Walter Veith

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave commented on the so-called "pillars of the faith."

 

*  There is no one correct answer to this issue as to the pillars of the faith.  I generally define them as five (5) that were developed in the early days of this denomination.

*  Other SDAs who study our history agree on there being five, but do not totally agree with me as to what those five were.

*  Others expand beyond five and consider there to be more than five.

One of the problems with this issue is that as I define the five, those five core teachings were not the basic core teachings of Christianity.   For example, none of the five addressed the nature of Christ and/or the Godhead.  None addressed salvation by faith.

I will suggest a reason as to why none of what I call the five addressed core teachings of Christianity.  The early SDA leaders came from areligious background.  Some like Ellen white came from a Methodist background.  Ohers like James White came from what has been called the Christian Connection, which did have some teachings that were in error.  Others came from other Christian denominations.  The result was that all of those early leaders considered everyone to have a Christian background.  As such, they did not need to be converted to Christianity.  So, basic, core Christian teachings were ignored during those formative years and therefore my listing of the five core pillars of the emerging SDA faith did not include any teachings that were central to Christianity.

[stinsonmarri]

On 5/3/2021 at 3:49 PM, BlessedMan said:

Not sure where you are getting this to mean "one doctrine." It says "one faith."  Huge difference in scripture, throughout.

Where are these differences that you speak of that is held by the faith ones. Show me if the Adams after sinning in the Garden was different, or Abraham, Moses Job, Nehemiah, Matthew, Mark, Peter, John. The only ones I read was mix were Satan and his fallen angels, Cain and his family, those lost in the flood, Job's children, Israel that were lost over and over mixing false gods with the TRUE ALMIGHTY ONES! Peter, James and John and so much more. So, please show me.

Blessings!

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:  The problems with the logic of your above statement includes the following among other issues.

*  It may be true that no one can show you that Adam and Eve believed differently after they sinned, but, you cannot show that Adam and Eve believed the same after they sinned.  You do not know what they believed in any kind of detail and neither do we. 

*  Your arguments often fail on the basis of your logic.  As an example, in the above post, you ask a question that no one can answer.  You cannot answer and neither can anyone else.  We do not know exactly what Adam and Eve believed in any kind of detail.  Your logic in asking the question has failed.

*  You often post on the basis of a false premise.   You continue to use Strong as an authority on the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words.  As you have been told this is not a proper use of Strong.  Strong tells us how Greek and Hebrew words have been translated in the Bible.  There is a difference.  Strong does not tell us what those words mean.  That is what a lexicon does.  NOTE:  You may have lived in Israel and therefore have some understanding of modern Hebrew.   However, that does not give you an understanding of either Biblical Hebrew or of Biblical Aramaic.

*  In actual fact, you do often present positions that are correct and well worthy of consideration.  But, your manner of presentation is often such that people simply dismiss them without consideration.  You do it to yourself.

[Gustave]

On 5/3/2021 at 5:20 PM, phkrause said:

Where does she actually say that? Because if that statement above is your proof, than you have a problem Gustave!!

A few more statements here as a foundation of what will be coming this weekend. 

Ellen White:
"Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ. They should so represent Christ's person and conduct that by doing His works they will manifest the character and spirit of the Father. Christ is the express image of His Father's person and character.--Manuscript 130, 1902, p. 11. (Diary, "Christ's Example in Every Line of Work," October 27, 1902.)
 

“Some have difficulty in reconciling Christ's statement in John 14 : 28, " My Father is greater than I," with the idea that He is God, and is entitled to worship. Some, indeed, dwell upon that text alone as sufficient to overthrow the idea of Christ's divinity ; but if that were allowed, it would only prove a contradiction in the Bible, and even in

Christ's own speech; for it is most positively declared, as we have seen, that He is Divine. There are two facts which are amply sufficient to account for Christ's statement recorded in John 14: 28. One is that Christ is the Son of God. While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ's personality had a beginning”. Present Truth December 18, 1890
 

"Christ's Personality had a beginning".  This will also be developed so as to establish the meaning the individuals who employed the words meant for them. The Adventist position up until around 1920 was that Christ earthly body was his 2nd body - In heaven Michael & Lucifer the archangels were taught to have actual FLESH. 

