At the Creation

[Gregory Matthews]

God deals with humanity in human terms.  Angels have appeared in the form of humans.  God has appeared in forms that were within the human experience.  This should be expected as how would humans comprehend something that was outside of the human experience.

In no cases should these manifestations be considered to represent the actual divine form.

That also goes for EGWs comments as to what she had seen.

 

 

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

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.

 

 

 

"Here it is definitely stated what part of man constitutes the likeness. " Sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." It is his flesh, then, in which the likeness consists. Phil. 2:5-8 is absolutely decisive upon this point. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God." Here we stop to ask how Christ could be in the form of God, if God had no form". Review & Herald September 12, 1878

I wanted to provide you an immediate explicit reference that was authorized by Ellen White. I'll show you how it is that I know she authorized the above and below statements.

 

"How the doctrine of the trinity, of three Gods, can be reconciled with these positive statements I do not know. It seems to me that nothing can be framed which more clearly denies the doctrine of the trinity, than do the scriptures above quoted. And then the Bible never uses the phrases, " trinity," " triune God," " three in one," " the holy three," " God the Holy Ghost," etc. But it does emphatically say there is only one God, the Father. And every argument of the Trinitarian to prove three Gods in one person, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all of them of one substance, and every way equal to each other, and all three forming but one, contradicts itself, contradicts reason, and contradicts the Bible." Review & Herald August 29, 1878

"Thus it is declared that God has all the members and parts of a perfect man. This is not said once, nor twice, but many times, not in parables and symbols, and figures, but directly and plainly". Review & Herald September 5, 1878

"Several queries present themselves here: Is Christ the very and eternal God? So they say. Did Christ have a body? This they positively affirm. Is he inseparably connected with that body? and has he not that body in Heaven? This they plainly declare. Is he not the true God? So they say. Then has not the true God a body? Thus the creed directly says. Then certainly God has a body—occupies a body. Why, then, do the creeds say that he has no body? Again we are told by these creeds that God is everywhere, as much in one place as another, and no more in one place than another. But the Bible says that Jesus ascended up on high, and is at the right hand of the Father. Did he ascend everywhere? Was his body divided into innumerable particles, and scattered throughout the universe? If the Father is everywhere and nowhere in particular, where did Jesus go? Again it is claimed that saints at death go to Heaven, where God is. Do they go everywhere, and nowhere in particular? All this seems to me to be the sheerest nonsense. It is opposed to common sense and to the Bible. No; God is a person, a real being". Review & Herald September 5, 1878

The above statements are merely representative of what are in those articles - literally the tip of the iceberg!

Where Ellen comes in: 

"MRS. WHITE had-an appointment to speak in the Colorado Tent at Boulder City, on the evening of the 11th, so in the morning we took Elder Canright to the place with us, where we parted with him the morning of the 12th, he to take the cars for Battle Creek, to be with his wife, who is reported to be rapidly failing. We parted with this dear brother with feelings of deep: regret that he leaves us before our return, and. yet we could not hold him a day from his faithful wife, who deserves his sympathy and care in her last hours. On our journey to this State, and for the first few weeks after our arrival  we needed his assistance, and he has acted the part of a true Christian brother. We have had many precious seasons of prayer together at the family
altar, and when bowed together in the evergreen groves of the mountains. Here we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," AND his articles on the Personality of God, the Divinity of Christ, the Father,- Son and Holy Spirit, to be published in pamphlet form ; while he has assisted us on some important works". Review & Herald August 22, 1878 No. 9

Even the most hard-core Seventh-day Adventist / adherent of Ellen White would agree that Canright's multiple September ARTICLES on the Personality of God were among the most vicious attacks against the Trinity Doctrine the SDA Church has ever mounted in print AND the month prior to those articles spewing out from the press James White says that He and His Wife ( that would be Ellen ) assisted in the revisions of THOSE articles.

Anyone who reads these articles that Ellen helped Canright revise can see EXACTLY what Ellen's position was on the Holy Spirit, God & Christ and only a dishonest person would claim Ellen wasn't a rabid anti-Trinitarian. 

