The Personhood of the Godhead

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  In my comments, I am considering the nature of the members of the Godhead, prior to the incarnation of Christ.  I am not considering either the nature of Christ at the incarnation, nor am I considering the nature of Christ after his assent to heaven following his death.

 

In other threads of this forum, the Trinity has been discussed.  A major aspect of this discussion has centered upon each member of the Godhead being called a person--E.G. such statements as:  The three persons of the Godhead.  In these discussions some have raised the point that they can not conceive of God in human form as they consider such discussions to center   on the human form.

In my understanding of the  theology behind the discussion of the Trinity,  no commonly accepted form of this doctrine posits that the members of the Godhead exist in human form.  Further the common understanding would be a denial that the persons of the Godhead exist in human form.

From this perspective, a better way of  stating this would be to state that the members of the Godhead are personal beings.  This statement does not define what that personal being is and properly understood it prevents us from attributing any specific form to God.  From this viewpoint, God has revealed just about nothing as to the nature and type of the being that God is.

Objectors to this understanding may cite Genesis 1:26 & 27 as opposing the view that I have stated.  But, an in-depth study of the Hebrew behind those two verses is thought by others  to suggest that the likeness between God and humans lay in aspects other than a mirror physical image.

 

 

 

[GayatfootofCross]

Thank you.

This is one of a handful of topics I am in awe of the more I see or find out.

But for some reason, seeing it done from our words and puniness, it wears me out and I lose interest.

[Gustave]

God is so far outside our finite minds ability to comprehend the best we can do is to say that it's ONE Substance coequally owned by the three Persons of the Godhead.

Philip was a lot closer to Jesus than any of us and he had difficulty understanding it ( if he even did ). All we know is that Jesus said "Otherwise believe for the very works' sake".

It's IMPORTANT to believe in the Trinity.

John 14:10: Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the very works' sake.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Gustave,

55 minutes ago, Gustave said:

It's IMPORTANT to believe in the Trinity.

Rather, it’s important to believe what the Bible teaches about the One God the Father, and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gustave]

13 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings Gustave,

 

 

Rather, it’s important to believe what the Bible teaches about the One God the Father, and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

 

Kind regards Trevor

 

 

And the Bible says it's a mystery. 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Gustave,

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

And the Bible says it's a mystery.

I agree with you. The Trinity is part of the Mystery, Babylon the Great system. The start and finish of the Athanasian Creed makes this very clear, and what is in between is very mysterious or incomprehensible:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence.  … The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. … So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. … This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

On the other hand God has revealed Himself in the Bible and we are called upon to understand God the Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

John 17:1–3 (KJV): 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gustave]

13 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Gustave,

I agree with you. The Trinity is part of the Mystery, Babylon the Great system. The start and finish of the Athanasian Creed makes this very clear, and what is in between is very mysterious or incomprehensible:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence.  … The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. … So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. … This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

On the other hand God has revealed Himself in the Bible and we are called upon to understand God the Father and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

John 17:1–3 (KJV): 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Kind regards Trevor

Christ is absolutely classified as God in Scripture so what do you do with that? 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Gustave,

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

Christ is absolutely classified as God in Scripture so what do you do with that? 

I try to understand how the word "God" is used in the OT and NT. The Hebrew word Elohim usually translated correctly God in most passages is also applied to both Angels and Judges in the OT and Jesus speaks about this usage in John 10:30-36. He uses this occurrence to support his claim to unity with His Father and his claim that he is the Son of God.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gustave]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:59 PM, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Gustave,

I try to understand how the word "God" is used in the OT and NT. The Hebrew word Elohim usually translated correctly God in most passages is also applied to both Angels and Judges in the OT and Jesus speaks about this usage in John 10:30-36. He uses this occurrence to support his claim to unity with His Father and his claim that he is the Son of God.

Kind regards Trevor

Read Matthew 11, 2 - 6 & realize that Jesus was quoting Isaiah 35.

In any event to the Jewish mind Jesus absolutely claimed He was God (John 10, 33).

