The Trinity?

[Gibs]

Yahweh our one and only God is not 3 persons, but the one and only, "sole", none other!

He is a Spirit, the Holy Spirit and is in all the total of His Creation. The Holy Spirit is what He is and not another person or another god.

Jesus Christ the man was another person the Father Redeemer, Yahweh of Hosts came to dwell in.

Jesus was not another God, but the one and only God came and dwelt in His ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. ONLY BEGOTTEN means "SOLE", NONE OTHER.

No son was born of God the Father until Bethlehem. Yahweh of Hosts came in Him and was not a Son before Bethlehem but was the Fathers projection of Himself Redeemer. God is Spirit and to do this is no problem with Him.

And to cinch it, 1 Cor 15:28 does when all is completed by Jesus the body prepared for Him to do the task of putting all things under His feet. You need to do the whole profound read of 1 Cor 15:24-28,

Now verse 28, - - 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.

The "cinch" is Jesus returns the Deity vested in Him back to the Father and so finally the Father, our God is ALL IN ALL AGAIN!

It is all about comphrehension! Who can comphrehend these things! Not many!

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.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[John317]

Did the Jews at the time Jesus Christ spoke these words worship a trinity or teach the trinity doctrine?

There's a big difference between the Bible's teachings and the beliefs & practices of the Jews of Jesus day. The Jews never did rightly understand their own Scriptures, so the Jews should not be our example when it comes to knowing God and how we ought to worship. Our standard is what we find in the Protestant Bible, and what we find there is the Trinity doctrine as Seventh-day Adventists teach it. The Bible plainly teaches that there is only one God [Eph 4: 6]. We don't worship any God except YWHW (Deut 6: 3), who is the great "I AM" of Exodus 3: 14 and John 8: 58. But then the Bible also teaches that the Father is God (Phil 1: 2), the Son is God (John 1: 1, 18; Phil 2: 6; Heb 1: 3, 8, 10), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5: 3-4; Matt 28: 19; 3: 16-17; 2 Cor. 13: 14; Jude 1: 20-21). We must accept the Bible, not the Jews, as our standard of truth and practice.

[Gibs]

Trinity doctrine in the Bible, that is Ridiculous , absolutely so.

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.

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

Notice your Saviour is Yahweh, He came in the body prepared for Him to dwell in among us!

Trinity is an absolute false doctrine! It is a coined word of men!

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.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

I'm sure you don't see any significance in it - you believe "the immutable God" is capable of mutation.....

...Of passing into a state of perpetual nonexistence.

...therefore what I'm saying must be very "un-cool" to you.

Strong words.

Might you do one of two things? Either cite proof of your assertion or retract it?

Tony

[Gustave]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

I'm sure you don't see any significance in it - you believe "the immutable God" is capable of mutation.....

...Of passing into a state of perpetual nonexistence.

...therefore what I'm saying must be very "un-cool" to you.

Strong words.

Might you do one of two things? Either cite proof of your assertion or retract it?

Tony

You've got to be kidding me!

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post439528

Make sure you read to the end so you don't miss anything....

...Since then I've even added some more Scriptures to the list.

...I back up everything I say.

[o2bwise]

Quote:

Gustave:

You've got to be kidding me!

Are you assuming that when you speak for what Adventism believes or doesn't believe you speak for me?

Tony

[Gustave]

Quote:

Gustave:

You've got to be kidding me!

Are you assuming that when you speak for what Adventism believes or doesn't believe you speak for me?

Tony

I've not found a Seventh-day Adventist yet that's willing to admit Ellen White taught heresy in this area...

...If you are SDA and admit that I'm going to pour myself a nice glass of Scotch!

...Do I start pouring?

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

I've not found a Seventh-day Adventist yet that's willing to admit Ellen White taught heresy in this area...

...If you are SDA and admit that I'm going to pour myself a nice glass of Scotch!

...Do I start pouring?

Well, you seem to use the heresy word somewhat frequently and I am quite slow to use it.

I think I can say with ~98% certainty that what I believe is different from what White believed, without getting into qualifying how "bad" her belief might be.

I do not believe everything she wrote.

Tony

[Gustave]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

I've not found a Seventh-day Adventist yet that's willing to admit Ellen White taught heresy in this area...

...If you are SDA and admit that I'm going to pour myself a nice glass of Scotch!

...Do I start pouring?

Well, you seem to use the heresy word somewhat frequently and I am quite slow to use it.

I think I can say with ~98% certainty that what I believe is different from what White believed, without getting into qualifying how "bad" her belief might be.

I do not believe everything she wrote.

Tony

It's a direct question 02bwise & one you could easily answer...

