The Trinity?

[LoneRanger]

When Uriah Smith wrestled with the concept of begotten, he was still called arian. Here we are thousands of posts later still wrestling with these concepts. I think we own Uriah an apology, I'm not sure we've gained an inch over the pioneers.

Pioneers? What about the Early Church? This question has haunted Christianity since its inception.

[o2bwise]

Hi LoneRanger,

This has been already presented, but here goes.

Romans 1 says we can look at this creation as an aid in understanding the Godhead.

If we believe the biblical account, we must confine the creation of this realm to the 6 days of creation week. This then requires something that may be of surprise.

Of the billions of beings that have been born, not a one was created at that time!

It is an immense violation of the biblical record to deduce:

One is created at birth (or conception).

No, NOT if the Bible is our guide.

How then do I know I am created? I trace my lineage back to Adam and from the biblical record, see that Adam was created. I therefore know that the STUFF of which I am composed was created by God.

Let's apply the exact same reasoning to the Son with the hypothesis that He was literally begotten (born) of God.

I trace His lineage back and it reaches back to God.

And I ask about God. Nope. Not created.

I wonder about God's essence (nature).

Nope, not an iota's worth of STUFF that was spoken into existence.

And so I conclude that for Jesus to be begotten DOES NOT AND CANNOT RIGHTLY imply He was created and in fact see that His very essence is STUFF that is wholly uncreated and has "been" from eternity.

Is it fair to quote what Waggoner spoke at the 1888 Minneapolis Session?

Quote:

Christ Our Righteousness, Waggoner:

The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.

But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

When Uriah Smith wrestled with the concept of begotten, he was still called arian. Here we are thousands of posts later still wrestling with these concepts. I think we own Uriah an apology, I'm not sure we've gained an inch over the pioneers.

Yeah, but after those same hundreds of posts, it sure would be nice for the "trinitarian side of the divide" to 1)delineate between Arius erring by saying Christ was created to the truth that as the literally begotten Son of God, He could not have been.

After hundreds of posts, Club, you somehow did not offer that massive, crucial difference.

Blessings,

Tony

[ClubV12]

LoneRanger, excellent point! Indeed, this is an issue mankind will not resolve this side of the Kingdom. Where Uriah and many of the pioneers failed is similiar to where THIS thread has failed. A discussion that will never find a fulfillment. Ellen White never entered into this kind of discussion.

I do believe that today, the Church has it right, a triune God. All though I chastise the pioneers for venturing to far down this path, I don't entirely dismiss their investigation at the same time.

I believe the answer lays somewhere inbetween.

[o2bwise]

So...

Since Trinity:

1) Vastly diminishes a right conception of agape.

2) Is an extreme violation of reason.

3) Vastly violates Scripture.

WHY IN THE WORLD SHOULD ANYONE EMBRACE THIS PAPAL HERESY?

[ClubV12]

As James White once said (paraphrase alert), "Don't paint yourself into a corner." Don't take a stand so hard and fast that you are unable to investigate another facet of the jewel of truth. You CANNOT put the answer to the questions this thread is trying to address in a box with a neat bow and were all done. Aint gonna happen.

[Gibs]

I just want to state at this time to all that Our Father has not been ALL IN ALL in Himself since He sent forth the Word of Himself before anything to do the visible creation and all the Hosts.

This extension of Himself before Bethelehem had the name Yahweh of Hosts.

Heaven then was emptied of their beloved commander and came in Mary's and the Heavenly Fathers son born of Woman.

Why must he be born of Woman? Because He would be the Redeemer once filled with Yahweh of Hosts, the Word of God, His Thoughts and all the power of the Father.

So the Father gave to us a full vestment of Himself plus the gift of His Only Begotten Son of which must be of man. Man had to be the victor, not God, and it was the man Jesus Christ who did overcome taking no power but what is ours and was victorious.

When this is all finished whether any care to believe it or not, Jesus returns the vestment of the Father in Him and the Father is ALL IN ALL ONCE MORE!

The scripture, 1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

And no He won't no longer be God with us, He will take the place of the first Adam and be subject to the Father. He will of course be higher than the first Adam as He is not only the Prince but He overcame Satan where Adam fell to him.

No you see it will always remain that there is but one God and Father of all, please read and comphrehend these verses well,

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Now please notice who is our Saviour!,

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

No darkened glass to see through in that!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[o2bwise]

Hi Club,

Well, Club, as I summarize each of the 3 categories I listed.