 

 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Gustave,

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Read Matthew 11, 2 - 6 & realize that Jesus was quoting Isaiah 35.

Yes, I agree. John the Baptist was in prison and possibly he hoped that Jesus would overthrow the Romans then and there and establish the Kingdom. Jesus gave visual proof to John the Baptist’s disciples that he had been given the power by God the Father to fulfill the terms of Isaiah 35 which talk about what will happen when the Kingdom is established upon the earth during the 1000 years. But Jesus was thus indicating that the time was not yet. Also when quoting or alluding to Isaiah 8:14 by mentioning stumbling, he was hinting at the fact that he himself would suffer as well as John.

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

In any event to the Jewish mind Jesus absolutely claimed He was God (John 10, 33).

I agree that the immediate Jewish audience possibly led by the Pharisees who were trying to entrap him stated this, but possibly not "the Jewish mind" as many Jews understood that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. But I suggest that it was a false accusation and Jesus gives a series of answers in verses 32, 34-38. Jesus does not agree with their accusation but Trinitarians seem eager to endorse their accusation. I suggest that you work through each answer, 6 or 7 of them, and not one is teaching or endorsing their accusation or the Trinity perspective. Even John 10:30 when rightly understood is not teaching the Trinity, but it is a favourite verse, especially when taken in isolation.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Gustave,

Yes, I agree. John the Baptist was in prison and possibly he hoped that Jesus would overthrow the Romans then and there and establish the Kingdom. Jesus gave visual proof to John the Baptist’s disciples that he had been given the power by God the Father to fulfill the terms of Isaiah 35 which talk about what will happen when the Kingdom is established upon the earth during the 1000 years. But Jesus was thus indicating that the time was not yet. Also when quoting or alluding to Isaiah 8:14 by mentioning stumbling, he was hinting at the fact that he himself would suffer as well as John.

I agree that the immediate Jewish audience possibly led by the Pharisees who were trying to entrap him stated this, but possibly not "the Jewish mind" as many Jews understood that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. But I suggest that it was a false accusation and Jesus gives a series of answers in verses 32, 34-38. Jesus does not agree with their accusation but Trinitarians seem eager to endorse their accusation. I suggest that you work through each answer, 6 or 7 of them, and not one is teaching or endorsing their accusation or the Trinity perspective. Even John 10:30 when rightly understood is not teaching the Trinity, but it is a favourite verse, especially when taken in isolation.

Kind regards Trevor

Mark 14, 60-62

Matthew 26, 63-65

John 10, 11-18 paired with Ezekiel 34, 1-16

Exodus 3 "I AM" compared with John 8, 56 - 59

These are all representative of Jesus claiming HE IS GOD. 

 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Gustave, 

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

These are all representative of Jesus claiming HE IS GOD.

Looking at your references:

Mark 14:60–62 (KJV): 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 26:63–65 (KJV): 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.  

First notice that the High Priest did not suggest that Jesus was claiming to be God, but “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed”, or in the other Gospels, “the Christ, the Son of God”. Jesus’ answer is similar to Psalm 110:1-2 and the language of Daniel 7 and Acts 1:9-11, but neither Mark’s or Matthew’s record, or these two other references in any way suggest that Jesus is God, or God the Son.

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

John 10, 11-18 paired with Ezekiel 34, 1-16

Moses and David were also shepherds, but Yahweh, God the Father is the Shepherd over all, and our Shepherd Psalm 23. God has appointed His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Shepherd over his people. Psalm 23 gives us an insight into the thoughts of Jesus during his ministry and anticipated exaltation. Yahweh was Jesus’ shepherd.

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

Exodus 3 "I AM" compared with John 8, 56 - 59

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense "“I am that I am"”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “"I will be that I will be"” or "“I will be what I will be"”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

The same word translated “I AM” in the KJV of John 8:58 is translated as “I am he” in John 8:28 in the same context at the same time, showing that they do not suggest that Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:14 in this instance.