Ellen White
entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ. {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}

 

RH October 8, 1903
OF late the question has repeatedly come to me, Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God, as long as we believe in God? My answer invariably is, It    depends altogether upon the standpoint from which we view it. If from the Spiritualist's, -the Christian Scientist's, the Universalist's, or if from the standpoint of any other " ist" or " ism," it makes but little or no difference. But from the standpoint of Seventh-day Adventists it makes all the difference in the world

As others have pointed out here, the SDA Church didn't derive any doctrines from Ellen White. Other individuals came up with ideas and they would be offered to Ellen White who would infallibly define which ideas were true and become doctrines and what ones were false and be relegated to the trash. 

Above Ellen entreating the faithful to be firm and "clear" on the specific eternal truth of the "Personality of God". Like her other statements on this particular subject a rejection of the POG doctrine is like being in a small boat in a storm and cutting off the anchor. 

In any event these statements will become useful as we explore teaching of the Personality of God doctrine and what it was defined to be by the individuals who presented it to Ellen White for doctrinal approval. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

in understanding the Bible, it is critical to understand the concept reflected in the word anthropomorphism.  That concept suggests that we humans are limited in understanding to ideas that are part of our human experience.  The divine experience is outside of the human experience and therefore outside of our understanding.  Therefore, if God wants to communicate with us, it must be with concepts that are part of our human experience.   In Exodus 31:18 we are told that the ten commandments were written on stone tablets by the finger of God.  A superficial understanding of that verse would tell a person that God has a hand with fingers.  That is because we humans generally have two hands with a total of 10 fingers.  But, this verse actually raises a different question.  Is the purpose of that verse to tell us that God has hands and fingers?   Or is the central purpose of that verse to tell us that God is the author of the ten commandments?  An understanding as to what an anthropomorphism is will suggest to us that God is communicating to us in terms of our human experience. and God is the author of the Ten commandments, not that God has hands and fingers.

This concept requires a level of maturity that children do not have.  An adult can understand this, and a six year-old is not likely to understand it. In addition, it requires a level of spiritual maturity.

The Seventh-day Adventist denomination was founded, in part, by young people who were young, both in years and in spiritual maturity.  I do not question that Ellen White and others, believed that God the Father had a mouth, feet, fingers and more.  They were wrong in thinking that the Bible attempts to teach us that God the Father has a human form of a body.  In actual fact, I will suggest that the Bible cannot explain the exact nature of God to us as such is outside of our human experience and therefore cannot be understood by us. 

Ellen White was never perfect in her doctrinal understanding of the Biblical teachings.  Period.  Not in those early years of her life and not at the end of her life.

 

 

[Gustave]

On 5/4/2021 at 5:24 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

In a post dated Sunday, May 2, 2021, Gustave has raised an interesting point.  I am responding to it in this post.

* Gustave asks about EGWs teaching as to the physical nature of God the Father.  Then he quoted from Manuscript Release 760.  It should be noted that Ellen White is not said by the SDA Chruch to have been without error in her beliefs.  She did hold beliefs in regard to the nature of God that can be said to have been wrong.   

*  I will suggest that it is important to give some thought to Manuscript Release # 760, which Gustave cited.  That release consists of some 31 pages.  To get a full sense as to what it says, one should read the entire document and not depend on a summation of a few sentences, whether made by Gustave, or by me.  

The main focus of that document, as I understand it, was to point of the errors of Dr. Kellogg and Elder Ballenger, and specifically the pantheism that was present in the book, The Living Temple.  

*  If you are interested in reading MR 760, see:  Manuscript Release No. 760 — Ellen G. White Writings (egwwritings.org)

 

 

Yes, I agree with what you've said. 

I don't want what I'm saying (or better said preparing to say) to be a kind of "gotcha". Part of where I'm leaning is that Dr. Kellogg, when he was in a favorable status within the Denomination, was one of the official apologists for the SDA Church and one of his main harping points was "The Personality of God". What I'm seeing is that Kellogg wrote extensively against the Trinity and in favor of the Personality of God and there wasn't a peep about how Kellogg was wrong. 