I've had folks ( not you Gregory ) surmise that I've been lifting stuff off of anti-SDA websites and posting it without really understanding what it is that I'm posting. To be honest I've never seen ANY of my findings on anti-SDA websites & the reason is I take these sort of things seriously and do my own work. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  I do appreciate your listing of sources.  However, in none of them is there an explicit statement to the effect that EGW believed/taught that God had the same digestive organs as did Adam and Eve.  Your use of those statement is simply you reading into them what you wanted to see in them.

I do  not challenge anyone who might say that EGW was not a Trinitarian in the early days of her ministry.  She was a human who grew in grace and doctrinal understanding.  She was never perfect in  her doctrinal understanding as neither are you and I perfect in our doctrinal understanding.

Any attempt to attribute doctrinal perfection to her is without warrant and violates her teachings as well as the Biblical witness.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, you have referenced an article in the September 5, 1878 R & H.   That article may be read below:

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780905-V52-11.pdf

It shoul be understood that the above article was not written by EGW.  Rather, it was written by D. M. Canright.   

Your September 12, 1878 article may be read below.  Again, Canright wrote it.

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780912-V52-12.pdf

O.K.  EGW may have assisted Canright in his articles.  Never the less, they remained his articles and not that of EGW.  Regardless,  no where does Canright state that God had the digestive organs that Adam and Eve had.  You are simply reading into the article what you want to see.

 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, you have referenced an article in the September 5, 1878 R & H.   That article may be read below:

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780905-V52-11.pdf

It shoul be understood that the above article was not written by EGW.  Rather, it was written by D. M. Canright.   

Your September 12, 1878 article may be read below.  Again, Canright wrote it.

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780912-V52-12.pdf

O.K.  EGW may have assisted Canright in his articles.  Never the less, they remained his articles and not that of EGW.  Regardless,  no where does Canright state that God had the digestive organs that Adam and Eve had.  You are simply reading into the article what you want to see.

 

It was claimed in print that Ellen & James White revised Canright's P.O.G. articles & it was those articles I quoted from.

I failed to post the quote about digestive organs, I will after I get back home. My apologies.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Part of your posting involved another issue.  That is the issue as to what we should expect from EGW to include the role that she was to have in the SDA Church.

It is clear, that EGW considered herself to be subject to the authority of the Bible.  She did not consider the Bible to be subject to her authority.  Some SDAs are mixed up on that and seem to believe that the Bible is to be understood in terms of what EGW wrote.

Perhaps, Gusrtave  will come up with a quote in which EGW makes an explicit statement to the effect that God had digestive organs?  I do not think that will happen.  But, let us say that it will happen.

We should not be overly disturbed by such.    Ellen White was  human.  She did not begin her life in perfection of doctrinal belief.  She did not end her life in perfection of doctrinal belief.  Like us, her spiritual life was a life of growth.   That is true for all humans.  Only God is perfect.  She was not given to us to be the final arbitrator as to  what the Bible teaches.  It should not disturb us when we discover that at some point in time EGW believed something that differs from  what the Bible teaches.

So, until Gustave demonstrates that EGW once taught/believed that God had human digestive organs, I will challenge him. But, if he succeeds, so what?  He will only have demonstrated the humanity of a person who made a major contribution to the life and mission of the SDA Church.

 

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I do  not challenge anyone who might say that EGW was not a Trinitarian in the early days of her ministry. 

This is true.  Mrs White's writings show that she believed only in God the Father and His Son who incarnated to become Jesus the Christ.   She believed this way for almost the first 45 years of her ministry, finally evolving (some would say growing) her belief that the Holy Spirit is also a divine "person" - ("the third person of the godhead") coequal and coeternal with the Father and the Son.  

I do NOT believe that the Spirit is a third divine person (or being).   I worship only God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.  There is no command in Scripture to worship the Holy Spirit, in addition to the Father and the Son.  

[Gregory Matthews]

Some would say that Scripture only commands worship of  God the Father.

I do not believe that we should use such as a determinative factor related to the Trinity.

