtue of the fact that He is God. You and I will never be God. Jesus Christ, the Word, is of the same substance, or nature, as God the Father. Hebrews 1: 1-3. You and I may be become a child of God through faith in Christ. See John 1: 13, 18. Jesus Christ did not become Son of God through faith. He was and is Son of God by nature-- that is, by virtue of the fact that He is divine. We will always be creatures. Jesus Christ is not a creature but God, the Creator. John 1: 1-3; Hebrews 1: 3, 10; Col. 1: 17; Rev. 3: 14.

In Dialog with John317

- To What Extent are Our Fears Keeping us from Accepting Jesus Christ in Our Own Lives?


















Dear John 3:17,


I certainly agree with you re the fundamental importance of your argument “it's what the Bible teaches.” Likewise I certainly agree with you that the subject matter of the Bible passages we are here considering are “directly connected to salvation.” Yet, somehow we don’t quite seem to be seeing the same things even while apparently looking at the very same passages, do we? Why? Am I off? Are you? Or do both of us have even more particulars to learn re these very issues before we get it straight?

One thing I am certain of: Dialoging together while having our focus upon the throne of God is the key par excellence for entering the Gate of Heaven in verity. Or isn’t that what’s being symbolized by the cherubs upon the Ark of the Covenant?

I certainly well recognize each our hesitancy to change our position at a moment’s notice and the fact that some things do require considerable time and patience on both of our parts. Just the same as when sowing a seed… It’ll take time before the plant comes into fruition. Or isn’t that so?

Thus for you to accept at once what I am sharing with you, even if what I am sharing would happen to be closer to the real thing, is not a likely thing, is it? Or vice versa…

I don’t find your argument “I've been studying these things for well over 30 years from the Bible” adding one iota of strength to your position, whether your stand is correct or not, nor do I believe that you would see much power added to a similar statement of mine if I were to tell you that I’ve been studying these things all my life or better than 60 years, would you? If such arguments would count, wouldn’t that make Tradition and traditional interpretations win every time?

You are asking me to “Compare carefully John 1: 1-18; 8: 24, 58; Phil. 2: 5-8; Col. 1: 15-17; 1 John 1: 1-5; 1 Cor. 10: 9 (KJV & NKJV) (UBS 4th ed.); 2 John 7.” Yet, in the above I’ve already shared with you in some detail what I perceive in most of those passages which apparently you are not as yet perceiving or realizing. Likewise I’ve already shared with you my views on Hebrews 1:2, 3.

Thanks for sharing with me also those additional passages! In the following I’ll carefully consider with you also those added passages:


Re 1 John 1: 1-5:

In this introduction to John’s epistles there is a strong emphasis upon the concept of ‘firsthandwitness,’ is there not? Yet, I have no doubt but that you agree with me that the ‘we’ of the 1 John 1:1 is a reference to John the apostle and some of his contemporaries, or don’t you? Even so the subject matter, that is ‘the Word,’ under discussion in the first verse of John’s first epistle is referencing a point in time, that is ‘the beginning,’ far earlier in time than any of those ‘we’ could ever have experienced for themselves, or isn’t that so? Or else, should we consider ‘the beginning,’ that is referenced by John, as being merely a reference to those various points of time when each of the apostles first met the man Jesus, that is, those various points in time when each of them began being eyewitnesses? That wouldn’t make too much sense, would it? Neither do I believe that John is basing his statement merely upon a claim of Jesus. No, I believe that John is realizing an obvious truth re the abstract concept ‘the Word (ho logos.)’ It is obvious to all, or should be, that every word is charged with meaning and power – even though like all powerful tools, ‘the word’ too can be abused in such ways that it has much less power than it could have in the hands of a more skilled and careful craftsman.

Yehoshua, Jesus, was, per Ellen White, a very skilled and careful craftsman and carpenter, trained as He was at the feet of His father Joseph. I do not know this firsthand. To me that is hearsay even though I certainly have no reason whatsoever to doubt Ellen White’s words to that effect.

What I do know firsthand re Yehoshua, Jesus, as recorded in the Bible, is that He was indeed a very skilled and careful craftsman in His handling of the Word of God. When I study the Hebrew and most especially the roots of the Hebrew as used and taught by that man I am thoroughly impressed with His artisanship and great care in using the words given Him through the then extant Holy Scriptures. That is my firsthand witness to you - and hopefully I’ve phrased my words above in such a fashion that I am not abusing the term ‘firsthand witness’ nor contradicting myself. I believe John’s witness in 1 John 1 is of much the same quality as mine. Do you perceive what I am saying? Even so, John’s report is far more powerful than mine. Why? Simply because John was reporting, I believe, first hand his experience with a man named Yehoshua, Jesus, while my first hand experience is based not upon a living man I saw, heard and touched while He was walking as one among us here upon this planet, but upon a record handed down to me through the centuries. Even so, those words attributed to Yehoshua do exist, and the truth value now is as obvious as it ever was, that is, once perceived through the variously tinted glasses of those who have contributed to bringing it down to us over the ages.