Kellogg ends up writing a book and that generated an immediate rebuke from Ellen White but the ironic thing from my point of view was that between Kellogg's last apologetic article in favor for the Personality of God and the Living Temple book Kellogg accepted the Trinity Doctrine that he had previously rejected. If Kellogg could write copious amounts of anti-Trinitarian materials in the Church Papers and not so much as a peep of correction and then we see a very public vocal rebuke on the Living Temple that would seem to strongly indicate something. I've read the Living Temple and I'm not seeing Pantheism in it and additionally I've read Kellogg's letter to Butler where he absolutely denies he's a Pantheist in any form. 

The SDA's prior to about 1920 considered a belief in the Trinity Doctrine to be Pantheism. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There has been scholarly debate within Adventism in recent years as to whether or not Kellogg's book The Living Temple reflected Pantheism.

I have not yet converted to the idea that it did not reflect pantheism on any level.  

[stinsonmarri]

On 5/3/2021 at 1:23 AM, Gustave said:

 

Hi Stinsonmarri, I am curious if you agree with Ellen White when she said she was shown that God the Father has a body with parts? By "parts" I mean things like an esophagus, nose, liver, stuff like that? 

 

"Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men". They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor. {MR760 9.5}

[NOTE:  Gustave has raised an interesting point in this post.  I will respond to it in a postdated May 5, 2021.--Gregory Matthews.]

 

I certainly do because the Bible speaks of it. Gen 1:27 clearly speaks that we are both: the male and the female are made in THEIR image. It appears that none have read that Abraham saw YAHSHUA who came in HIS FATHER'S NAME also two angels. Sarah fixed food for them and  they ate. The problem you make something so simple so complicated. Who are you that you know what a spiritual being body is? You don't, yet the Bible have showed you. THE FATHER Made a FLESH BODY for YAHSHUA and you do not understand that THE BODY DIED, HE DIDN'T! The Bible speaks that YAHSHUA Laid down HIS BODY and took it back up again. Now flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven-hello! When YAHSHUA was walking on the road with the two disciples they did not recognize HIM, nor when HE came through the door while they were eating. Is anyone reading HIS Story? Then after eating with HIM, HE disappear. What do you think they saw? A BODY THAT HAS PARTS AND EATS! READ YOUR BIBLE!

Blessings!

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri, your post tells us that you do not understand the concept of anthropomorphism.  I have commented on this is a post four (4) posts back from this one.

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

I certainly do because the Bible speaks of it. Gen 1:27 clearly speaks that we are both: the male and the female are made in THEIR image. It appears that none have read that Abraham saw YAHSHUA who came in HIS FATHER'S NAME also two angels. Sarah fixed food for them and  they ate. The problem you make something so simple so complicated. Who are you that you know what a spiritual being body is? You don't, yet the Bible have showed you. THE FATHER Made a FLESH BODY for YAHSHUA and you do not understand that THE BODY DIED, HE DIDN'T! The Bible speaks that YAHSHUA Laid down HIS BODY and took it back up again. Now flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven-hello! When YAHSHUA was walking on the road with the two disciples they did not recognize HIM, nor when HE came through the door while they were eating. Is anyone reading HIS Story? Then after eating with HIM, HE disappear. What do you think they saw? A BODY THAT HAS PARTS AND EATS! READ YOUR BIBLE!

Blessings!

I appreciate the candor of your answer to my question Stinsonmarri. 

You have, in your answer, provided me with another question. You said, 

"flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven - hello".

 

Taking that approach would you be willing to help me understand where Moses' flesh and blood "body" was between Moses' death and the Transfiguration. You've excluded any distinctions which would put your theology closer to mine in that I believe Moses died and that it was his "spirit" that was visible at the Transfiguration. Additionally your view would also cause me to wonder where you believe Elijah was hanging out between the time he was whisked away & the Transfiguration. 

 

I also concur with Gregory about what he said about anthropomorphism. 

 

In any event thanks for responding.

 

 

 

[stinsonmarri]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

I appreciate the candor of your answer to my question Stinsonmarri. 

You have, in your answer, provided me with another question. You said, 

"flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven - hello".

 

Taking that approach would you be willing to help me understand where Moses' flesh and blood "body" was between Moses' death and the Transfiguration. You've excluded any distinctions which would put your theology closer to mine in that I believe Moses died and that it was his "spirit" that was visible at the Transfiguration. Additionally your view would also cause me to wonder where you believe Elijah was hanging out between the time he was whisked away & the Transfiguration. 