...Do you believe Ellen White was right when she affirmed.

...That Christ could have eternally ceased to exist had He sinned?

...Rotted in the tomb, rupture in the Godhead, etc, etc, etc.

[Guest]

...therefore what I'm saying must be very "un-cool" to you.

Any time someone submits man made doctrines..

...as though they were biblical

...when they are not, in any way

...it is extremely un-cool.

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

...Do you believe Ellen White was right when she affirmed.

...That Christ could have eternally ceased to exist had He sinned?

I don't think Jesus could have sinned and thus for me the question asks about the impossible.

Blessings,

Tony

[Gustave]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

...Do you believe Ellen White was right when she affirmed.

...That Christ could have eternally ceased to exist had He sinned?

I don't think Jesus could have sinned and thus for me the question asks about the impossible.

Blessings,

Tony

Amen! We are, of course, holders of the same FACT.

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

That post was pretty harsh. Please accept my apologies.

Am busy with work. So much I could say.

I do not believe Jesus is the "immutable God," I believe He is the only begotten Son of the immutable God.

I believe once begotten, Jesus inherited the same essence as His Father.

Now, this leads to an interesting point, I think. Why was the Son incarnated rather than the Father?

I believe because the Two would only execute a perfect plan and part of its perfection is for the plan to mirror this existence. Children depend on their parents and not the other way around. It would be bizarre for the Father to be incarnated and then to say, "I can of Mine own self do nothing, it is the Son who does the works." As an example.

THUS, if the above is true, post-incarnation limitations that the Son has would be due to things OTHER than any differences in their nature and indeed THERE WERE NONE.

Now, what of the incarnation?

Gustave, it seems your argument is dependent on certain requirements as to the attributes of the Son of God post-incarnation. It looked to me like you took His pre-incarnation attributes and assigned them to Christ after the incarnation.

I believe Christ emptied Himself of His pre-incarnate attributes, BUT as a result of being the only begotten Son of God, HAD FAITH.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

This is my lunch break, by the way.

Now, this is part of what led me to my harsh post.

I even despise writings that refer to things like Arianism and semi-Arianism from the context of:

How could anyone possibly believe THAT???!!!

I mean...

It seems to me the best way for one to "truth-seek" includes being free of the use of terminology that is even tantamount to excluding possibilities. Such as "Oh! He just said the idea was Arian! Uh oh!"

It DOES carry iron handedness.

Arius, in my opinion, went too far when he said Christ was created. If born of God, He was NOT created. The essence of which He would then be composed is uncreated, His lineage tracing back to an uncreated Father.

I wish Arius kept things at this point:

Quote:

Letter written by Eusebius of Nicomedia

We have never heard, my Lord, of two beings unbegotten, nor of one divided into two; nor have we learnt or believed that He could suffer any thing corporeal, but that there is one unbegotten, and another truly from Him,… We believe not only that His origin cannot be explained in words, but that it cannot be comprehended,…

(Confession of St. Patrick 4, A.D. 452)

There is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ,…

Alexander:

The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in this one respect, that the Father is unbegotten. He is the exact image of His Father. Everything is found in the image which exists in its archetype [original]; and it was this that our Lord taught when He said, ‘My Father is greater than I.’ And accordingly we believe that the Son proceeded from the Father; for He is the reflection of the glory of the Father, and the figure of His substance. But let no one be led from this to the supposition that the Son is unbegotten, as is believed by some who are deficient in intellectual power: for to say that He was, that He has always been, and that He existed before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten.

Arius:

We say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way unbegotten, even in part; and that He does not derive His subsistence from any matter; but that by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God, and only begotten and unchangeable, and that He existed not before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established. For He was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning. This is really the cause of our persecution, and likewise, because we say He is from nothing. And this we say, because He is neither part of God, nor of any subjacent matter

The "new theology" that crept in was that of Athanasius. I especially like the Eusebius quote -

We have never heard, my Lord, of two beings unbegotten

Blessings,

Tony

[Gustave]

Hi Gustave,

That post was pretty harsh. Please accept my apologies.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

Did the Jews at the time Jesus Christ spoke these words worship a trinity or teach the trinity doctrine?

There's a big difference between the Bible's teachings and the beliefs & practices of the Jews of Jesus day. The Jews never did rightly understand their own Scriptures, so the Jews should not be our example when it comes to knowing God and how we ought to worship. Our standard is what we find in the Protestant Bible, and what we find there is the Trinity doctrine as Seventh-day Adventists teach it. The Bible plainly teaches that there is only one God [Eph 4: 6]. We don't worship any God except YWHW (Deut 6: 3), who is the great "I AM" of Exodus 3: 14 and John 8: 58. But then the Bible also teaches that the Father is God (Phil 1: 2), the Son is God (John 1: 1, 18; Phil 2: 6; Heb 1: 3, 8, 10), and the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5: 3-4; Matt 28: 19; 3: 16-17; 2 Cor. 13: 14; Jude 1: 20-21). We must accept the Bible, not the Jews, as our standard of truth and practice.