In my above posts I’ve already shared with you what aspects of Jesus’ pre-existence I see being taught in the Holy Scriptures. In that sense I do share your belief, yet, I perceive that you are seeing something that isn’t there, something I too once was taught to believe, not by the Bible, but by others who believe(d) their teaching was based upon the Bible. There is a difference, isn’t there?

I believe these words of mine, focused as they are upon the nature of Yehoshua’s existence prior to the time referenced in Luke 1:26-33, covers well also the remaining verses of 1 John 1 - even though I have specifically mentioned only the first verse.




Re 1 Cor. 10: 9 (KJV & NKJV) (UBS 4th ed.)

Here reference is given to ‘Christ’ as one having been present at the time of the Exodus and during the 40 years in the desert. The same ‘Christ’ is also being referenced in verse 4. In 1 John 1:5 these words are found, “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” As I’ve emphasized before there is a very strong association between the words ‘Christ’ and ‘light,’ most especially between ‘Christ’ and ‘the light of God.’ Again too, the Greek word ‘Christ’ is a reference to the Hebrew ‘Messiah,’ which word means ‘savior,’ a word which is being used in the plural in Obadiah 1:21. Thus, the word ‘Christ’ as used and taught in the Holy Scriptures, is not to be attributed to only one being – one “flesh” - in history. On the contrary, and per Jesus’ prayer in John 17, it is something that should be applied to each and all of God’s remnant People.

I’ve been reading the KJV & NKJV. (I don’t have the UBS 4th ed. available to me presently.)





Re 2 John 7

John, is it possible that you are being ruled by a fear of ‘tempting Christ’ (1 Cor 10:9) or “not confess[ing] Jesus Christ coming in the flesh” (2 John 7?) That is, that considering or believing as I do, would be such a thing?

If that is the case, then please ask yourself this question: Are God’s true People ever to be ruled by their fears? Are we not rather to be ruled by our respect for our God and Creator and by that word, those words, that are light and are life from the very beginning of time? There is a difference, isn’t there?

I for one certainly “confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.” Notice carefully, however, that the definite article, the ‘the,’ is an addition without counterpart in the Greek text, or isn’t that so?! Thus, even 2 John 7 is a passage applicable to any and all that is indeed being an anointed Christ, that is, one being anointed and filled by the Holy Spirit.

Notice in particular these passages (largely derived from this week’s Sabbath School Study:)





In Conclusion

Notice, I fully agree with your words ”I'm absolutely certain that the Bible teaches Jesus Christ is the Word who lived in heaven with the FAther before He left heaven to be born here as a human.”

Yet, had you written “I'm absolutely certain that the Bible teaches that the names Jesus and Christ are is the Words who live lived in heaven with the Father even before leaving the realm of being mere words or concepts He left heaven to be born here as a human,” then I’d believe we’d be seeing much more the same thing re this particular.



Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

In Dialog with John317


- Re What ‘the Word’ Is…

- Are Our Differences Based Upon What the Word ‘Person’ is?…









Thanks John!

The light you are shedding over this passage makes me perceive the message of this text even more clearly. No conflicting ideas in that, is there?!

Your words, or, I believe, the words of God through you, goes to show the importance of recognizing the similarities as well as the differences…









Thanks again!

Considering your words and applying them upon the family concept I perceive the following:

The foundation of every true family, created in the image of God, is a male and a female and a covenant binding them together in an eternal relationship of love [not excluding any of the challenges therewith associated.] Typically the resulting oneness of the two will result in sons and daughters sharing many characteristics with each of their parents. Those sons and daughters are not their parents, yet, many things that may be said about the parents can likewise be said about their little ones, created as they are in the image of their parents.

More than that, that image of God, the male and female Oneness, will also result in many other things, some of which are abstractions. Such abstractions may be looked upon as being in a sense alive, sometimes more so than at other times. Take for instance the concept ‘ho logos,’ ‘the Word.’ Not only is the DNA at the very heart of every living cell a thing that is in the nature of a ‘word,’ but, in addition, words are a chief means of eternalizing the life and thoughts of living men and women by means of books, articles, yes, even by means of posts in this very forum. Thus, in a sense, there is life in words. Yet, words are abstractions and are not as such exactly identical with you or I, are they?!

Your above comments make that very clear. Thanks again!



Re the word ‘person’

Perhaps I should add here a comment re the very powerful and important word ‘person.’

People commonly use the word ‘person’ interchangeably with, and as a synonym for, a living man or woman. Yet, I find that in many instances, perhaps even most, where that word is being used it doesn’t mean that. Specifically it does not usually mean that within codes of law or within the system we know of as the State. On the contrary, the word ‘person’ should generally be thought of as a dead thing [cf. the idem sonans words ‘corpse,’ ‘corps,’ and their derivative ‘corporation’] in the form, and with the function of, a mask, something through which sound is being transmitted:



In another version of Webster’s I found the word ‘person’ being derived from per-, that is via, and -son, from sonare, ‘sound.’

Because of the above and the confusion that may follow, I tend to avoid using the word ‘person’ when giving reference to living beings while using instead words like ‘entity,’ ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘one,’ etc..