 

I also concur with Gregory about what he said about anthropomorphism. 

 

In any event thanks for responding.

 

 

 

Excuse me Gustave, can you kindly show me where you read that Moses, Elijah, Enoch bodies are flesh and blood. Also, also those who rose with YAHSHUA! Now, just remember give me Scriptures.

Blessings!

[Gustave]

31 minutes ago, stinsonmarri said:

Excuse me Gustave, can you kindly show me where you read that Moses, Elijah, Enoch bodies are flesh and blood. Also, also those who rose with YAHSHUA! Now, just remember give me Scriptures.

Blessings!

 

I don't believe Moses is "flesh & blood" - I'm pretty sure Moses' body returned to the earth and after the Resurrection of Christ Moses soul went to "be with Christ". Your not grasping my question.

You said, without distinction, that:

"Now flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven-hello!"

You agree that Moses appeared at the Transfiguration, right? 

You believe as an SDA that the dead don't know anything (i.e. are totally unconscious), right? 

IF Moses appeared at the Transfiguration AND WASN'T resurrected in his own flesh than you would appear to have a theological problem would you not?  Do you believe that Jesus is alive now and has "flesh & blood"? 

Look at the Scripture below and think about this for a little bit.  

Job 19,25 For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed again  with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God.

 

[stinsonmarri]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri, your post tells us that you do not understand the concept of anthropomorphism.  I have commented on this is a post four (4) posts back from this one.

Pastor Matthew: Kindly I do not believe in:

Anthropomorphism: 1753, "the ascription of human qualities to a deity," from anthropomorphous + -ism. Of other non-human things, from 1858. Related: Anthropomorphism (1610s).  Anthropomorphous (adj.) "having human form; anthropoid in form" (of apes, etc.), 1753, Englishing of Late Latin anthropomorphus "having human form," from Greek anthropomorphos "of human form," from anthrōpos"human being" (see anthropo-) + morphē "form," a word of uncertain etymology. Related: Anthropomorphously. Etymology Online Dictionary

Pastor, kindly I do not believe Greek Philosophy; it is a form of religion. The Greeks felt it was an enlightenment of their mind. The Bible told Daniel to tell us to be aware!I have been saying in my comments all along; the world has taken on Greek everything. The Greek got, some from Persia, Egypt and Nimrod's Babylon. That is what Daniel and John reveal to us by THE FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT! I believe in the Word and what it shows very simple. Where do you think the Greek got all of their concepts from? It certainly wasn't from Heaven! I have said I do not believe in religions because they all are mix up with the ancient religions of the ancient kingdoms. I can not tell you how to believe, I can only give you what the Bible says. The Bible said that ELOHIYM made us in HIS IMAGE. To make it simple, that mean a copy of the original. I believe exactly how that reads.

The people before the flood, never saw rain before nor a massive boat like Noah was told to build. They contradict Noah and you know the rest of the story. Over and over, men contradict ELOHIYM and they lose! Our ways, thoughts or mind is not like THEIRS because of sin. I will stand alone, but I do not dare to go against what the Bible says. If THEY SAY IT, I believe it simple!

Blessings!

 

[stinsonmarri]

4 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

I don't believe Moses is "flesh & blood" - I'm pretty sure Moses' body returned to the earth and after the Resurrection of Christ Moses soul went to "be with Christ". Your not grasping my question.

You said, without distinction, that:

"Now flesh and blood can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven-hello!"

You agree that Moses appeared at the Transfiguration, right? 

You believe as an SDA that the dead don't know anything (i.e. are totally unconscious), right? 

IF Moses appeared at the Transfiguration AND WASN'T resurrected in his own flesh than you would appear to have a theological problem would you not?  Do you believe that Jesus is alive now and has "flesh & blood"? 

Look at the Scripture below and think about this for a little bit.  

Job 19,25 For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be clothed again  with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God.

 

I never read that skin is flesh, don't you know people do not eat skin of most animals? I know people who don't eat skin of a chicken! I have always read that flesh is the muscles and organ that blood travel through in the body. You need to read about skin. Trust me you will be amaze!

Blessings!

[stinsonmarri]

On 5/5/2021 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Stinsonmarri:  The problems with the logic of your above statement includes the following among other issues.