I can postulate a Trinity in which the only command is to worship God the Father  By the way, my prayers typically begin with the word God.   They do not typically begin with either the words Jesus or Holy Spirit.

 

[8thdaypriest]

I just don't see the problem.   God - through His Son - created sentient beings with free will.   Those beings - as created - were/are not omnipresent.  They each one exist in a "body" - a physical body for humans, and a spiritual body for angels.  Without a body - one does not live.  He is - what Paul called - "naked".  

Christ said that "in the resurrection" we will be like the angels.  And Paul said we will each receive a new "spiritual body".  The body supports the mind, allowing the mind to receive messages of touch, sound, sight, etc. etc.  It's a great design!   

The angels are able to communicate by thought transference, something that humans cannot do.     There are incidents from Scripture, wherein persons "heard" a "voice", but saw no one.  There are many accounts of such outside the Bible record.  Some are accounts of God's leading through His angels, and some are accounts of demonic harassment.  "Test every spirit, whether they be of God."  

Communication by thought transference is an ability which humans do not currently possess.  But in the future spiritual body, we may possess this ability.

If angel spirit beings can communicate directly to our minds,  then certainly God can do this.   He is the one who designed this ability.   His mind "sees" and knows all that exists.  He knows the number of hairs on our heads.   He sees every sparrow fall.   

God's mind, with divine "senses" beyond what we can comprehend,  can see and know and "feel" everything within His creation, while at the same time HE appears - to His created beings -  as a singular being sitting "on the throne".  Both HE and now HIS SON (who sits at His right hand) can communicate with and effect changes within, any part of THEIR creation. 

No THIRD divine being is needed to communicate with or to effect changes within, any part of THEIR creation.  

PS:  It does not matter to me whether Ellen White wrote that God has flesh.   She wrote lots of less-than-perfect things.  Ellen White is NOT my authority on the interpretation of Scripture. 

Gustave,  WHY would a devout Catholic spend soooooo much time researching early Ellen White writings?   Have you been assigned this work?   Are you trying to save a friend or relative from Adventism?   

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

40 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Some would say that Scripture only commands worship of  God the Father.

I do not believe that we should use such as a determinative factor related to the Trinity.

I can postulate a Trinity in which the only command is to worship God the Father  By the way, my prayers typically begin with the word God.   They do not typically begin with either the words Jesus or Holy Spirit.

 

Jesus said we should address our prayers to "Our Father in Heaven" - "in My name".   The Father has commanded that we worship His Son.   

IF you say that "the Father" IS a trinity,  where does that leave "the Son of the Father" ?   Toooooo confusing.  

[Gregory Matthews]

And the point is:  The subject of the nature of God is outside of our human understanding and therefore is confusing.  I find it confusing.

 

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,  WHY would a devout Catholic spend soooooo much time researching early Ellen White writings?   Have you been assigned this work?   Are you trying to save a friend or relative from Adventism? 

Catholic or not; Gustave appears to be a noble Berean, looking "outside the box";  exploring alternative belief systems.  I do the same thing.  That's where I get some of my "Outside the Limits" ideas.  Just because a certain denomination believes differently than I do doesn't mean they are wrong; it simply means they believe differently than I do. Period.  For example, I have spent considerable time with JW's.  They're not as goofy as I once thought.  They believe differently than I do (e.g., they worship on Sunday and they don't believe Jesus is God); but the much of their theology is similar to ours.  I once asked a JW that if people in the Bible worshipped Jesus and He accepted it, doesn't that mean Jesus was God?  He said no.  I asked if he worshipped Jesus; and he said yes.  I asked him why he worshipped Jesus if Jesus wasn't God.  He said because Jehovah has commanded that we do so (I always thought JW's did not worship Jesus).  I had no response.

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I just don't see the problem.   God - through His Son - created sentient beings with free will.   Those beings - as created - were/are not omnipresent.  They each one exist in a "body" - a physical body for humans, and a spiritual body for angels.  Without a body - one does not live.  He is - what Paul called - "naked".  