Not being certain how you or anyone else are perceiving and using the word ‘person,’ I may well at times misunderstand your, or another author’s, intension when using that word… The exceptions being where the author is specifically defining his intended meaning – as in law code… where such definitions are usually extant but, unfortunately, somewhat hidden and difficult to find, and then to understand – given our common abuse and misunderstanding of words such as that one.


Nevertheless, re the word ‘person’ in the context of John 1:1, I find that the word ‘word’ may appropriately be referenced as a ‘person,’ albeit in the nature of an abstract person. That is, a person that is not, and was not, per se a living and breathing entity - even where used to make a record of something that is very much associated with living and breathing entities such as every living family is… and such as God is... (cf. Strong’s H504 and also this link!)










Thank you ever so much for your very detailed analysis and for providing an exact basis for your stand! I very much appreciate your time and effort in so doing!

Have I studied Koine Greek? I am studying it now with you, am I not? I’ve studied it before with others, but more importantly, I believe, I’ve been studying it on my own in connection with my studies of the New Testament, most especially as it relates to things pertaining to time, but certainly not exclusively so…

Your detailed parsing and analysis is very clear and intelligible and it makes complete sense to me. Only two tiny details being slightly unclear, but not importantly so I believe: 1. Once you are referencing the Greek word ‘an’ as ‘as,’ which I take as a simple typo?, and 2. once you’ve spelled the same word ‘av,’ which I take is derived from the appearance of the Greek sound for ‘n’ having the looks of the English letter ‘v,’ or isn’t that so? Oh, one more thing… You are referencing a certain lexicon by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, but I am not certain as to what exactly in your post is your own words and what is theirs?

It seems to me as though your stand is heavily based upon the common misunderstanding of the word ‘person’ as a synonym always for a living being of flesh and blood such as you or I. Not recognizing the true nature of God [obscured as it is behind the Trinity heresy,] nor the Covenant based relationship between male and female created into God’s image, people tend to be unaware of the more correct usage of the word ‘person’ as it applies to that living being that we know of as ‘divine,’ the One God, in whose image each our families are being created. Think about it: Every family is indeed a very living thing, even so it, the family, is not living in the sense that one male or one female is. It, the family, is an abstraction for the oneness of the two individuals at the base of every family consisting as it does of two or more living entities, each of whom is dwelling in a male or female embodiment, i.e. ‘flesh.’

Thus the word ‘word’ is very much a ‘person’ in the very same sense that the word ‘family’ is a ‘person.’ Just like a living male or female is created with a head on top of its heart, so also every family of God is of necessity an entity with a certain structure lest there be frustrations, head aches, strife, and conflict. The word ‘person’ or ‘mask’ when applied to the family may well be thought of as the face authorized to represent one’s family. Yet, in that sense, such a ‘person’ is certainly not representing him or herself as an individual being, but is instead representing each his or her own family.

I am convinced that in order to resolve, not only the issues pertaining to the nature of ‘the Word’ as being the main focus of this our dialog, but also in order to resolve perhaps most family conflicts, a better understanding of these words, and of their respective relationships, is of the essence. I believe that is, in a very major sense, truly a salvation issue. Just as you said at the beginning of your prior post…

Let me see now, what was it you were saying before that I didn’t see any basis for?:



Thus, if, in the above quote, somehow we could arrive at a common perception re the word ‘person,’ as a mask of sorts, re the word ‘divine,’ as standing for ‘two-in-one,’ and re the word ‘God,’ as being the antetype for the family created into Their image, then we’d pretty much perceive the same things from the same vantage point, wouldn’t we? For instance, then your last sentence above “The original language shows that John is talking about two persons in close association together” would mean simply this: “The original language shows that John is talking about two persons [that is, the word ‘word’ as in the Word of God as the Book of instructions re how to be a family of God on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the word ‘God’ as in the family of God united by a holy Covenant (not unlike the OT and the NT covenants)] in close association together.” As you can see for yourself, neither the Word of God, nor the Covenant holding a family together is alive and breathing in the exact sense that you and I are living and breathing, yet there is truly life in the Word of Life just as there is truly life in every family consisting of a male and a female and their little ones. Or don’t you agree?

I believe we are moving forwards in this dialog, or are we not? Step by little step and precept upon precept?




Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

The verb that is translated "was" in English is from a Greek word that is transliterated as "an" but it is sometimes spelled "een". Unfortunately I can't transfer the Greek letters on to this post.



The "av" was a typo and should be "an," the same Greek verb that is in the third clause of John 1: 1, "and the Word WAS God."

1) If you don't like the word "person," then let's use the expression "personal being."

In other words, the Father has a will, emotions, a mind, and is able to communicate.

So does the Son [the Word], and so does the Holy Spirit. They are personal beings, not impersonal.

