Members phkrause Posted July 29, 2018 Members Share Posted July 29, 2018 3 hours ago, The Wanderer said: IF one is going to apply an "it" to one; they have to do it to all Three. And that just doesn't compute. I was just thinking the same thing!! Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 I do not personally think of the Spirit as an "it". "God IS spirit, and those who worship HIM must worship in spirit and truth " (John 4:24). Turn it around. The Spirit is God. OK. Does that make a third divine being? I don't believe so. The "Spirit OF God" is the same as "the Spirit of the Father". Jesus said, "The Father who dwells in Me." HOW did His Father dwell in Him? As spirit. Folks want to confine God the Father to one place - sitting on the throne. They somehow do not understand that the Father is omnipresent. He is THE omnipresent SPIRIT. JoeMo 1 Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 On 7/19/2018 at 3:54 PM, JoeMo said: The closest thing I could find was Genesis 1:1, where it says the Spirit hovered over the waters. Nothing about the Spirit taking an active role in creation. I'm not trying to sound sacrilegious but clouds can hover as well., Most people don't know that the Pioneer's and Ellen White believed, in speaking of God, THAT "PERSON" - meant a body of flesh, bone and organs. So, when Ellen said "PERSONALITY OF GOD" or that Christ has a personality she meant that prior to the Incarnation Michael the archangel, Lucifer the archangel, The Father all had bodies of FLESH with bones, organs, members etc. In the SDA understanding of Scripture at that time the Holy Spirit didn't have a "PERSONALITY" (AKA body of flesh). Understand that SDA's at that time ( to include Ellen White ) had NO PROBLEM calling the Holy Spirit a PERSON but it had a different meaning as shown below. Revew and Herald, Sept 6, 1892 Is God a Spirit? Question: If God is a spirit (John 4:24) and at the same time a person (Dan 7:9) would not the same reasoning prove that the Holy Spirit is a PERSON as referred to in John 4: 26? Answer: NO - For God is elsewhere described and represented as a Person; but the Holy Spirit is not. The fact that the Holy Spirit is personified in John 14 and thus spoken of as acting in a personal and individual manner does NOT prove it to be a person any more than the fact that love is spoken of in 1 Cor 13 as performing certain acts and exercising certain emotions, prove that charity or love is. AND, Signs of the Times, 1912, Vol 39 # 32 3829 — Is The Holy Spirit A Personality? Question: Can't we say that the Holy Spirit is a personality, as long as the personal pronoun is attributed to it? T. A. Z. Answer: The use of the personal pronoun is not of itself proof that the Holy Spirit is a personality, and yet the work of the Spirit is the work of a personality. By the Spirit both the Father and the Son come personally to every soul that receives the Spirit. In that wonderful sense which no human being can comprehend, the Spirit comes to each soul as a personality. And yet it does not have what we would call human personality of being in one place only at one time, that is, such personality as has our Lord Himself — in one place as He is in no other place. The Holy Spirit may be in any number of places at one and the same time, bringing the special presence of God in each of those places. In the office of the "Signs of the Times" there are fourteen different telephones all connecting with the manager. The manager may connect all these with him at one and the same time. He could issue a general order so that the foreman of each department could hear his voice at the same time. In a way he is personally present in every department. Every department hears his voice. The marvelous invention of the telephone makes him present in fifteen different places at the same time. So it is that God's Spirit makes the Father and the Son present in as many different places as God may direct, at one and the same time. We know somewhat of the working. We understand how it is to some extent of the Lord's ways and methods. We see the effects, but we know almost nothing of the nature and the power that Infinity uses to communicate with man. Let us be willing to leave it there. In some instances the Spirit is represented as the great life of God. In some it is spoken of as a power that is poured out and shed forth. To the individual it comes as the representative of the personal God. Therefore it may be spoken of as a personality, and looking at it from another view-point, as not a personality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 30, 2018 Author Share Posted July 30, 2018 5 hours ago, Gustave said: Most people don't know that the Pioneer's and Ellen White believed, in speaking of God, THAT "PERSON" - meant a body of flesh, bone and organs. So, when Ellen said "PERSONALITY OF GOD" or that Christ has a personality she meant that prior to the Incarnation Michael the archangel, Lucifer the archangel, The Father all had bodies of FLESH with bones, organs, members etc. Gustave, Glad to see you posting again. I have read a LOT of EGW writings (in the past) and I do not remember any statement that God the Father, or Christ, or even the angels - had "bodies of flesh and bone" with "organs". All were SPIRIT beings. The Father is the original spirit being. His begotten Son is the second spirit being. Angels are created spirit beings. Could they - on occasion - APPEAR in the physical realm, looking like physical beings with body parts. ANSWER: Yes. The Son of God and two of His angels appeared to Abraham. The Son of God "wrestled" with Jacob. The Son of