John 8:24–28 (KJV): 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

The above usages of “I am he” does not teach that Jesus is an independent Deity, but that he is very much dependent on God, His Father. This phrase “I am he” is a theme concerning whether or not Jesus is the Christ.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gustave]

33 minutes ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Gustave, 

Looking at your references:

 

 

Mark 14:60–62 (KJV): 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

 

 

Matthew 26:63–65 (KJV): 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.  

 

 

First notice that the High Priest did not suggest that Jesus was claiming to be God, but “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed”, or in the other Gospels, “the Christ, the Son of God”. Jesus’ answer is similar to Psalm 110:1-2 and the language of Daniel 7 and Acts 1:9-11, but neither Mark’s or Matthew’s record, or these two other references in any way suggest that Jesus is God, or God the Son.

 

 

Moses and David were also shepherds, but Yahweh, God the Father is the Shepherd over all, and our Shepherd Psalm 23. God has appointed His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Shepherd over his people. Psalm 23 gives us an insight into the thoughts of Jesus during his ministry and anticipated exaltation. Yahweh was Jesus’ shepherd.

 

 

Most translations and commentators accept the present tense "“I am that I am"”, but notice in the margin of the RV (or ASV) and RSV, an alternative is given “"I will be that I will be"” or "“I will be what I will be"”, showing that some modern scholars suggest this alternative reading. Although not popular it appears that this future tense is the correct translation. Not only modern scholars, Tyndale also translated this in the future tense.
Exodus 3:12-14 (Tyndale): 12 And he sayde: I wilbe with the. And this shalbe a token vnto the that I haue sent the: after that thou hast broughte the people out of Egipte, ye shall serue God vppon this mountayne. 13 Than sayde Moses vnto God: when I come vnto the childern of Israell and saye vnto them, the God of youre fathers hath sent me vnto you, ad they saye vnto me, what ys his name, what answere shall I geuethem? 14 Then sayde God vnto Moses: I wilbe what I wilbe: ad he sayde, this shalt thou saye vnto the children of Israel: I wilbe dyd send me to you.

 

 

The same word translated “I AM” in the KJV of John 8:58 is translated as “I am he” in John 8:28 in the same context at the same time, showing that they do not suggest that Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:14 in this instance.

 

 

John 8:24–28 (KJV): 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. 27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

 

 

The above usages of “I am he” does not teach that Jesus is an independent Deity, but that he is very much dependent on God, His Father. This phrase “I am he” is a theme concerning whether or not Jesus is the Christ.

 

 

Kind regards Trevor

 

 

You would agree that only God could be equal with God, no? 

The language in Daniel 7 ( verse 9 -14 ) is spot on with what Jesus used & you can bet the High Priest was very familiar with the Book of Daniel. 

Given your apologetics I must ask you - are you a Jehovah's Witness or a Historic Adventist? 

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Gustave,

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

You would agree that only God could be equal with God, no?

I appreciate your involvement. I do not want to discuss all the views that Trinitarians present. I have discussed sufficient at this time.

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

Given your apologetics I must ask you - are you a Jehovah's Witness or a Historic Adventist? 

No, I am not a JW and I have not heard of “Historic Adventist”. Is this a name of a denomination or a concept?. I certainly believe in the Second Coming of Jesus and I believe that his return is soon. I do not normally publicly reveal those with whom I fellowship. I may or may not fully represent them or they may or may not fully represent my beliefs, but we share most aspects concerning the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name Acts 8:5,12. But I pass many churches on my way to meet with them and fellowship around the table of the Lord.

Kind regards Trevor

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Gustave,

I appreciate your involvement. I do not want to discuss all the views that Trinitarians present. I have discussed sufficient at this time.

 

 

No, I am not a JW and I have not heard of “Historic Adventist”. Is this a name of a denomination or a concept?. I certainly believe in the Second Coming of Jesus and I believe that his return is soon. I do not normally publicly reveal those with whom I fellowship. I may or may not fully represent them or they may or may not fully represent my beliefs, but we share most aspects concerning the Gospel of the Kingdom and Name Acts 8:5,12. But I pass many churches on my way to meet with them and fellowship around the table of the Lord.