Look at a few Ellen White quotes:

As a personal being, God has revealed Himself in His Son. The outshining of the Father's glory, "and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3), Jesus, as a personal Saviour, came to the world. As a personal Saviour He ascended on high. As a personal Saviour He intercedes in the heavenly courts. Before the throne of God in our behalf ministers "one like unto the Son of man" (Rev. 1:13). {RC 39.2}


The Father can not be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is invisible to mortal sight. The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead manifested. The word of God declares Him to be "the express image of His person." "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Here is shown the personality of the Father. {BTS, March 1, 1906 par. 1}

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio. In the name of these three powers,--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will cooperate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. {BTS, March 1, 1906 par. 2}

2) I don't believe the Trinity doctrine as SDAs believe it is a false doctrine. See: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-02.htm

In brief, wherein do you differ?

There's quite a bit of difference between the SDA view of the Trinity and the view of it as seen by Roman Catholics and some other Protestants.

The original language of John 1: 1-3 shows that these verses are talking about persons and not impersonal powers or abstract ideas. God, Jesus Christ [the Word], and the Holy Spirit are real, living beings who have all the qualities of persons. That is to say, as the Bible itself shows, the three persons of the Godhead have a mind, feelings, and are able to communicate with humans. For instance, Hebrews 1: 1-3 shows God as having spoken to us by His Son. This tells us in unmistakable language that God is a personal God and that He communicates with us. This Son, Jesus Christ, made the universe. v. 10.

Matt. 28: 19 is constructed in the original language in such a way that it can only be understood as referring to three distinct persons, or beings.

My Own Eye Witness Report


in the Nature of a Confession of Mine

and How God Forgives Me






Dear John 3:17,


I am sorry if the thoughts I’m sharing with you in my posts are confusing you. I’m doing my best to be as clear as I can… yet, it seems that somehow my words are being misunderstood. Why?





Question: From your prior post it wasn’t quite clear to me as to whether you were making the above claim based upon the words in the lexicon you were referencing or whether it was your own statement based upon something else. If it was the lexicon, perhaps you’d quote for me the exact words of the lexicon to the effect that ‘ho logos’ can pertain only to such a person as is also a living being.









Question: I don’t understand why you are making this statement. Did you misunderstand me as making a contrary statement?

Let me try to make this plain:
I am a living breathing being of flesh and blood. The Creator designed and created me as recorded in Genesis One. Prior to conception part of me [i.e. the word of life in the form of DNA that define an important part of my being] was in my father and part of me in my mother. I was delivered out of my mother not quite sixty years ago. At that time my father and my mother created for me a name, which name they gave me as a gift. I am not my name. My name is my property, or more correctly, “my” name is property owned by the Creator and thus it is “a name of God” (cf. the Hebrew rendering of Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 neither of which has the definite article.) My name was designed and shaped at a far later time than I was and by different creators than the One that created me, that is, my name was created by my father and my mother [the ones that have since died.] All of said creators have names, but they are not their names either albeit being well characterized by their respective names. Each of said creators are now, or were at one time, alive just as much as I am now alive.

I am One among the Family of God (cf. John 1:12.) I am a child of God, more specifically I am a Son of God. One of my brothers, in that Family of God, is Yehoshua, Jesus. His Father is also my Father, who is often called our Father in Heaven [even though for many that is not true in spite of them believing it is (cf. John 8:44 and the means people are using today for identifying themselves.)] Our Mother is the true People of God. I am convinced that each of the four of us, Father, Mother, Yehoshua and I, in addition to many others within that same Family of God, are alive and active today, even communicating with one another and with others. Another entity that is a part of the family of God is the Holy Spirit, who is also called the Comforter or the Helper. To the extent that we are acting in accord with the will of our Father in Heaven each of us may - individually or together - act as a person authorized to represent the Family of God. I am not a person, but I may act as a person on behalf of another entity when I am authorized to do so.

Second, I am also the oldest child and son in a family of eight; father, mother, five brothers and one sister. All my siblings are alive and active today, but unfortunately our parents are not. We find a lot of comfort in our family relationship and we help one another a lot. I think that our family is blessed by a spirit that is being formed and shaped from day to day by the Holy Spirit of God. My siblings and I have all grown up and formed each our own families…

Third, I am the father of two sons and a daughter. Like my parental family, so also this family of ours is being formed in the image of God. There are similarities and there are differences between the Family of God and between the image into which we are being formed. [One important difference is that there are imperfections in the image that aren’t there in the original Family of God.] As the father of this family of ours I am authorized for being the house-band and the Head of our Household. Unfortunately I’ve been all too slow in learning and understanding the instructions provided me by God re my responsibilities and powers as a father and husband, and every member of our family is suffering in consequence of my deficiencies. One of my worst offenses is that of allowing others to carry certain God given responsibilities for me that I ought never to have delegated to any other. Although I am doing my best to listen and learn from the still small voice of God re how to effectively reclaim the responsibilities I’ve be squandering, my ability to hear and learn is not what I wish it would be and God must be very patient with me as I am learning line upon line and precept upon precept…

Allow me, if you will, to be a little more specific re my inappropriate delegation of responsibility:

1. I once consented to seek and receive the blessing of the State upon my family by doing as most others do in applying for a Marriage License. Why? Isn’t our Father in heaven much better able to provide the help and comfort we need in order to resolve our differences and stay together as a happy family? What can or does the State do towards that end? Nothing! Quite the contrary, which unfortunately all of us have been forced to experience the hard way…

2. Then I consented to register the names of my little ones with the State. Why? Only because of peer pressure and insufficient awareness of my options and an insufficient understanding of the importance not to do so, most especially an insufficient comprehension of the first three of the Ten Commandments. I sensed I should not have consented to thus register our names and I delayed for a long time, yet in the end my insights into the matter were insufficient for me to stand up against the pressure and I gave in where I shouldn’t have. I should have waited patiently for a clear word of the Lord before doing anything re that matter. That is, I should have done nothing along the line of registering our names with the State ever.