God appeared to Joshua as "Commander of the Lord's hosts". He also appeared in the furnace with Daniel's three friends. None of those appearances were specifically called visions. The Son of God also appeared as a glorious being, to Daniel, to John, to Moses and the 70 Elders, to Ezekiel, and to Saul (Paul). NOTE: The incarnation was NOT just an appearance. The Son of God actually BECAME a human being - with all normal body parts. The Bible says that God the Father "sits on the throne" and that His Son sits at His right hand. If God the Father (who is spirit) has chosen to APPEAR to His heavenly creation (sitting on a throne), in a FORM that created beings can both SEE and HEAR, what conflict does that pose? None - so far as I can see. He is still THE omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient ONE. Guess I'm wondering what the point of your post is. You dig up a LOT of early Ellen White statements. Are you still working on the origins of SDA doctrine concerning the nature of God? Is that where you are trying to focus? I am NOT SDA, so I would rather stick with what the Bible says. What can we know of the nature of our God - from His word, revealed through His Son, and through chosen prophets? Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said: Gustave, Glad to see you posting again. I have read a LOT of EGW writings (in the past) and I do not remember any statement that God the Father, or Christ, or even the angels - had "bodies of flesh and bone" with "organs". All were SPIRIT beings. The Father is the original spirit being. His begotten Son is the second spirit being. Angels are created spirit beings. Could they - on occasion - APPEAR in the physical realm, looking like physical beings with body parts. ANSWER: Yes. The Son of God and two of His angels appeared to Abraham. The Son of God "wrestled" with Jacob. The Son of God appeared to Joshua as "Commander of the Lord's hosts". He also appeared in the furnace with Daniel's three friends. None of those appearances were specifically called visions. The Son of God also appeared as a glorious being, to Daniel, to John, to Moses and the 70 Elders, to Ezekiel, and to Saul (Paul). NOTE: The incarnation was NOT just an appearance. The Son of God actually BECAME a human being - with all normal body parts. The Bible says that God the Father "sits on the throne" and that His Son sits at His right hand. If God the Father (who is spirit) has chosen to APPEAR to His heavenly creation (sitting on a throne), in a FORM that created beings can both SEE and HEAR, what conflict does that pose? None - so far as I can see. He is still THE omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient ONE. Guess I'm wondering what the point of your post is. You dig up a LOT of early Ellen White statements. Are you still working on the origins of SDA doctrine concerning the nature of God? Is that where you are trying to focus? I am NOT SDA, so I would rather stick with what the Bible says. What can we know of the nature of our God - from His word, revealed through His Son, and through chosen prophets? Yes, that God had a body meant "everything in the world" to the SDA's from their inception to 1913 ( at a minimum ). Originally Posted By: Adventist Review and Herald,Oct 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. & Second^ At the creation God said to Christ, " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. 1: 26, 27. Man bore the image of God both morally and physically; for -after man sinned, we 'read'that Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." Gen. 5:3. Here is an explanation of the words " image " and "- likeness." As Seth bore both the physical and the moral nature of Adam, so Adam bore the physical and the moral likeness of God.Neither was this image of God which man bore a mere concept; for the Bible declares that the Lord has parts, the same as the human body. I've collected everything I could find from the archives about this teaching and can confirm it was "foundational" , they literally talked about this more than they did the Sabbath. They claimed without the P.O.G. Doctrine that there could be no Sanctuary Doctrine. It was that important. Yes, I agree that "at the Incarnation" God changed in that the Son took on human flesh with everything a normal man would have. The SDA's were clear that Ultimate God, Michael the archangel and Lucifer the archangel all had bodies of flesh, as did the other angels. Michael the archangel was understood to have sloughed off his body somehow prior to coming to earth - Lucifer, according to Ellen White still has his original flesh. It's anthropomorphic Language, it was never understood to be literal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 31 minutes ago, The Wanderer said: Gustave; this is in actual fact not quoted from any Adventist publication; definitely not from The 1903 issue of review & Herald. IDK where you are getting this stuff; but apparently somebody thinks its ok to say whatever they want and then just claim or allege that is is from review & herald. Here is the link to all Review & Herald articles from 1903 and other years. What you have posted here is NOT a part of that magazine from 1903. IF I have missed out on something, maybe you can point it out in the link I provided? Otherwise; what you are saying here about Adventists is NOT true; and I have no doubt your heart is in the right place; but this is just not true; not there. It might be an idea for you to personally verify the materials you are posting from, which you have been led to believe are "Adventist?" It might be a good idea for you to personally