Christ said that "in the resurrection" we will be like the angels.  And Paul said we will each receive a new "spiritual body".  The body supports the mind, allowing the mind to receive messages of touch, sound, sight, etc. etc.  It's a great design!   

The angels are able to communicate by thought transference, something that humans cannot do.     There are incidents from Scripture, wherein persons "heard" a "voice", but saw no one.  There are many accounts of such outside the Bible record.  Some are accounts of God's leading through His angels, and some are accounts of demonic harassment.  "Test every spirit, whether they be of God."  

Communication by thought transference is an ability which humans do not currently possess.  But in the future spiritual body, we may possess this ability.

If angel spirit beings can communicate directly to our minds,  then certainly God can do this.   He is the one who designed this ability.   His mind "sees" and knows all that exists.  He knows the number of hairs on our heads.   He sees every sparrow fall.   

God's mind, with divine "senses" beyond what we can comprehend,  can see and know and "feel" everything within His creation, while at the same time HE appears - to His created beings -  as a singular being sitting "on the throne".  Both HE and now HIS SON (who sits at His right hand) can communicate with and effect changes within, any part of THEIR creation. 

No THIRD divine being is needed to communicate with or to effect changes within, any part of THEIR creation.  

PS:  It does not matter to me whether Ellen White wrote that God has flesh.   She wrote lots of less-than-perfect things.  Ellen White is NOT my authority on the interpretation of Scripture. 

Gustave,  WHY would a devout Catholic spend soooooo much time researching early Ellen White writings?   Have you been assigned this work?   Are you trying to save a friend or relative from Adventism?   

 

 

Hi 8thday,

I was, years ago, part of CCR and a group of us met each week to discuss apologetics, compare notes and exchange ideas. I've always been fascinated with the mystery of the Holy Trinity and have been on that topic for many, many years. Back in the day I participated in some live debates here in Seattle and took some pointers from some folks that used to be heavily involved with Apologetics. I was lucky enough to get some pointers from Rob Sungenis and a few other folks. I was never "assigned" by the Catholic Church to study SDA's.

  

 

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

And the point is:  The subject of the nature of God is outside of our human understanding and therefore is confusing.  I find it confusing.

 

I can agree.

[8thdaypriest]

42 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I was, years ago, part of CCR and a group of us met each week to discuss apologetics, compare notes and exchange ideas. I've always been fascinated with the mystery of the Holy Trinity and have been on that topic for many, many years. Back in the day I participated in some live debates here in Seattle and took some pointers from some folks that used to be heavily involved with Apologetics. I was lucky enough to get some pointers from Rob Sungenis and a few other folks. I was never "assigned" by the Catholic Church to study SDA's.

Thank you Gustave, for responding to my question.  You are a real student and searcher.  (Doesn't mean I agree with your conclusions. lol) 

[Gustave]

15 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I can agree.

I think Sacred Scripture helps us know what the Nature of God isn’t - I obviously agree that we on earth now and even likely in heaven - won’t understand it. The finite can’t fathom the infinite. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

There is just no way to prove it from scripture; there is no injunction in scripture to tell people that The Holy Spirit is "not real" or "not a Person," or not a "Personality," or any other such thing. There isnt a single verse that tells anyone to do this.

There are verses which tell us to search for truth, and to teach the truth.    IF - big IF - the Holy Spirit is a third divine person,  that is what we should teach.  And IF not, then that is what we should teach. 

I have never said that the Holy Spirit "is not real" or is "not a Person" or is not a "Personality.    I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a THIRD Person,  a THIRD Personality.   He is very REAL.   

There is not a single verse that tells anyone to worship, praise, glorify, or thank,the Holy Spirit.   

[8thdaypriest]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I think Sacred Scripture helps us know what the Nature of God isn’t - I obviously agree that we on earth now and even likely in heaven - won’t understand it. The finite can’t fathom the infinite. 

I do believe we have been given elementary clues.   But it's like kids in kindergarten learning about rocket science.   There are things our God wanted us to know about Him, and about His Son - and yes - about His Spirit.   We know very little about His Spirit.  