3. Prior to the above I applied for a number of things from the State, e.g. a Social Security number, a Driver License, a Medical License, a Private Pilot License. I even went to the length of joining the physician’s trade union, that is, the American Medical Association and other organizations like it. Why? Am I not able to learn and do all that I need within the realm of God’s will without the “blessing” and “protection” of the State? Isn’t the only reason for needing a Medical License and a corresponding Drug License of the State that without such licenses I cannot dispense poisonous drugs that are distortions of that which is freely available in God’s garden and of such as may be purchased in health food stores etc. by people that are not willing or able to grow things in a garden of their own? Re a Driver License, am I not allowed to travel freely on any public road with my family anywhere I wish so long as I am not working for the State or otherwise claiming the protection of the State? – I’ve learned that I am thus allowed and that the States recognize my rights of doing so. Re a SSN, can I not work freely by private contracting like little children and young people do without registering myself as a dependent or a protégé of the State? – I certainly can and do!

The process of learning the effective alternatives to the above is not always easy. Yet I am learning line upon line and precept upon precept as God is guiding me. The knowledge is there, but it is something one has to seek out for one self with the help of others that are in the same pursuit. Within the confines of the State and under the propaganda of the powers behind the State such essential knowledge is not being proclaimed or promoted in a way that is easily understood. Most especially, such knowledge is not understood by such people as continually subject themselves to the not so subtle deceptions of the media. First and foremost the necessary knowledge and the essential principles for heeding God’s calling for His People to come out of Babylon are being proclaimed in the Word of God. Without the Word of God I believe it would be next to impossible to correctly learn and apply the laws and the precepts that alone can realize the Kingdom of God in the here and the now for any one of God’s People.

I am praising the Lord, my Creator, for having taught me at this time how to effectively accomplish the following steps:

1. Exporting an automobile out of the State: That was easy. Just follow the instructions on the State’s Owner’s Certificate. And… importantly, do not register it again under another State! Using a very similar approach I’ve likewise exited land out of the trusteeship of the State successfully for better than six years at this time.

2. Moving myself out of the State: That too was easy, that is, in principle and except for overcoming all of my own preconceived ideas and my own habitual thoughts. Again, it was a matter of just following the instructions for rescinding my citizenship as a subject of the State as written in the particular laws of the State, and a matter of not completing all the steps towards becoming a citizen of any other State. It is all too easy to become in effect a citizen of a State: For instance, every name (person) using a State address, e.g. a PO Box or a Street Address may be considered res (property) or a resident of the State. (Receiving mail by General Delivery not addressed to ZIP codes or two letter State codes does not tie one into the State.) Staying upon the narrow path towards a full citizenship in the Kingdom of God is all sufficient. Yes, this is a road full of challenges. This is indeed a road of scarcity re such things as one may have been used to depend upon. It is very much a road and a path such as is being described by Ellen White in her dream re the green cord (cf. {CET 179.1} or {2T 594.1})

3. Moving my family out of the State: Well, that one I’m still working on… My eldest son was wise enough to heed my admonitions in many respects re it being much easier to stay within the Kingdom of God from the beginning than finding one’s way back to the Kingdom of God after once having entered the domains of the State, located as they are outside of the Kingdom of God. By not receiving any offers of the State – such offers are always addressed domestically within a given State – he has been able to avoid much, e.g. the offers of Selective Service and more.









Yes indeed! But again, why are you making this statement? Do you read me as saying anything to the contrary?









Please see my comments re these aspects of Hebrews 1:1-12 within this prior post of mine! Perhaps you missed it because that post is a bit on the lengthy side? :)










Once again, why are you making this statement? Are you understanding me as having said anything to the contrary?

– Remember, the Trinity has nothing whatsoever to do with the God of the Bible except to the extent that people are mixing those two entities up just the same as people misattribute so many characteristics of Satan to God! In fact, isn’t that phenomenon very much in the nature of pointing the finger at the next guy while forgetting the three fingers that are pointing back to one self?







Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

In John 1: 1, the Word was really and actively doing something in relationship with the noun, God.

The second part of John 1: 1 should be translated, "and the Word was..."

Next we will look at the part of speech that expresses what the Word was doing.

"pros" is a preposition of association.

The words "ton theon" are in the accusative case, which means they are the direct object of the subject "the word" and the verb, "as" (was).

Therefore we say that we have the preposition "pros" plus the accusative. "pros" + accusative = with.