verify the quote doesn't exist in any Adventist publication prior to claiming it doesn't. Again, I do my own research & don't pull stuff off anti SDA websites. Pages 9 & 10. of the Review and Herald October 8, 1903 http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH19031008-V80-40.pdf I evidently need to post more of this so that you can see and believe the importance the Pioneers & Ellen placed on God ( prior to the Incarnation ) having all the flesh, organs, members and parts of a perfect man and more importantly how they said they COULDN'T support their Sanctuary Doctrine without it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 2 hours ago, The Wanderer said: The text which I will quote from your post below is NOT in that article either. It appears what you have posted is your own paraphrase of what YOU think the article means. But the article was dealing with "The personality Of God" and thats a mighty long stretch from what you have posted: There is some writing on page 10 regarding the sanctuary: I cannot find what you have quoted in the article you have linked to on page 9 or 10 The "Personality of God" Doctrine of the SDA's through to past Ellen's death was as simple as it was specific - it meant: The Father had a body of flesh with every digestive and sensory organ a man would have - this same thing applied to Michael & Lucifer the archangels ( prior Incarnation ). That, in a nutshell, IS the "Personality of God Doctrine" & there is nothing you or I (or anyone else) can do about it except accept it for what it was. The article asks; "Does it make any real difference whether we believe in the personality of God as long as we believe in God"? The author answers this question by saying that to SDA's "it makes ALL the difference in the world". As for the point I made about the importance I should let Ellen White & other SDA's answer just how important it is. "He who denies the Personality of God and of His Son Jesus Christ is denying God and Christ". Review & Herald, March 8, 1906 & "Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they 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....." MR 760, page 9, 1905 The most lengthy articles I found in the SDA archives about the Personality of God stated that Trinity Doctrine was INCOMPATABLE with it. "The Doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the Church by the Council of Nice, A.D. 325. This Doctrine DESTROYS THE PERSONALITY OF GOD, and His Son Jesus Christ our Lord". Review and Herald March 6, 1855. & "The greatest truths in Christianity are all bound up in the doctrine of the Personality of God". Review & Herald Feb 13, 1919 & "I entreat everyone 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". Review & Herald August 31, 1905 Finally, the inventor of breakfast cereal John Kellogg wrote a book in which he claimed "God" was present everywhere and identified the Devine Person as "God The Holy Spirit". Kellogg had recently come to believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity. Ellen writes to Kellogg and said: "You are not definitely clear on THE PERSONALITY OF GOD, which is everything to us as a people. You have virtually destroyed the Lord God Himself.” (Ellen White to John Harvey Kellogg, Letter 300 1903.) Wanderer, would you agree that Ellen White personally wrote to Kellogg and took issue with his "destroying the Personality of God"? Why didn't Ellen write to Kellogg ( same guy ) in 1880 when he said: "We believe in but one Deity, God, who is a unity, not a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism ' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinita-. rianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point. We are utterly at a loss to comprehend how our reviewer could have blundered so strangely as to suppose us to share in so gross an error as we believe the orthodox doctrine of the trinity to be". "The Personality of God which is EVERYTHING to us as a people" combined with "it makes ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD [that you believe in the Personality of God]". & The Personality of God is a pillar of the SDA Faith. What about the Doctrine of the Personality of God affirming Father had digestive organs, bones, members and parts did you not understand? Also what part about this being a pillar of the Faith so much so that if you rejected it you reject God - is not documented well enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said: Gustave, this question is not in any of the materials you cited. Also, what you post is ignoring the correct context; there is quite a difference between believing in the Personality of God; and the stuff you were saying about the substance of God. I have no more interest in discussing this if you will not accurately quote the materials instead of paraphrasing it until it means (to you) the substance. Adventists have never taught the way you are claiming, aside from the Biblical fact that God is or has a Personality. Your quotes appear to be coming from some kind of "apologetics" site that does not check their facts. The huge difference between believing in the Personality of God and the stuff I've been saying about the Substance of God is what I've been harping on for years. The Trinity Doctrine is that God is: Father, Son & Holy Spirit - the three Person's co-equally own the Substance THAT IS GOD. I've shown you scores of places where Ellen White & the Pioneers affirm that the Trinity section of the Creeds of the following Churches are not compatible with the SDA Personality of God Doctrine: Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Baptist. Perhaps