 

 

Kind regards Trevor

 

 

I found essentially the same apologetic you presented at the Watchtower Society, that's why I asked you if you were a JW. 

Historic Adventists are SDA's, who,  hold to the denominations "early" anti-Trinitarian beliefs ( from inception until after the death of Ellen White ).

As you may be aware Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, WWCOG 7th day ARE also "Adventists" they are just not Seventh-day Adventists - meaning that the other groups didn't accept Ellen as a prophet, but agreed in their anti-Trinitarianism. 

[8thdaypriest]

I also believe in Father and Son-ism.  I am not JW or Christadelphian, or CoG7thDay, or "Historic" Adventist.   I believe some things not in agreement with each of them.  I do not belong to any formal denomination.  

Addressing the question of the thread:  The pre-incarnate "form" of the Son of God.   We know that He existed in "the express image" of God His Father.  An "express image" was a phrase meaning "an exact copy".  An image is a COPY - not the original.  

Jesus said, "God is spirit."   That suggests - to me - that God exists as spirit - meaning without a bodily form.   This suggests to me, that the Son of God, also existed as "spirit" - without a bodily form. 

Jesus said, "A body You have prepared for Me." (Heb. 10:5).   When the Son incarnated, He received "a body".  Before His incarnation, He did NOT HAVE a body. 

He could take on the form of a human being, and did so more than once.  He appeared to Abraham, to Joshua, to Moses.   Jesus later said, "No one has seen the Father", so the Being who appeared could not have been God the Father. 

[Gustave]

14 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I also believe in Father and Son-ism.  I am not JW or Christadelphian, or CoG7thDay, or "Historic" Adventist.   I believe some things not in agreement with each of them.  I do not belong to any formal denomination.  

Addressing the question of the thread:  The pre-incarnate "form" of the Son of God.   We know that He existed in "the express image" of God His Father.  An "express image" was a phrase meaning "an exact copy".  An image is a COPY - not the original.  

Jesus said, "God is spirit."   That suggests - to me - that God exists as spirit - meaning without a bodily form.   This suggests to me, that the Son of God, also existed as "spirit" - without a bodily form. 

Jesus said, "A body You have prepared for Me." (Heb. 10:5).   When the Son incarnated, He received "a body".  Before His incarnation, He did NOT HAVE a body. 

He could take on the form of a human being, and did so more than once.  He appeared to Abraham, to Joshua, to Moses.   Jesus later said, "No one has seen the Father", so the Being who appeared could not have been God the Father. 

Yes, as you said,  God the Son did NOT have a body of flesh,  bone, organs and members. 

Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians all rejected the teaching that God the Father had a body of flesh, bone, organs & members - the early SDA's attacked them for that, claiming that they all had drank deep the wine of Babylon. SDA's taught that God the Father (the ONLY real God) was flesh as was the archangels Michael (who became Christ) & Lucifer. 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

none of said doctrines are intended for us to purport that we know the very substance of God; which we simply do NOT know, insofar as you have depicted

Without doubt, we will learn many many amazing new things, directly from Jesus and His angels, when we get to the Kingdom He has prepared for us.   I can only post here, what I believe the text is alluding to, or suggesting.  

[JoeMo]

To me, the very fact that Christ accepted worship on several occasions before and after His Resurrection tells me that Jesus was either God, a crazy man, or a megalomaniac.  I choose to take the first option.

[victruiz]

I hope you consider checking this material!!

 

 

lots of blessings!!

godhead-trinity-debate-terry-hill.pdf

Personality_of_God.pdf

The_Godhead_Black__White_PRINT_Clr.pdf

[victruiz]

On 6/27/2018 at 1:59 AM, TrevorL said:

Greetings again Gustave,

I try to understand how the word "God" is used in the OT and NT. The Hebrew word Elohim usually translated correctly God in most passages is also applied to both Angels and Judges in the OT and Jesus speaks about this usage in John 10:30-36. He uses this occurrence to support his claim to unity with His Father and his claim that he is the Son of God.