It means "(in company) with." (See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, p. 718.)

This preposition carries the same meaning in the following texts: Mark 6: 3; Matt. 9: 19; 2 Thess 2: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 6, 7; Gal. 1: 18; 4: 18; and 1 John 1: 2. There are many more examples.

Especially compare how the Apostle John uses "pros" to describe Jesus' relationship with the Father in 1 John 1: 2: pros ton patera-- "WITH the Father."

(The words "with" in 1 John 1: 3 are all translated from a different preposition, "meta," which in that context has exactly the same meaning as "pros" does in v. 2)

This phrase, "pros ton theon," distinguishes God from the Word. It also asserts the distinct personality of the logos, as well as the inner substantial union between the logos and God. That is to say, "And the Word was with" signify that the Word is not an abstraction but a Person, and that this Person is distinct from the accusative noun, although they are in close association.

Next we will parse and translate the noun "theon" and its definite article "ton".

1) "ton theon," a definite article + the noun.

The definite article and its noun always agree in case, number, and gender.

The basic function of the definite article is to identify. The thing emphasized is identity. Here it is used to identify the divine Person, God.

Koine Greek-- the common Greek of the first century AD-- does not have an indefinite article, "a," as English does.

2) theon. Like the definite artilce, it is in the accusative case, singular, masculine. The fact that it's in the accusative case indicates that it's the object of the verb, an (was).

The Lexicon form of theon is spelled "theos," which is nominative, singular, masculine.

The accusative case is the case of limitation. It marks the limit or the end of an action. The main usage is that of direct object of a verb.

The statement, "The Word was (in company) with God," could not be said of anyone but persons. The Word is shown to be not an abstraction, nor a personification, nor the speaking word of God-- but a person. It is not an attribute of God, but an acting reality.

Let me know if there's anything in the above that you don't understand or that you have further questions about.

Question Reiterated…





Dear John 3:17,


As best I can tell, your last post (quoted below) is a simple copy paste of a portion of your prior post. The words of both are equally clear to me, except for the previously mentioned ‘as’ and ‘av’ in place of ‘an’ in your prior post (prior to the portion you’ve now copy pasted.) You already told me that the ‘av’ was a typo. Your response re the ‘as’ is a bit cryptic but of little consequence.

The important thing that is in no way clarified by copy pasting your old post into your latest post above, is, as I’ve said before, that I cannot tell what portions of all those words are quoted from “A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, p. 718)” and what portions of all those same words that are your own. It makes a difference to me! If I’d had a copy of that lexicon myself I wouldn’t have had to ask, but I don’t. Sorry! Perhaps if you were to put the words of the lexicon within a quote box, I’d find my question answered?


Shalom,

Tree of Life ©


PS. I’d find it helpful also if you’d allow me to see the time of your last edit. :)

PS II. It looks to me as though you are redoing some of the hypertext of your copy paste. I simpler way of accomplishing the same thing is to press the Quote button of your own prior post and get your copy from there rather than from the post in your primary screen. – Just in case you didn’t already know… :)

i have seen this statement various places but ive never seen a source for it. would you know exactly where he wrote that, or is it hearsay?

just curious. :) hmmm, no simple smilie.

Yes, the source is from two talks that he gave in Loma Linda and at the White Memorial in Los Angeles in 1948. It is also found in articles and letters which he wrote. And finally it is found in a biography of M.L. Andreasen.

Go to this link:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/andreasen/10.htm

John, I have a talk given by M.L. Andreasen called "Andreasen Meets the Prophet" on audio. Here's the link to where I got it.

http://delongdirect.com/sermons/SERMONS/M.%20L.%20Andreason/

Yes, I heard that before, or one that was very similar.

I like this talk very much.

thank you so very much.
from page 3 of this thread:
this leads one to one conclusion, while the site given and what was actually said gives a very different impression. this is not the first time i have checked the source against the claim.



i sit here going between absolute shock and crying my heart out!! i cant trust my church and i cant trust those who teach anything!

i just dont know what to say about my church, except that God cant wait much longer...

The Pivotal Point…

Each Our Choice

- in the Here and Now












Dear Teresaq,


Yes!


I believe you are standing - apparently alone like all the rest of us – at an important way point where you must chose one way or the other. Being somewhat aware that one of the two roads leads to eternal perdition and the other to eternal life does make one feel quite small and powerless indeed…

This choice, which is pertinent to most every now in each and all of our lives, is the focal point of the most central verse of the entire Bible! Cf. this link! It is also the fulcrum of the First Angel’s Message as presented in Revelation 14:6-7!

The point being: Can I, and do I, trust my Creator all the way? Even to the point of disregarding such traditional teachings of my most trusted friends, teachers, and church family as I find being contrary to the clear word of God as taught me personally by the Holy Spirit and by all the best sources of specific truth available to me?