1. I have not yet seen a Trinitarian explain how literal Sonship degrades a right conception of agape.

2. The reason point is acknowledged to the following degree. Trinitarians assert the subject matter rightly belongs in the incomprehensible category. Meaning: detach reason at least to the extent of "reasonably" concluding we are ill-equipped to reason on this subject. (To which I personally disagree and so FOR ME, the best Trinitarians have done with respect to this category falls woefully short.)

3. I mentioned the concept of approaching Scripture from the perspective of minimization of tension where tension is defined by any occurrence of assigning to a biblical text an interpretation other than what is its most apparent. Did so more than once.

NO TRINITARIAN REPLIED.

Now, you are inaccurate in your surmising that my post was meant to be taken to say "We are all done."

However, I acquiesce that it IS MEANT to say that I find the Trinitarian position to be disqualified with respect to those 3 categories and this disqualification is so extreme that in basketball terms it is rightly termed A SLAM DUNK.

And you know what?

No one ever really broached this much from the standpoint of playing what I like to call "intuitive statistician." Sort of like "What are the odds?"

1. Historicist interpretation uses 1260 day prophecy to identify a BEAST POWER (note: here I refer beat power NOT to the 4th beast, rather to the little horn which in Revelation in and of itself is referred to as the beast that rises out of the sea) that ascends with a)Sunday, b)Trinity, c) employing and even authorizing "the State" and d)professed Christian massively persecuting professed Christian.

2. The three uprooted horns are non-trinitarian Sabbath-keepers. (And it is a fallacy to downplay this by identifying they made up a part of the 4th beast. Why? Descriptions of the beasts are wholly secular until the little horn - read: subset of the 4th - is characterized. And these three horns were willing to stand up to their beliefs unto elimination/death.)

3. Adventist Church is raised up from folks coming out of Trinitarian churches and (somehow) come to a near-consensus view of the Godhead - this being that the Son of God is the literal born Son of God and the HS is not an individual personage.

4. This denomination is sometimes qualified as poised to facilitate the final scenes WHILE HOLDING TO THIS CREED.

5. Waggoner writes of the same view IN 1888 IN THE MINNEAPOLIS GC SESSION.

6. Jones holds to the same creed.

7. Trinitarianism primarily seeps its way into the denomination THRU COMPROMISE WITH BABYLON (I refer to the "secret meetings" with Barnhouse and Martin who threaten with a cult label).

8. Trinity does not form from a collection of spirit-led individuals such as what happened with the original view. IT PRIMARILY IS PERCOLATED INTO THE LAITY FROM THE TOP DOWN.

9. Furthermore, the "top" somehow manages to never transparently share with the laity the pioneer's view and their biblical support for it. Read: massive "hush, hush" going on.

10. Trinity is essential belief by Babylon to the extent that without it one is said cannot be a Christian.

11. White writes that the day comes when "new books will be written" (and I believe it can be shown the omega apostasy IS Trinity and the new books she refers to at least in part push the Trinity).

12. Leadership even says the folks who pioneered this movement (and that would include Jones and Waggoner in 1888) would not be allowed membership in the church today. Why? TRINITY.

So, all the while 1-12 are fact, the Trinity is truth and the three tribes and the pioneers and Jones and Waggoner were in error, nevermind the stealth used to feed the flock Trinity.

Sure, it is theortetically possible all this is true -AND- Trinity is truth and pioneer view is eggregious error. 1-12 is true -and- Trinity is foundational truth and "they" were foundationally in error.

Just like quantum mechanics says a sledgehammer has some probability of being on one side of a thousand foot wide wall of steel and can suddenly vanish and reside on the other side.

And this is what has been done here. Folks have said, "Just because it is papal doesn't mean its error. Just because the pioneers believed so and so, doesn't mean it's error. Just because J&W held to that position, doesn't mean it's error."

Right - cool.

But, I play "intuitive statistician" here (in other words, my mind looks at the breadth of it all and simply asks, "Man, what are the odds???!!!" and I assert from that one vantage point (and let's not forget Categories 1-3),

It would be like flipping a fair coin 1000 times and every time it lands heads.

In summary, people have said "Just because does not require so and so," but they have conveniently neglected to incorporate a "But, what are the odds" to the "just because."

Blessings,

Tony

[Guest]

the post.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

If Christ was a created being, He could NEVER have paid for the sins of the WHOLE world.

Why not? If one created being could get the whole world's people into trouble, then one created being who never committed any sin can pay for the sins of all.