*  It may be true that no one can show you that Adam and Eve believed differently after they sinned, but, you cannot show that Adam and Eve believed the same after they sinned.  You do not know what they believed in any kind of detail and neither do we. 

*  Your arguments often fail on the basis of your logic.  As an example, in the above post, you ask a question that no one can answer.  You cannot answer and neither can anyone else.  We do not know exactly what Adam and Eve believed in any kind of detail.  Your logic in asking the question has failed.

*  You often post on the basis of a false premise.   You continue to use Strong as an authority on the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words.  As you have been told this is not a proper use of Strong.  Strong tells us how Greek and Hebrew words have been translated in the Bible.  There is a difference.  Strong does not tell us what those words mean.  That is what a lexicon does.  NOTE:  You may have lived in Israel and therefore have some understanding of modern Hebrew.   However, that does not give you an understanding of either Biblical Hebrew or of Biblical Aramaic.

*  In actual fact, you do often present positions that are correct and well worthy of consideration.  But, your manner of presentation is often such that people simply dismiss them without consideration.  You do it to yourself.

Pastor: I provide I felt by giving Strong the one most people use. I use a lot of them myself. Strong has error also, but he is the one most accept. Let me say this, I do not argue, I present my point as you present yours. Is your's an argument? Why can't people have simple disagreement without being labeled. We are all individuals have to make up our own mind with the help of THE HOLY SPIRIT! People dismiss me because they choose to. Please, I stand up and point out to all what the Bible says. So, if people become upset like I did with racial issue, they chooses to. I did and I blame no one but myself. Allow Satan in and that it, until I humble myself and saw the mess I played into. All of accept what we chooses to accept. I pray that I do not allow my feelings to cause me to turn away from THE HOLY SPIRIT!

Pastor, that is judging that you know what my logic is. You did not make or mold my mind, neither did I make or mold your's. It is all I say about choice and what is pleasing for us to accept! I choose to be practical and not logical. Practical is what is a ghost? Why do we call an ALMIGHTY ONE a ghost. Have you seen a ghost? I haven't. The definition is a dead person that is really not dead! That is not practical nor is it logical because it makes no sense! When things do not make any sense it first not practical and it is not logical. So, when I read things that make no sense, I myself, do not accept them. I like the simple, loving things in life. We all need to stop judging each other and try to understand each other. Now that makes sense!

Blessings!

[phkrause]

On 5/5/2021 at 10:43 AM, Gustave said:

Ellen White:
"Christians should bear in mind that God has a personality as verily as has Christ. They should so represent Christ's person and conduct that by doing His works they will manifest the character and spirit of the Father. Christ is the express image of His Father's person and character.--Manuscript 130, 1902, p. 11. (Diary, "Christ's Example in Every Line of Work," October 27, 1902.)

What's wrong with God having a personality?? I find no problem here!!

 

On 5/5/2021 at 10:43 AM, Gustave said:

"Christ's Personality had a beginning".  This will also be developed so as to establish the meaning the individuals who employed the words meant for them. The Adventist position up until around 1920 was that Christ earthly body was his 2nd body - In heaven Michael & Lucifer the archangels were taught to have actual FLESH. 

Did you mean thought here instead of "taught?"

 

On 5/5/2021 at 10:43 AM, Gustave said:

entreat every one to be clear and firm regarding the certain truths that we have heard and received and advocated. The statements of God's Word are plain. Plant your feet firmly on the platform of eternal truth. Reject every phase of error, even though it be covered with a semblance of reality, which denies the personality of God and of Christ. {RH, August 31, 1905 par. 11}

Again what's wrong with God or Christ having a personality?? Obviously Christ was here living on earth and had a personality!!

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsommarri:   Most of what you have posted in response to Gustave and I has no  relationship to what either of us has posted.

You clearly do not understand what has been said.

 

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, phkrause said:

What's wrong with God having a personality?? I find no problem here!!

 

Did you mean thought here instead of "taught?"

 

Again what's wrong with God or Christ having a personality?? Obviously Christ was here living on earth and had a personality!!

Nothing is wrong with God having a personality - if you're a Mormon or were part of the Arian Christian Connexion group. There is a LOT wrong with God having a "Body" composed of "members and parts" if you are a Christian. 