You may wish to compare also this prior post of mine… But, on second thought, perhaps that way point is yet far in advance of you in your particular journey of life? You, like me and each and all among God’s own Sons and Daughters, must learn to be attentive to that which the still small voice of God is teaching you at each and every here and now of your life. And isn’t it true that at no point in your life – ever - is any one else at the very same spot at the very same time? Thus the utmost – and self evident - importance of discarding each and every go between distancing me or you from our beloved Father in Heaven… Cf. Deuteronomy 5:2-5!

And that pertains not only him who at times is wearing the tiara with the inscription VICARIVS FILII DEI…

Do you see my point? - None of us should ever be satisfied with such imperfection – 6, 60, 600, or even 666 – as is represented by the teaching of any man nor that of any group or association of men, not even excluding our beloved Seventh-day Adventist Church! Each of us is to have a one-to-one relationship with our Creator… Perhaps I may recommend Jim Hohnberger’s books “Escape to God” and “Empowered Living” re that particular – each our walk with our Redeemer, Yehoshua/Jesus?

Praise the Lord, our Creator, for always being there for each one among us… whenever you or I are willing to accept Him and that which He is offering… the answers and solutions which alone are the very best available anywhere in the universe… tailor made to each our own unique situation in life!


Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

from: oldsailor29 (SDA)


I do not understand any perplexity here. Our church has always accepted present truth. This is the first time that I have encountered any idea in our church that “In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived,” was not always a basic tenet. But if that statement about the divinity of Jesus was not one of the basic tenets of our church at the beginning, I am certainly thankful it became one. I have always believed the truth that Jesus was God in the flesh here on earth, and could never accept any heresy contrary to that.

that is a false representation of what i was objecting to.

is it possible you are reacting to something other than what i, myself, am saying?

it is written:
ylt:Exo 20:16 `Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour a false testimony.

i fear it is quite possible you also may have misunderstood.

with everyones permission,lets look at what andreason is recorded as saying.

to start, according to him what was his reason for going to look at the writings of ellen white?

That's a relief. I would not want to misrepresent anyone. I was reacting to what you said, but did not mean to misrepresent you. So, I would certainly be interested, what were you objecting to?

how did you understand what i highlighted and posted from andreason in the post you replied to and my reply to twilight(?)?

have you read the link provided at sdanet where i took the excerpts?

It looked to me like you might be appalled that Andreason had believed EGWs writings were edited to agree with what he thought was a heresy, or that he changed his mind and accepted the truth about the divinity of Jesus. I looked through the entire string of posts and did not find a post by twilight. I didn't go to sdanet. I was relying primarily on your post for my information. I do not intentionally misrepresent anyone. But, if you do not want to reveal what caused you to say,
"i sit here going between absolute shock and crying my heart out!![/color] i cant trust my church and i cant trust those who teach anything!

i just dont know what to say about my church, except that God cant wait much longer... ,"
then there is no way for anyone to offer any degree of comfort. So, I am still where I was in my first response, not knowing why you are suffering shock and distrust, and I really would like to know.

i dont know how this is getting so complicated..... :)


the (?) after twilights name was understood that i wasnt sure of the posters name wasnt it? the poster was treeoflife.

maybe reading the source and comparing it to "stewarts" post which i quoted might have prevented all this confusion and guesswork of what i meant?

im sure that is not your intention at all but checking the source and answering the questions instead of guessing as to meaning would probably have prevented misrepresenting another.

since you do not wish to misrepresent anyone why would you phrase your responses like this?

from #265465:
this was between stewarts post, which i reposted, and excepts of the article from the site given which was also in that post. perhaps if i knew how this was understood by the reader it would help me to look for a better way to phrase what i am saying so as to be understood.


if you are really interested i will try again but taking it one step at a time with the intention of preventing any further misunderstandings. is that acceptable?

this is the site.

this is the name of the book and author at that site. i see no mention of a trinity/antitrinity/arian issue here. how do others understand this?

this is the name of the chapter in question. i still see no reference to a trinity/antitrinity/arian issue here. does any else?

heres hoping this is better and clearer... :)

M.L. Andreasen was a convinced Trinitarian.

He said:



See source: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/andreasen/10.htm

NOTE: He was antitrinitarian before he visited Ellen White in 1906. Prior to this time, he was sure that Ellen White did not write DA 530, but he read those words for himself in her own handwriting and verified by talking to her that she did indeed write them. As a result, as he says, "this statement at that time... compelled a complete revision of my former view..."

During the 1950s, Andreasen had much criticism for the book, Questions On Doctrine, but among those criticisms there was nothing concerning the Trinity, which is taught clearly in that book. (See QOD, pp. 11, 22) (1957 edition)

Andreasen’s position was the Adventist position. It remains embedded in the section on the Book of Hebrews in the SDA Bible Commentary, which he wrote. On page 400, regarding Heb. 1: 10, Andreasen writes, "Jesus is both Lord and God." On page 454, Andreasen wrote that "Christ's own divine nature... is eternal." cf. comments on Heb. 1: 3.