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: RLH

Yes, huge difference between created and begotten. The Son of God was not created.

So...Just what does "begotten" mean?

Webster's says:

1. to procreate or generate (offspring)

2. to cause

So did The Father procreate The Son? One God produced another God (or god)?

Either definition indicates that God the Father did something to cause God the Son to exist. Which means The Son is NOT from eternity, but is a created um..."caused" being.

Or is it being used in a different sense?

Begotten is a magical word which can mean what trinitarians want it to mean. Jesus never claimed to be God or a god. In fact, Jesus said the Father is the only true God - John 17:3. The trinitarians turn Jesus into a sneaky creature who only made allusions to being God, but never had the guts to come straight out and say that he was/is God. Jesus did come straight out and say only the Father is God. This means nothing to a trinitarian.

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: LoneRanger

Or is it being used in a different sense?

Begotten is a magical word which can mean what trinitarians want it to mean. Jesus never claimed to be God or a god. In fact, Jesus said the Father is the only true God - John 17:3. The trinitarians turn Jesus into a sneaky creature who only made allusions to being God, but never had the guts to come straight out and say that he was/is God. Jesus did come straight out and say only the Father is God. This means nothing to a trinitarian.

And it can mean what non-trinitarians want it to mean!

[phkrause]

Talking about the Trinity, if you get 3ABN, if not just go to there website and click on live feed. Pr David Ascherick(sp) is speaking on this subject.

Here's the lecture or sermon or whatever you want to call it. I found it on YouTube, and its actually from 2010 and not from 2013. Its also in a number of parts.

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIm32YYLNpE

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcPK7Ye-mGc

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db1O9LByYH4

Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMbaJfuNC7o

Part 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RhpMas132E

Part 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvXzUn6erE

Part 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FLu99udVTk

[LoneRanger]

Begotten is a magical word which can mean what trinitarians want it to mean.

We have many such words.

[o2bwise]

Unbelievable.

Silence sometimes is "most deafening."

(Albeit, I realize many Trinitarians may not have yet had opportunity.)

Say, RLH - thanks!

Blessings.

Tony

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Talking about the Trinity, if you get 3ABN, if not just go to there website and click on live feed. Pr David Ascherick(sp) is speaking on this subject.

Here's the lecture or sermon or whatever you want to call it. I found it on YouTube, and its actually from 2010 and not from 2013. Its also in a number of parts.

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIm32YYLNpE

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcPK7Ye-mGc

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db1O9LByYH4

Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMbaJfuNC7o

Part 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RhpMas132E

Part 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvXzUn6erE

Part 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FLu99udVTk

I found this lecture which clearly shows 5 major problems with the trinity doctrine.

http://maranathamedia.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2902:five-major-problems-with-the-trinity&catid=119:trinity&Itemid=122

[Guest]

Five Major Problems With The Trinity

[o2bwise]

Hi Lone Ranger,

Sorry I missed this.

Quote:

Yes, but...I would need to know how you are intending this before I understand it.

Closest meaning we have is BORN.

Blessings,

Tony

[ClubV12]

As if the limited words of any earthly language can begin to probe and understand the mind of God, whose thoughts are so much higher than we can even imagine.

[phkrause]

Checked this out, I believe I'll go with Pr David Asscheriks talk on the Trinity or Pr Doug Batchelor's version of the Trinity, and him being a Jew has a much better understanding of what Jews are actually saying.

Here's the text this guy is trying to explain.

Mark 12:28-34. 28 One of the Torah-teachers came up and heard them engaged in this discussion. Seeing that Yeshua answered them well, he asked him, "Which is the most important mitzvah of them all?" 29 Yeshua answered, "The most important is, `Sh'ma Yisra'el, ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI echad [Hear, O Isra'el, the LORD our God, the LORD is one], 30 and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your understanding and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: `You are to love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other mitzvah greater than these." 32 The Torah-teacher said to him, "Well said, Rabbi; you speak the truth when you say that he is one, and that there is no other besides him; 33 and that loving him with all one's heart, understanding and strength, and loving one's neighbor as oneself, mean more than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 When Yeshua saw that he responded sensibly, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God." And after that, no one dared put to him another sh'eilah.

I bolded the most important word in that passage: according to the Hebrew Commentary, if you look this word up "eloheinu"(Lord our God (see elohim) which means: God; e-lo-him means "gods" and "judges."

So what does this tell you?

