The God man - the nature of Christ as understood through the Bible writings.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Only because Jesus chose to. Other-wise; our Savior would have just been a robot devoid of His free-will, and if we have free will, so called, then surely Jesus does.

Scripture says God isn't capable of iniquity, can't deny Himself, is eternal, etc. 

If that means God is a robot than so be it. 

OR, Scripture is WRONG, God really can sin, can deny Himself, isn't eternal, etc. 

 

I've heard people who deny hell justify their belief by saying they couldn't worship a God who would torture someone eternally. We simply don't have the liberty to Shake-N-Bake whatever flavor of God that suits our individual taste buds - but you wouldn't know that given the number of denominations that exist today. 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

here is a reason this verse of Phil 2:8 says "even," death on a cross." It means He could have, but according to prophecy, He didnt.

I'm afraid you have that backwards. 

According to Prophecy He WOULDN'T sin and loose His Salvation - this means He couldn't have sinned and lost His Salvation - therefore He didn't.

Daniel 2, 45: According as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and broke in pieces, the clay, and the iron, and the brass, and the silver, and the gold, the great God hath shewn the king what shall come to pass hereafter, and the dream is true, and the interpretation thereof is faithful.

"Even, death on a cross" in Phil 2,8 means that nothing, not even death in the most horrific way could sway Jesus from the mindset He is said to eternally have. 

Scripture tells us how it would end whereas the Christ was concerned & Scripture also tells us how this same Christ, prior to leaving heaven, didn't  claim being God prevented Him from doing the will of the Father. 

IF Christ, God the Son, The Word, The Messiah ALWAYS does the will of the Father what is the possibility for His sinning and loosing His salvation? From the outside it appears all the apologetics employed to affirm an impossible possibility are a desperate defense to retain the status of prophet for someone when perhaps, at least in this case, it should be admitted the person wasn't exercising spiritual gifts in this particular case. 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave, you give more power and authority to Ellen White that may be accepted by those you are writing about.

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, you give more power and authority to Ellen White that may be accepted by those you are writing about.

 

Excluding any writings representing Theology from Christian or Islam can you point to any Jewish source that believed the Messiah could have failed to deliver the Jewish People? I'm aware the general Jewish thought was that the Messiah was going to be a political / military leader so for the sake of argument lets set  parameters around that - if there was any Jewish thought that believed that the genuine Messiah "could have failed" politically or militarily? Or, could this be a situation where IF the man failed it simply would have meant he wasn't the Messiah in the first place? 

That's my question - was the Christ that was foretold in Scripture a "POTENTIAL CHRIST" ( would the person have to earn it and win the title )? 

OR,

Was the Christ foretold in Scripture "the Christ from eternity" and revealed when the time was right for His appearance?

Satan is obviously an extremely powerful entity - however, giving him a punchers chance against God Almighty is outrageous. There was no time ever where Satan put God into a pickle so that God had to react outside of His eternal purpose. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  I do not have enough knowledge of Jewish literature to answer your question.

 

[Gustave]

People are allowed to say that kind of thing as in any church, there are varying degrees of "acceptance" when one bucks against the "normative views of the majority. 

Thanks for clarifying that, years ago I remember seeing some material that purported to be baptismal vows one had to take that equated to the person joining swearing fealty to the prophetic gifts of Ellen White. Granted, this was years ago and was long enough I can't remember where it was procured so I'll take your word for it and that means either I was mistaken OR the SDA Church has loosened it's former stance. Unless I see something official I'll drop it. 

such materials are permitted as private revelation

Yes, Catholics understand that "Public Revelation" is binding on ALL and terminated with Jesus and the New Testament Scriptures - in other words the Bible. Private revelation on the other hand is ISN'T binding on ALL, yet it serves to help the living Church at various times after the close of the Bible. It's my understanding that private revelation CAN BE binding on the people who  witness / experience it - but I may be wrong here, I've not spent much time studying this or reading private revelation. 