Additional information regarding Andreasen in relation to the Trinity:

Source: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm




41--
M. L. Andreasen, "The Spirit of Prophecy," chapel address at Loma Linda, California, November 30, 1948, quoted in Russell Holt, "The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination: Its Rejection and Acceptance" (Term Paper, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1969), 20.

i have moons paper.

i checked some of the sources he mentioned to see the context the pioneers quotes.

i also checked the archives to see for myself what the pioneers had to say about the trinity. that wasnt real hard since there were less than 10 articles on it.

i still have to find where they are consciously teaching an arian perspective, especially since they had different views in that regard.

i have to be grateful for this trinity/antitrinity dispute because it educated me as to the real issues, reading the pioneers educated me. if i followed either the trinity or antitrinity position it could set me up for serious delusions down the road.

the issue, my dear friends, is not the deity of Jesus. the issue is not trinity vs antitrinitarianism. the issue is truthfulness. the issue is clouding the truths we need for this time, such as the topic i just started somewhere on the materialness of the Father.

that is one thing i discovered in reading the pioneers for myself instead of taking someones word for what they supposedly believed and taught. im not trying to be better, smarter or anything than anyone else here. i am just utterly shocked that noone else checked to see if the pioneers were maybe misunderstood in the points they were making. or at least none i have met so far.

for some reason it is very important to know that the Father is not immaterial as the true trinitarian doctrine teaches. a doctrine that the vast majority of other denominations believe, and now believe that we also believe the same since we have adopted the word "trinity".

if someone asks an sda if they believe in the trinity, the sda will say yes, not having a clue that s/he just said they believed the Father to be a spirit inhabiting everything.

Where does the SDA doctrine of the Trinity state that the Father is "a spirit inhabiting everything"?



See the book SDAs Believe: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/27-03.htm

It's important to remember that not all views of the Trinity are the same. For instance, the Roman Catholic Church's view of the Trinity is quite different in some details from the SDA view of the Godhead.

This is true. They all had different views in regard to the Godhead, because our church was still developing its doctrine on that subject. Therefore, Uriah Smith believed for a time that Christ was created, just as J. H. Waggoner did. At the same time James White did not believe Christ was created, but all three men agreed that the Holy Spirit was not a distinct person but an influence or power from the Father. James White was slowly following Ellen White's lead. He was changing at the time of his death. Others, such as E.J. Waggoner, and A. T. Jones, would go on to change even further.

In short, over the years, there was a great deal of change in their views of the Godhead. Some SDA pastors believed in the Trinity and they were not asked by the leadership to change their views. James White wrote in the R & H that the Trinity doctrine should not be a test of fellowship or Christian character.

Okay, let's try to uncomplicate it a little. I am interested in knowing what is so upsetting. Was it because somebody posted some article about the divinity of Jesus, and tried to spin it to make some application to the trinity doctrine? If they did, I would not be surprised. I think I read somebody's post which stated that if Jehovah is the same as Jesus, then there couldn't be a trinity. In a group where a statement like that passes for logical thought, I wouldn't be surprised at anything I might read here.

If that was not why you were upset, then please just tell me what it was. Obviously I misunderstood what it was the first time I read your post. And after reading a lot of related material, I am still not sure. :)

I Share Your Concerns

Re the Broken Blueprint

Provided Our Beloved Seventh-day Advent People












Dear Teresaq,


Yes, I too probably misunderstood you…

And I very much share your concerns re how the messages sent to us had been accepted and acted upon, or, rather, how they had not be accepted and acted upon in accord with the blueprint provided us…

To me it was a great eye opener – reminiscent of the experience of M. L. Andreasen upon visiting Ellen White – to partake of the extended advise through the pen of Ellen White to our church leaders as reflected in the book The Broken Blueprint by Vance Farrell.

The Broken Blueprint provided me with the previously missing history of our Seventh-day Adventist institutions worldwide and the reasons for the many years of continued successes and growth as well as the most important reasons for the down scaling and eventual demise over the last several decades of the same.

I warmly recommend that book, The Broken Blueprint, to every true Seventh-day Adventist who is interested in sharing our health message and who is interested in working for the Lord of Hosts as a health provider and/or as a true missionary, whether on the home front or elsewhere in the world. Here’s a link to the publisher where the book can be purchased for next to nothing and then given to all of your friends who share your burden and your desire for the soon coming of Christ and the realization of the Kingdom of God.


Shalom,

Tree of Life ©

thank you all for sharing. :)

these "parts" of sentences and paragraphs, especially the part in red, does not match the reasons andreasn himself gives for going to look at the original documents.

this stresses the deity of Christ.

andreasen mentioned it in passing.

this was the main reason, according to ancreasen that he went.


to what was he referring? according to his words:
which he felt

his conclusion of ALL of her writings?

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/andreasen/10.htm

im lost as to how you misunderstood.

were you busy and read too fast,

or do i need to reword it somehow?

What evidence is there that "the true doctrine of the Trinity" teaches "that the Father is not immaterial"?

What is your source of authority? Is it perhaps one or more of the creeds?

And how can the doctrine of the Trinity teach He is not immaterial [i.e. that He is material] and at the same time teach that the Father is a "spirit inhabiting everything"?

youre not implying that the seventh day adventist church came up with the doctrine of the trinity are you?

just trying to get on the same page with you, here. :)