 

Yes, I meant "taught". 

 

Nothing is wrong with Christ  having a personality with members and parts - in fact denying this would be heretical. Claiming that Christ BEFORE the Incarnation had a body with members and parts is indeed heretical. 

If you would humor me by looking at the below statements. I can assure you it's the same statement you would find made officially by the Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and any Evangelical Church you could think of.

Methodist:

Article I — Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and WWCOG 7th day have a big beef with the above statement. I'll quote what the Mormons say about it. 

·        “These three beings (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) make up the Godhead.“

 

·        “Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other[ii]“

 

·         “If by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the New Testament teaching that there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost, all three of whom are fully divine, then Latter-day Saints believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. It is as simple as that. The Latter-day  Saints’ first article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842, states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost……However, if by ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ one means the doctrine formulated by the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and elaborated upon by subsequent theologians and councils–that God is three coequal persons in one substance or essence–then Latter-day Saints do not believe it.[iii]”

 

[Gustave]

PhkRause,

Not sure why everything got underlined in my last post but hopefully that didn't take away from the fact that the SDA statement about how God is one isn't like the Mormon statement - it IS the Mormon statement. 

In Mormonism the three "Beings" are ONE in the sense of a Board of Directors or Committee acting in a unified manner or as they say God is ONE in the same way Christ and His Disciples are one. This isn't like what Ellen White said - it IS exactly what she said. 

Every composite thing - EVERYTHING that consists of parts is the kind of thing that depends on something other than itself for its existence. Logic dictates that IF Christ is "part of God" He wouldn't be God because the parts are "prior to" & "other than" the whole YET the whole has to depend on these parts for its's existence. This is very basic Thomas Aquinas logic. 

See below

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14).

A) if Jesus would have sinned He wouldn't have been the Christ foretold in the 1st place.

b) If Jesus is "part of God" than God isn't God - it's that OR the Father is God & Christ was only God in an honorary sense like a board member may serve as President of the Board. 

C) If "PART OF God" could eternally cease to exist what kind of God would be left? 

This is a sample of where I'm coming from when I suggest that God can't have members and parts. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri:  Since you have extensively responded to posts that Gustave and I have made, I will give an example of a post that you have made that defies logic and demonstrates that you simply do not understand:

In a post that you made on April 17, in the thread "New Book on Creation," you said, as I have quoted you below.

*  No island land mass has ever floated in an ocean of water.   Some people will talk about large islands of garbage that float on the oceans.  But, no land mass that exists in an ocean of water has ever floated.

*  There are islands that are part of Alaska.  But, they do not float in water.  

*  The melting of glaciers may cause the level of ocean water to rise.  However, glacial melting does not cause islands to sink. 

 

Quote

Some of this land is release and floats back to the top which we called islands. It all has to do with heat and pressure. 

* * *   * * *   * * *

Alaska islands are sinking because the glaciers are melting. . .[/quote}

 

[Gustave]

16 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Pastor Matthew: Kindly I do not believe in:

Anthropomorphism: 1753, "the ascription of human qualities to a deity," from anthropomorphous + -ism. Of other non-human things, from 1858. Related: Anthropomorphism (1610s).  Anthropomorphous (adj.) "having human form; anthropoid in form" (of apes, etc.), 1753, Englishing of Late Latin anthropomorphus "having human form," from Greek anthropomorphos "of human form," from anthrōpos"human being" (see anthropo-) + morphē "form," a word of uncertain etymology. Related: Anthropomorphously. Etymology Online Dictionary

Pastor, kindly I do not believe Greek Philosophy; it is a form of religion. The Greeks felt it was an enlightenment of their mind. The Bible told Daniel to tell us to be aware!I have been saying in my comments all along; the world has taken on Greek everything. The Greek got, some from Persia, Egypt and Nimrod's Babylon. That is what Daniel and John reveal to us by THE FATHER, SON and HOLY SPIRIT! I believe in the Word and what it shows very simple. Where do you think the Greek got all of their concepts from? It certainly wasn't from Heaven! I have said I do not believe in religions because they all are mix up with the ancient religions of the ancient kingdoms. I can not tell you how to believe, I can only give you what the Bible says. The Bible said that ELOHIYM made us in HIS IMAGE. To make it simple, that mean a copy of the original. I believe exactly how that reads.