[/quote]

I don't see it as either OR ( free choice or robot ). For a time I got fouled up thinking about how could God, knowing that Lucifer would do what he did and the general moral meltdown of His crowning creation go through with it anyway and create man? Scripture says clearly God knew. The Father knew intimately the precise time The Son would enter "time" just as the Father knows ( and knew prior to Christ's death on the cross ) when the 2nd Coming of Christ will happen. ALL THESE THINGS were absolute, they were set in motion by God and nothing would stop them from happening.  I'm coming from a position that if all these things were ordained by God and were to unquestionably happen then that's the way it is. I can say with certainty that Christ couldn't sin because there would be no 2nd Coming had He sinned.

Matthew 24, 36 “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son,^[h] but only the Father. ³⁷ For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man AS LONG AS I DON'T SIN AND LOOSE MY SALVATION, if that happens WE'RE ALL IN A BIG PICKLE.

If you are a card dealer and deal out a standard deck of cards then one of the players creates a hypothetical hand WITH A JOKER - but this is impossible because a standard deck of playing cards doesn't contain JOKERS. Consider the Bible a standard deck of playing cards that God issued - sure some folks might think it's ok to slip in a JOKER card and claim they have a valid hand but in reality it isn't valid because the JOKER is alien to a standard deck. 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

15 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

Yes, The Adventist Church does have baptismal vow cards something like this; and it would depend upon the specific local churches as to exactly what those lists would contain. Maybe Gregory could help us out on this one? I am thinking, that today, it may be possible for a person to side-step some of that via what we call church membership "by profession of faith?" To me it doesnt matter either way. I do adopt the idea of "informed consent" if I am going to make such a comittment.

Ok, thanks Wanderer, not all SDA Churches demand fealty to Ellen's writings. I'm starting to get a clearer picture. I was under the impression earlier that this was one of those things that was nonnegotiable but this was my assumption - admittedly I never read it from what you would consider an official source.

[JoeMo]

On 8/22/2018 at 6:42 PM, Gustave said:

but can you honestly say that you devoted as much time in study or knowing what the Catholic Church taught on X,Y & Z as you devoted in the study of the Adventism

Yes, I can.  I studied Latin for 4 years prior to Vatican 2 so I could understand the Mass and read other Catholic documents in Latin (like the Latin Vulgate.  I was recruited by several seminaries after the 8th grade because of my spiritual aptitude.  I was involved in several "deep dives" into Catholic Doctrine.  It wasn't until I actually started studying scripture with a priest that I started having questions.  When the priest could no longer respond effectively to my questions, I went "church shopping" until I found a church that believed more or less the way I do.  That turned out to be Adventism.  One of the reasons for that is the "wiggle room" allowed by Adventism without being shunned.

For example, I am not a huge fan of EGW being a prophet in the OT sense.  I can do that as an SDA with no reprisal.  As a Catholic, if I refused to accept the perpetual virginity of Mary and/or the belief that she is Queen of Heaven and a co-Redeemer, I could very well be excommunicated (at least the way I remember things).

[JoeMo]

On 8/22/2018 at 6:42 PM, Gustave said:

If I could ask you, when you joined the SDA Church, were you required to agree that Ellen White was a prophet?

Being completely honest, yes I did.  At the time, I had not read a majority of her work; I proclaimed it by faith. I only knew about what she said in the Bible studues required to be baptized at that time.  I began devouring her writings about 5 years into my SDA experience.  I found a lot that (to me) disagreed with scripture or had no backup in scripture.  I started having doubts.  I was quite surprised that many other SDA's felt the same way when I finally started talking about it to others.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave & Wanderer, read the article I posted from MINISTRY magazine, august 1982, in the Apostalic Succession thread.  It clearly states that belief in EGW is not required, the Bible is supreme and more.