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Example of all Three working together, in harmony, for the salvation of those who ask for it:

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.(Acts 10:38)

Throughout Scripture, we find that The HOLY SPIRIT is indeed, the Third Person of the Godhead, who exercises the power of the Father and the Son in creation and redemption.

Because the Holy Spirit is the power by which believers come to Christ and see with new eyes of faith, He is closer to us than we are to ourselves. Like the eyes of the body through which we see physical things, The Holy Spirit is seldom in focus to be seen directly because He is the one through whom all else is seen in a new light.

This explains why the relationship of the Father and the Son is more prominent in the gospels, because it is through the eyes of the Holy Spirit that the Father-Son relationship is viewed. The Holy Spirit appears in the Gospel of John as the power by which Christians are brought to faith and helped to understand their walk with God. He brings a person to new birth: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6); “It is the Spirit who gives life” (John 6:63). The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, or Helper, whom Jesus promised to the disciples after His ascension. In fact Jesus favorite name for The Spirit was "Helper" or "Comfortor."

The "eternal Godhead" (Rom 1:20), consisting of of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are unified in ministering to believers (John 14:16, John 14:26). It is through the Helper, (another Comforter, John 16:7-13), that Father and Son choose to abide with the disciples (John 15:26). This unified ministry of the Godhead is also seen as the Spirit brings the world under conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He guides believers into all truth with what He hears from the Father and the Son (John 15:26).

It is a Bible fact that each of the Three Personalities of the Godhead equally serves the others as all equally defer to one another; in their ministry to mankind. (and woman kind) The Son says what He hears from the Father (John 12:49-50); the Father witnesses to and glorifies the Son (John 8:16-18, John 8:50, John 8:54); the Father and Son honor the Holy Spirit by commissioning Him to speak in their name (John 14:16, John 14:26); the Holy Spirit honors the Father and Son by helping the community of believers.

Like Father and Son, the Holy Spirit is equally; and within His role, at the disposal of the other two Persons of the Godhead, and all three are One, (Deut 6:4), in graciously being at the disposal of the family of believers, even today. The Holy Spirit’s attitude and ministry are marked by generosity; His chief function is to illumine Jesus’ teaching, to glorify His person, and to work in the life of the individual believer and the church. "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." (John 16:13)

If I respond to each one of the versus/statements you have posted, it will take up a LOT of space.   Can we break it up into several threads?  This one is about evidence of the nature of God (as ONE or TWO or THREE divine personal beings) at or around the time that the earth was created.  

[Gustave]

Gregory, I wanted to offer you another example, this one is from James White. James created a "tract" called the Personality of God that was advertised hundreds of times in the many periodicals the Church produced.

"What is God? He is material, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. Man is in his image. p. 7, Para. 4, [PERSONAL]. What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like
his Father, being "the brightness of his Father's glory, and the express image of his person." He is a material intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones". p. 7, Para. 5, Personality of God Tract by James White
 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

33 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

No one is asking you to do this. I did look them all up, and it did take some time; but I can show you some of your own, recent posts where you have tried to slug us all with 5-6 different links to your web site, as if we are to look all that up and read through some of those lengthy articles. What I am posting on this subject is all centered around  what I have personally looked up and understood, as we are admonished to do:

Folks here can just ignore my posts.  That would - most likely - make me go quiet.   But for those who might be interested in another view, or simply want to improve their skills at debating a non-Trinitarian - I'm here.  

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Gustave, that looks like an interesting quote. Do you have any idea where one could access this booklet?  I suspect that it is James Whites personal view points, rather than an official church view point. It would be interesting to look into further, but maybe a separate topic or something?  There are some texts in scripture where Jesus made a point of making sure people knew He had a real body...but that was before Jesus had ascended, after His resurrection  I dont think it rrally speake very much as to His actual and current or past SUBSTANCE. I dont think you are "out to lunch" as someone said above. I think you are trying to work with ideas in the scriptures that you have seen and have obviously been studying and contemplating over the years. Lol I totally disagree with some of your ideas but I give you credit for "digging deep."