I misunderstood you Wanderer - are you saying that the Personality of God Doctrine which Ellen actually was instrumental in creating and promulgating IS compatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity? Or are you saying that the SDA Church now says what's ONE is the Nature, Substance or Essence? Try to find my points on an apologetics site - I do my own research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 9 hours ago, The Wanderer said: You will have to tell us which of the 28 fundamental beliefs state, as you do, this stuff about the substance of God. The *official* trinity doctrine actually does not set the substance in stone; it addresses primarily, the Personality of The Three. I am sure you are aware that there is no such thing, in the Bible called "Trinity," and that the fundamental beliefs do not dwell on that word for long. The primary concerns are regarding The Father, The Son, the Spirit; and the Personality that they exhibit. The official Adventist belief does not even call it "Trinity," rather, it is called "The Godhead" in our fundamental belief, #2 The objections/accusations you keep posting have nothing to do with our official fundamental Beliefs. What is the difference in meaning between the pillars of the SDA Faith that Ellen talked about and the Fundamental beliefs? There is no such thing in the Bible called Investigative Judgement, soul sleeping, & non alcoholic wine either but I'm guessing you'd claim those are taught. Look, SDA's own historians say that their early church was non-Trinitarian, after the death of Ellen the Church eventually officially states belief in the Trinity, brag to the world that they believe in the Trinity then when it's discovered SDA's still claim God isn't a "compound being" but a unity of 3 beings they claim they believe in the real Trinity and not the false unorthodox Trinity that the Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox and every other Christian Denomination has always accepted. That doesn't strike you rather odd???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Does Shawn Boonstra's video about the SUBSTANCE of God reflect Official SDA Belief on the Trinity or not? If Boonstra did accurately state it than you have a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, The Wanderer said: It is my understanding that those "pillars" Ellen White talked about, were and are not exactly the same as the official Fundamental beliefs. She talked and wrote about many things that were NOT official Fundamental Beliefs, (as voted on by GC in session). No, sorry Nothing strikes me as "odd." One thing I like to "brag to the world about" is the fact that our church has NOT had its cardinal doctrines pre-empted or prescribed by just one person, as in EGW for one example.Ellen White and the church both "brag to the world" about that one. Thank you for enclosing the video Gustave. I will review it when time permits and then i will be able to have an informed discussion about it. You are asking good questions. Keep them coming. My logic chain is as follows. A) The SDA Pioneers wrote extensively about the Personality of God B.) The primary issue the Pioneers had with the Trinity was that they believed IT [the Trinity] destroyed the Personality of God Doctrine C) The mechanics of the argument ( as explained in the many articles ) was that SDA's didn't believe in a compound being ( spiritual substance ) - SDA's believed God was a unity. D) Any creed or teaching that identified God as being a Substance, Essence or Nature was rejected due to that teaching "destroying the personality of God" - because they believed God had a body of flesh with all the members and parts of a perfect man. The It Is Written video I posted has Shawn Boonstra claiming that the Council of Nicaea was right that Christ was God because He was made of the same Substance or Essence of the Father. Myself I thought that the video was excellent and accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Wanderer said: Gustave; I am wondering if you did, yourself watch this entire video? I dont think you did, because of the title, maybe you thought or presumed that what you are claiming "must be in there somewhere?" At any rate, Boonstra says absolutely nothing about Adventists believing in the Substance dogma you continue to bring up. There isnt a single word about that in the entire video I listened to the entire video carefully and found nothing of the kind in it. Nevertheless, it is a very good video. Boonstra was comparing & contrasting Arian beliefs with our beliefs, but there was nothing here talking about what we believe or dont believe regarding "substance" of God. Right around the 20 min mark we can hear Boonstra talking about why Adventists belief, as one of their fundamental beliefs, how that Jesus is God and we can safely worship Him as such, and how we dont have to worry about our salvation depending upon some lesser being, or angel, some sort of created being; BUT ON GOD. Thats it Gustave! There is absolutely not even a single sentence in this video about what you are claiming about Adventists here. Right near the end; I would reccommend that people enjoy the beautiful hymn that was sung by Sandy Weymar Johnson called "I Walked Today Where Jesus Walked." I watched it several times. Arius believed the Son was of UNLIKE Substance contrasted with the Church maintaining Christ was like (IDENTICAL) SUBSTANCE. Do you believe that Boonstra believed that Substance was material ( i.e. a body of flesh ) and that's what he meant? I think you missed my point - I found the Boonstra video to be