We must accept Jesus as the standard of truth and practice. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. Jesus clearly stated "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22

You state: "The Jews never did rightly understand their own Scriptures, so the Jews should not be our example when it comes to knowing God and how we ought to worship."

That statement contradicts what Jesus said. Jesus clearly stated "we know what we worship". He was clearly stating that he was a Jew and He and the Jews knew who they worshiped and they worshiped the correct "God". You state: "Holy Spirit is God". However, where did Jesus ever give us a command to worship "God the Holy Spirit" as a separate person from the Father?? The only command He gave us was this command: "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth."

[Guest]

Excellent points Dr. Waite. And in extension of your question to John317, I would ask:

Did Moses ever worship a trinity, or teach the trinity doctrine? Surely he of all people, understood the real deal.

[Gibs]

Also on that point the apostate Jews not with Christ rightly understood aright on that point.

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.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

Say, would you be up to the following?

Discuss your understanding of truth from one perspective - how it magnifies a right conception of the love of God.

So many beliefs from us posters where I am sure we each believe ourselves to be rightly interpreting Scripture. This plurality of beliefs will likely remain.

It even gets tiresome!

BUT, I would love to hash out this topic from the above perspective. How do our beliefs shed light on God's love?

Blessings,

Tony

[Gibs]

I like the way Paul lays out the "one".

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

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.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[Gustave]

Hi Gustave,

Say, would you be up to the following?

Discuss your understanding of truth from one perspective - how it magnifies a right conception of the love of God.

So many beliefs from us posters where I am sure we each believe ourselves to be rightly interpreting Scripture. This plurality of beliefs will likely remain.

It even gets tiresome!

BUT, I would love to hash out this topic from the above perspective. How do our beliefs shed light on God's love?

Blessings,

Tony

No problem, would be happy to discuss it with you.

[8thdaypriest]

When I learned that the last verses from Matthew were missing from every Greek manuscript before the Eastern Byzantine (endorsed by Constantine) I began to take another look at the doctrine of Trinity. That last passage is the one where Christ told the disciples to baptize in the name of .... In the one Aramaic manuscript that survived, Christ says, "Baptizing them in my name," which we see the disciples doing !! 1 John 5:7 was also added to the text as most scholars agree today. For the first 50 years of her ministry Mrs. White preached against the Trinity. James was vehemently against it. Then during 10 years while Mrs. White was living in Australia, and somewhat ill, Herbert Lacey and Mrs. White's underwriter Marion Davis inserted lots of "Three" statements, which are published today as if Mrs. White herself wrote them. I personally believe the Father beget the Son, before anything was created. That Son was begotten in the express image of His Father and so is divine and to be worshiped, but He will always be subject to His Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). The Spirit is the "spirit of the Father." It is not a separate being. The Apostle Paul greeted the people with "in the name of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." What?? He forgot the name of the Spirit too? - 13 times! In Rev. 5:13, every being in heaven and earth say, "Blessing and honor and glory and power to Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." That only TWO - not THREE. Mrs White used "it" when speaking of the holy spirit. Her writings were changed - from "it" to "he". Look thru some very old copies and you will see it. If it's ok to do so on this forum, let me give you a website: prophecyviewpoint.com. There is a series on the Trinity there that I think will help you. At least it will give you one side of the arguments.

[Guest]

Thanks for posting this 8thdaypriest! I believe you're onto something.

[Gibs]

Jesus Christ wasn't even conceived yet until 9 months before being born of Mary at Bethlehem. He was conceived in Her by the Holy Ghost.

Yes the Father knew Him from the beginning and declared Him from the beginning but the scripture states ONLY BEGOTTEN Son. That settles it that there is just one and one only.

So if this wasn't Him born at Bethlehem, who was He? There is positively not two!

All our names are written in the book of life but many will be blotted out.

We belong to Him who bought us with His life and shed Blood, all the redeemed will be His subjects so it it His book of life.

The incarnation was at Bethlehem, a union of the Deity, Yahweh of Hosts and Jesus Christ and so was God the Father with us.

He was the Body prepared,

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

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.

1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

[o2bwise]

Hi 8thdaypriest,

Nice post - thanks much!

Blessings,

Tony