You can pull it off the following site / just drill down to "James White" , look for "Personality of God".

https://www.watchmanministries.net/ekklesia/sda-pioneers/

Also, 

You can read the same statement in the Review and Herald here,

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18580819-V12-14.pdf

 

I'm totally ok with the out-to-lunch comment and I look at things different than most. I've been doing this for a LONG time now and can tell you IF I had 10 bucks for every time a seriously devout SDA told me that Michael was the ONLY archangel in existence I would have a large sack of cash. The fact is that Ellen White said Lucifer was an archangel AND past that she said there were many other archangels - generally when folks are confronted with the reality that Ellen identified Lucifer as an archangel I watch the mental backflips start to take place.

Generally the same thing happens when the light bulb goes off on the Personality of God Doctrine - it's just the way it is. 

The early SDA's believed in materiality, thus God HAD TO BE MATERIAL and not Spirit - The historic Christian Faith understood that God was ONE Substance that was co-equally owned by the Three Members of the Godhead - the early SDA's flipped it backwards claiming that the ONLY way in which 'God' and Christ were one was in purpose, mind, etc. To bolster this it became important to adopt the primary theology of Arius - THAT Jesus could have sinned, lost his own salvation, etc.

That belief is still present in the SDA Church as I heard one of the speakers of the Trinity Symposium say that Christ had to prove he could do it ( save humanity ). 

I'm thick skinned but once was a little scared when an irate Mormon leader found out one of his folks had agreed to debate me at their Church without permission - LOL! 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Folks here can just ignore my posts.  That would - most likely - make me go quiet.   But for those who might be interested in another view, or simply want to improve their skills at debating a non-Trinitarian - I'm here.  

Oh my dear, I'll get to you

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, thank you for providing the source material for your comment.

Your Watchman Ministries document is interesting.  Certainly our early SDA leaders believed that God had materiality, as they would have said.  If you read that document you would have noted that the reference to bones was to Jesus, in his human form, and not to God the Father.  Yes, that cited article is implied as being written by James White.

Your 2nd document to the Review article is also interesting.  This article is so close to the one in the Watchman Ministries (WM) that I am wondering if the WM article is simply a repeat of what is published in the Review.  If so, it raises the question as to whether James White actually wrote the article in the WM.

The reason for that question is simple:  The article you cited in the Review was NOT written by James White.  It was published in a work titled Gospel Banner and Millennial Advocate (GBMA).  The Review article  was simply a quote from another publication and clearly was not written by James White.  On this basis, I have to believe that James White did not write what MM has posted.  Rather what WM posted was simply taken from either the Review of from the GBMA.

NOTE:  The GMA was a publication of the Christadelphians.  It was not a SDA publication.

So, I find your documentation to not be convincing.

Yes, I would not challenge anyone who said that early SDA leaders believed that God had body parts.  But, what were those parts.  A reasonable person might say a head, arms and legs.  O.K.  There is nothing there to suggest that those leaders also believe that God  had a digestive system.   Again, that is reading what one wants to believe into their statements.

 

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, thank you for providing the source material for your comment.

Your Watchman Ministries document is interesting.  Certainly our early SDA leaders believed that God had materiality, as they would have said.  If you read that document you would have noted that the reference to bones was to Jesus, in his human form, and not to God the Father.  Yes, that cited article is implied as being written by James White.

Your 2nd document to the Review article is also interesting.  This article is so close to the one in the Watchman Ministries (WM) that I am wondering if the WM article is simply a repeat of what is published in the Review.  If so, it raises the question as to whether James White actually wrote the article in the WM.

 

The parts about the Watchman article that struck me was this.

A)

Under the article titled "Examples of Compound Unity" it affirms that God is ONE in the same sense that a husband & wife being is ONE. To say it another way the article says God is ONLY The Father AND follows it up by saying that:

  "it is not difficult to see that although there is but one God there can be a plurality of persons in this Godhead"

In other words Jesus was "GOD" in the same way the wife of a husband is ONE FLESH with her husband - this is exactly what the article is claiming.

This misunderstanding is all due to the Adventists rejecting that God is a "SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE" which is co-equally owned by the three Persons of the Godhead.