accurate and support belief in the Trinity - my point was that Boonstra's video is not compatible with what the Pioneer's, Ellen ( and the new flock of anti trinity SDA's ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Wanderer said: The answer to this question is NOT in the video you have linked this to. The closest Boonstra got to saying anything at all about "the substance was just to say that Jesus is God. The entire video was centered around comparing the Arian view with the official Adventist view; in fact the video does say several times that Ellen White was in agreement with the Boonstra video content, but it did not get into specifics. If that was your point, to use this video, to try to say Ellen White was not in agreement with what Boonstra was teaching; then I think you have the wrong video. This one doesnt even come close to broaching THAT subject. If I am wrong, please tell us at what point in the video is it actually stated and proved...as in 20 min mark, or at whatever mark you feel it is. Go to 6:21 on the video "During the Council of Nicaea the whole debate centered on ONE WORD, AND THAT WORD WAS SUBSTANCE.............." I'm off to work - will answer your other questions when I can get back online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 19 hours ago, Gustave said: " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. 1: 26, 27 The Bible does not say exactly what characteristics of God were copied in Adam/Eve. BOTH Adam and Eve were made in the image of God. Obviously God's self-sustaining life was not given to mankind. They were created as mortal beings. God was not made from dust. He was not "made" at all. An "image" is a copy. An "exact image" is an exact copy. But Adam/Eve were NOT exact copies. They only had some "likeness". We don't know just what "likeness", or how much "likeness" they were created with. They were self-aware, sentient - aware of their own existence, and that of others around them. They possessed intelligence far above animals. That is "like" God. Gustave, You seem to have studied Adventism and the writings of EGW - a LOT. Were you tasked with this (by someone within the Catholic Church), or simply very interested? Gregory Matthews 1 Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 19 hours ago, Gustave said: Yes, I agree that "at the Incarnation" God changed in that the Son took on human flesh with everything a normal man would have. The SDA's were clear that Ultimate God, Michael the archangel and Lucifer the archangel all had bodies of flesh, as did the other angels. Michael the archangel was understood to have sloughed off his body somehow prior to coming to earth - Lucifer, according to Ellen White still has his original flesh. Lucifer was never called an "archangel" . I do remember Mrs White describing Lucifer. He seemed to have lost a lot of frontal lobe, because his forehead sloped backwards. Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 29 minutes ago, Gustave said: Go to 6:21 on the video "During the Council of Nicaea the whole debate centered on ONE WORD, AND THAT WORD WAS SUBSTANCE.............." I'm off to work - will answer your other questions when I can get back online. Ahh, but we cannot DEFINE "substance". And would not a "son" begotten from His Father, be of the same substance? A clone is of the same substance, as the original. I don't see how "of the same substance" negates the idea that God beget a "son". Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 16 hours ago, Gustave said: The "Personality of God" Doctrine of the SDA's through to past Ellen's death was as simple as it was specific - it meant: The Father had a body of flesh with every digestive and sensory organ a man would have - this same thing applied to Michael & Lucifer the archangels ( prior Incarnation ). "appeared" - when seen by prophets - with a body - with visible extremities (arms, hands, feet, robe, beard, ears, eyes, face). Text does not say "of flesh". Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8thdaypriest Posted July 31, 2018 Author Share Posted July 31, 2018 If the Son of God existed in "flesh" before His incarnation, then why would the writer say: Hebrews 5:7 "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." (NRS) The days of His incarnation are called "the days of his flesh", implying that before He incarnated, He did NOT have "flesh". Paul talks of the new "spiritual body", which is DIFFERENT from the body of flesh/bone/blood that we exist in presently. 1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." (NRS) Leads me to think that the Father and His Son exist with spiritual bodies, which are DIFFERENT from our physical bodies. Bodies - yes, but different. 1 John 3:2 "Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. (NRS) Would make sense to say that the physical bodies of Adam and Eve were fashioned after (copies of) the spiritual bodies of God the Father and His Son. As to similarity, The LORD told Moses to make the Tabernacle "like the pattern" he saw on the mount. If the original/pattern represented "Heaven itself, the true Tabernacle" and the Tabernacle was "the copy" (Hebrews 8:5), that "copy" was infinitely smaller and less than the original. Would not the body of Adam also have been infinitely less than "the Original"? It was a physical body, NOT a spiritual body. Quote 8thdaypriest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted July 31, 2018 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2018 As to God having a body of flesh with the same digestive and sensory organs as Adam & Eve, is beyond belief. While I am willing to agree