The people before the flood, never saw rain before nor a massive boat like Noah was told to build. They contradict Noah and you know the rest of the story. Over and over, men contradict ELOHIYM and they lose! Our ways, thoughts or mind is not like THEIRS because of sin. I will stand alone, but I do not dare to go against what the Bible says. If THEY SAY IT, I believe it simple!

Blessings!

 

 

Stinsonmarri,

The ancient Greeks, Romans and other cultures BELIEVED their God's were flesh hominids that ate meals, had sex, urinated and so on. These "God's" of ancient cultures HAD MEMBERS & PARTS. I think Gregory's point & most certainly the point I've been making for a long time on this forum is that;

"The Personality of God" Doctrine promulgated by the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White wasn't like the Pagan Greek concept - IT WAS THE PAGAN GREEK CONCEPT. I'm not saying that being confused on something like this is the end of the world or anything - I'm just saying when a group of uneducated folks get together and start talking about the Bible they will reach different conclusions than a group of educated individuals who are competent in the ancient languages the Bible's books were composed in. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave said in the quote below"

*  Gustave, I am currently taking a non-credit course entitled "Great Mythologies of the World."  I must differ with your statement in some respects.  In actuality, there are major differences between the doctrine related to God and the Greek concept.

*  The gods of ancient Greek thought were born, died and sometimes came back to life. 

*  The first generation of the gods called the Titans resulted from the union of Gia (earth) and Uranus.

*  The first generation of the gods who lived   on Mt. Olympus came from the union of Kronos (a son of Uranus) and Rhea (his sister.)

*  Humans came during the Golden Age of the rule of Kronos.

*  Zeus (a son of Kronos) and other Olympian gods defeated the Titans and forced them to live underground (probably in Tartarus) bound in chains.

*  Later the Olympian gods defeated the race of giants that Gia had birthed.  With this defeat, the Olympian gods ruled supreme.

*  NOTE:  If I were to further fill out the story of the Greek Gods, I would have to mention Athena, Aphrodite and Hera. 

But, I will shorten it.  The doctrine of the pagan Greek gods and goddesses differs in many major ways from the beliefs of the early SDAs.  Those differences far exceed that of the similarities.

 

Quote

"The Personality of God" Doctrine promulgated by the SDA Pioneers and Ellen White wasn't like the Pagan Greek concept - IT WAS THE PAGAN GREEK CONCEPT.

[Gregory Matthews]

Stinsonmarri, while you have commented on Greek philosophy and religion, you have said nothing that causes me to think that you understand the ancient, pagan, Greek religion.

 

[Gustave]

11 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave said in the quote below"

*  Gustave, I am currently taking a non-credit course entitle "Great Mythologies of the World."  I must differ with your statement in some respects.  In actuality, there are major differences between the doctrine related to God and the Greek concept.

*  The gods of ancient Greek thought were born, died and sometimes came back to life. 

*  The first generation of the gods called the Titans resulted from the union of Gia (earth) and Uranus.

*  The first generation of the gods who lived   on Mt. Olympus came from the union of Kronos (a son of Uranus) and Rhea (his sister.)

*  Humans came during the Golden Age of the rule of Kronos.

*  Zua (a son of Kronos) and other Olympian gods defeated the Titans and forced them to live underground (probably in Tartarus) bound in chains.

*  Later the Olympian gods defeated the race of giants that Gia had birthed.  With this defeat, the Olympian gods ruled supreme.

*  NOTE:  If I were to further fill out the story of the Greek Gods, I would have to mention Athena, Aphrodite and Hera. 

But, I will shorten it.  The doctrine of the pagan Greek gods and goddesses differs in many major ways from the beliefs of the early SDAs.  Those differences far exceed that of the similarities.

 

 

 

 

The similarity I was focusing in on was the anthropomorphic view the Greeks had with their God's. Zeus was a hominid flesh god with a nose to smell the incense and an appetite.   

Below is a fairly accurate depection of what the ancient Greeks thought their God's looked and acted like.

"I am Hades" Clash of the Titans (2010) Clip (1/7) - YouTube

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I know your focus.  I wanted you to make a statement of your focus.  NOTE. I was very brief.