And than this verse which the guy chose to ignore

Matthew 28:19 Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim, immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh,

Ruach HaKodesh which means the Holy Spirit, referred to four times in the Tanakh as such, and many times as the Spirit of God. Mt 1:18+.

And here is that verse:

18 Here is how the birth of Yeshua the Messiah took place. When his mother Miryam was engaged to Yosef, before they were married, she was found to be pregnant from the Ruach HaKodesh.

The guy fails to show us this!!!!! He has no clue of Hebrew.

And how about this verse:

Revelation 7 Next there was a battle in heaven - Mikha'el and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back

Who's Mikha'el?????????? (Michael) just in case someone can't figure that out! Is not that another name for Jesus? If it is than how did he throw Satan/Lucifer out of heaven if Jesus was not in heaven before??????????

Now I'm not a Hebrew Scholar in the least bit, that's for sure, but just a search or getting a hold of Jewish/Adventist pastors can get you this info. Plain and simple. Its not hard and again, if you email Pr DB or Pr Alex Schusler, etc., they can give you the same info I have.

We have to remember the thought process of the ancient world of the hebrews is not at all like looking up our webster dictionary and getting a modern definition.

No I'm sorry I listen to this guy, well meaning and all, from my Jewish mind he is way off on Jesus' thought process. He never makes one mention about "Elohim" that's the deciding factor for me. Not only that he never mentions one verse that Pr Asscherick mentions. If you listen to Pr DB, you will see a Jewish or Hebrew mind set, that's what's needed in understanding the Hebrew or Jewish mind.

[o2bwise]

As if the limited words of any earthly language can begin to probe and understand the mind of God, whose thoughts are so much higher than we can even imagine.

As far as I am concerned, this is gotten to be a low form of jabbing your "opposition."

We do what we can to understand. All of us have our own sense of how far we may seek understanding and at one point we (hopefully graciously) venture no further.

I am at the point now where I think what underlies such attacks is defeatism.

There is no basis for a Trinitarian position and so to hold on, declare things "a mystery."

Mystery, Babylon the Great.

[Gibs]

I believe if another God showed up there would be a war in Heaven until the God of Gods annilhilated the imposter. The Great Creator of all their is anywhere endless in all directions, no end.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[ClubV12]

Ha Ha,,, not a low form at all, REALITY check and an obvious one at that.

The evidence is clear and incontrovertable. This very discussion has been raging for centuries. Man simply is unable to fathom the mysteries of the triune God and explain it in a way that ANYONE can agree on!

Carry on, use whatever words in whatever language you prefer to explain the meaning of "begotten" or any word close to it concerning One who has life "unborrowed", of Himself, who existed before ANYTHING was created, who is divine in the highest sense of THAT word.

Can't be done, as this thread well demonstrates!

[John317]

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Of course John317 will say this only applies to Jesus the Man. But the text doesn't say that. It simply says that this is the way it happened, not when it happened.

Put this with what Ellen White said about Jesus being the only begotten Son of God before the plan of salvation was even agreed upon, and it only makes sense that this happened somewhere in eternity past. Far outside of our comprehension.

That would mean Christ's life was derived from the Father.

But such a conclusion contradicts the plain statement of Ellen White that Christ's life was not derived.

She also says that Christ is "the eternal, self-existent Son of God."

God is the only being in all the universe who is "self-existent."

Those statements preclude the notion that Christ's life was derived.

Her statement in Patriarchs and Prophets, page 38, says that Christ "had ever"-- i.e., forever, always-- "stood at the right hand of the Father."

Elsewhere she makes it clear that there had never been a time when Christ was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. Signs, August 29, 1900

She also says that the "eternal Godhead" is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. CH 222.

The "eternal Godhead" does not change, does it?

Since the eternal Godhead is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it MUST ALWAYS have been comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

There never could have been a point when the eternal Godhead was comprised of a single, solitary Person.

All of this means that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have always existed.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Talking about the Trinity, if you get 3ABN, if not just go to there website and click on live feed. Pr David Ascherick(sp) is speaking on this subject.

Here's the lecture or sermon or whatever you want to call it. I found it on YouTube, and its actually from 2010 and not from 2013. Its also in a number of parts.

Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIm32YYLNpE

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcPK7Ye-mGc

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db1O9LByYH4

Part 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMbaJfuNC7o

Part 5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RhpMas132E

Part 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvXzUn6erE

Part 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FLu99udVTk

Thanks so much for posting those. I will definitely watch them closely.