that some specific early denominational leaders did have some ideas as to the nature of God that are not accepted now, I co not agree that they believed that God had the same body of flesh as did Adam and Eve. By the way, while Rachel and I disagree on some points, she has also made a number valid point in her discussion of this. 8thdaypriest 1 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said: Lucifer was never called an "archangel" . I do remember Mrs White describing Lucifer. He seemed to have lost a lot of frontal lobe, because his forehead sloped backwards. Lucifer was identified as an archangel by Ellen White - she stated this was a "fact". "Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God's purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an archangel, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence. His complaints against God's government, at first met with no favor; yet being urged again and again, they were finally accepted by those who had before been loyal and happy subjects of the King of Heaven. There was not the shadow of justification or excuse for disaffection; but envy and jealousy, once cherished, gained a power that paralyzed reason and destroyed honor and loyalty. As the result, Satan and all his sympathizers were cast out of Heaven". {ST, September 14, 1882 par. 9} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 5 hours ago, The Wanderer said: BUT your posting is taking this out of context, totally. Boonstra was simply recounting the story of debates that went on between Arians and The Catholic Church! Nothing to do with Adventists there at all. Adventists are not mentioned in that portion ANYWHERE. If you took 15 different people from 15 different Trinitarian Churches and had them watch that video they would all conclude that Boonstra agreed that the Council of Nicaea was RIGHT, the Creed was right & Arius was wrong. Do you see it differently? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said: As to God having a body of flesh with the same digestive and sensory organs as Adam & Eve, is beyond belief. While I am willing to agree that some specific early denominational leaders did have some ideas as to the nature of God that are not accepted now, I co not agree that they believed that God had the same body of flesh as did Adam and Eve. By the way, while Rachel and I disagree on some points, she has also made a number valid point in her discussion of this. Yes, I agree with you Gregory Matthews, it's beyond belief but that is exactly what the Pioneers taught - that's exactly what the P.O.G. Doctrine was. This is also the reason given by the writers of all those articles and tracts why the Creeds of the Methodists, Baptists and other Churches were drunk on the wine of Babylon - because those other Churches identified 'God' as one single substance which was co-equally owned by the 3 Divine Persons - i.e. the Christian Creeds all "destroy the personality of God". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 4 hours ago, The Wanderer said: We actually do not know the "substance" no matter which side of the fence we are on for this one. What we do know is that scripture says Jesus is God; and that Jesus Himself made that very claim about Himself, but He in no way imparted any kind of "substance" analysis, such as we "humans" like to keep trying to do. We say Substance because as a finite creature of an Infinite God we cant identify exactly what it is - because it's beyond us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted July 31, 2018 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2018 Gustave: I believe that must scholars of the history of Christianity would disagree with your suggestion that God had all of the organs that Adam and Eve had. I do not believe that the "substance" that was debated included such organs. I do not believe that the "person" used in the description of the Trinity includes such. Of course, as Rachel has said, this gets into my preference for "personal being." I would like to see any explicit reference to our early denominational leaders that states that God had the same digestive organs that Adam and Eve had. Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustave Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 7 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said: "appeared" - when seen by prophets - with a body - with visible extremities (arms, hands, feet, robe, beard, ears, eyes, face). Text does not say "of flesh". That text doesn't need to as Ellen already explained it. 'I was shown Satan as he once was, a happy, exalted angel. Then I was shown him as he now is. He still bears a kingly form. His features aree still noble, for he is an angel fallen. But the expression of his countenance is full of anxiety, care, unhappiness, malice, hate, mischief, deceit, and every evil. That brow which was once so noble, I particularly noticed. His forehead commenced from his eyes to recede. I saw that he had so long bent himself to evil that every good quality was debased, and every evil trait was developed. His eyes were cunning, sly, and showed great penetration. His frame was large, but THE FLESH HUNG loosely about his hands and face. As I beheld him, his chin was resting upon his left hand. He appeared to be in deep thought. A smile was upon his countenance, which made me tremble, it was so full of evil and satanic slyness. This smile is the one he wears just before he makes sure of his victim, and as he fastens the victim in his snare, this smile grows horrible" EW 152, 153. {TA 251.3} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.