Kind regards Trevor

 

godhead-trinity-debate-terry-hill.pdf

Personality_of_God.pdf

[TrevorL]

Greetings victruiz,

1 hour ago, victruiz said:

godhead-trinity-debate-terry-hill.pdf

Personality_of_God.pdf

I will not have much spare time to read all your articles.  I could give links to various books if you like. I agree with the following on page 147 of The Godhead Trinity Debate. Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

“I wonder how many people realise that when Christ confessed before Caiaphas that He was

the Son of God, this was “one of the most wonderful moments of his life”. Notice Ellen White

says here that the declaration of Him being “one with God” is equivalent to saying He is “the

Son of God”. This reminds us of John 10:30 which tells us that Jesus said to the Jews who

were disputing His identity

“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30

It was then that Jews took up stones in an attempt to kill Him (John 10:31). Why? They said

it was because He was making Himself God (John 10:33).

The following words can be found in the ‘Story of Jesus’

“The Saviour never denied His mission or His relation to the Father. He could remain

silent to personal insult, but He ever spoke plainly and decidedly when His work or

Sonship to God was called in question.” (Ellen G. White, Story of Jesus, 1896, page

116, ‘Before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin’)

How much clearer can anything be said? Christ plainly spoke of His Sonship with the Father.”

Kind regards Trevor

[victruiz]

On 7/4/2018 at 11:43 PM, TrevorL said:

Greetings victruiz,

 

 

 

I will not have much spare time to read all your articles.  I could give links to various books if you like. I agree with the following on page 147 of The Godhead Trinity Debate. Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.

 

 

“I wonder how many people realise that when Christ confessed before Caiaphas that He was

 

 

the Son of God, this was “one of the most wonderful moments of his life”. Notice Ellen White

 

 

says here that the declaration of Him being “one with God” is equivalent to saying He is “the

 

 

Son of God”. This reminds us of John 10:30 which tells us that Jesus said to the Jews who

 

 

were disputing His identity

 

 

“I and my Father are one.” John 10:30

 

 

It was then that Jews took up stones in an attempt to kill Him (John 10:31). Why? They said

 

 

it was because He was making Himself God (John 10:33).

 

 

The following words can be found in the ‘Story of Jesus’

 

 

“The Saviour never denied His mission or His relation to the Father. He could remain

 

 

silent to personal insult, but He ever spoke plainly and decidedly when His work or

 

 

Sonship to God was called in question.” (Ellen G. White, Story of Jesus, 1896, page

 

 

116, ‘Before Annas, Caiaphas, and the Sanhedrin’)

 

 

How much clearer can anything be said? Christ plainly spoke of His Sonship with the Father.”

 

 

Kind regards Trevor

 

 

But unfortunately when considering what adventists believe today in regards to the trinity does negate this sonship and doesn't accept the clear scriptures declarations on this. they  say the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were just acting out a play role.

 

[Gustave]

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 7:07 PM, victruiz said:

 

godhead-trinity-debate-terry-hill.pdf

Personality_of_God.pdf

Yes, the .pdf you provided appears to be arguments for the "historical Adventist" position ( anti-Trinitarian ). 

At the end of the day the fact is that Ellen White's teachings are not able to be reconciled with the Trinity - it's just not possible. What is possible & what happened is that SDA leadership have poured a new and alien definition into the Trinity Doctrine and through these means claim they now believe in the Trinity. One cannot accept that Ellen White was a real prophet and believe in the Historic Christian Trinity Doctrine. 

[Gustave]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 9:51 AM, victruiz said:

But unfortunately when considering what adventists believe today in regards to the trinity does negate this sonship and doesn't accept the clear scriptures declarations on this. they  say the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were just acting out a play role.

 

I have heard this same thing from multiple SDA's ( that the 3 Divine Beings, prior to the creation event, each adopted a "role" - one opted to be Father, the other Son & the remaining one the Holy Spirit. This reminds me of Dungeons and Dragons where everyone "rolls up a character" and someone chooses to be a Dwarf fighter, another a cleric and so on. This supposition is in itself not able to be reconciled with the Doctrine of the Trinity - AND we haven't even touched on the issue with Ellen Whites "peccable Christ" affirmations yet!