  

[Gregory Matthews]

To cite the month and year is not giving a reference?  I'm my original post I have the month and year of the magazine.

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/23/2018 at 12:56 AM, Gustave said:

Scripture says God isn't capable of iniquity, can't deny Himself, is eternal, etc. 

If that means God is a robot than so be it. 

OR, Scripture is WRONG, God really can sin, can deny Himself, isn't eternal, etc. 

 

I've heard people who deny hell justify their belief by saying they couldn't worship a God who would torture someone eternally. We simply don't have the liberty to Shake-N-Bake whatever flavor of God that suits our individual taste buds - but you wouldn't know that given the number of denominations that exist today. 

Here I differ - I think - from SDA theology.  

I believe that God beget a Son (a second divine being).   Through that being God (now a father) created all things.   God the Father communicated with His created being, through His Son.  His Son led the angels loyal to the Father, at the time of Satan's open rebellion.  Then came time for "the incarnation".  

I believe that the Son of God was somehow reduced to something akin to a strand of human DNA, in a fallopian tube of Mary, to combine with her ovary - to produce a new being.   Exactly HOW that was possible - no one but God knows.   We do know that God the Father "brought" this about.   God the Father "brought" His Son into the physical world (Heb. 1:6).  

With this amazing and severe reduction,  the Son of God was stripped of power.   All that was left to Him, once incarnated, was the power He would receive from His Father's indwelling.  

Because the Father is incapable of iniquity,  does not prove that His Son - once incarnated, once changed in form and nature (to that of human flesh) and without His own divine powers,  was also incapable of iniquity.   One does not prove the other.  

 

[8thdaypriest]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave & Wanderer, read the article I posted from MINISTRY magazine, august 1982, in the Apostalic Succession thread.  It clearly states that belief in EGW is not required, the Bible is supreme and more.

  

Belief in EGW, or belief in God as "three beings" may not be officially required, but I can tell you from personal experience that such belief IS socially required.  I was shunned out of my SDA congregation for teaching early SDA/EGW beliefs - that "the Son" was actually a begotten son, prior to His incarnation, and that only TWO divine beings are to be credited with our salvation.   I used to teach a Sabbath School class, and I began to ask too many questions, so my class was taken from me.  I was told that I could attend, but that I was to sit quietly, and "stop asking divisive questions".   I had folks actually turn their backs to me as I entered the foyer.   I left.  Have not been back.   I stumbled upon this forum (couple years ago?).  That's the closest I've been to anything SDA, for over 25 years.  

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Here I differ - I think - from SDA theology.  

I believe that God beget a Son (a second divine being).   Through that being God (now a father) created all things.   God the Father communicated with His created being, through His Son.  His Son led the angels loyal to the Father, at the time of Satan's open rebellion.  Then came time for "the incarnation".  

I believe that the Son of God was somehow reduced to something akin to a strand of human DNA, in a fallopian tube of Mary, to combine with her ovary - to produce a new being.   Exactly HOW that was possible - no one but God knows.   We do know that God the Father "brought" this about.   God the Father "brought" His Son into the physical world (Heb. 1:6).  

With this amazing and severe reduction,  the Son of God was stripped of power.   All that was left to Him, once incarnated, was the power He would receive from His Father's indwelling.  

Because the Father is incapable of iniquity,  does not prove that His Son - once incarnated, once changed in form and nature (to that of human flesh) and without His own divine powers,  was also incapable of iniquity.   One does not prove the other.  

 

Matthew 10, 1: Jesus, summoned His twelve disciples and GAVE THEM authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness."

Mark 16, 17-18 , Luke 10, 17 & John 5, 21 are representative (not exhaustive) of texts that say Jesus had power and authority in and of Himself. The Christian Church has historically understood this relationship to be 3 equal God's who eventually adopted the Roles of Father, Son & Holy Spirit but an eternal Father, an Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christ is eternally observant to the Will of the Father. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/23/2018 at 1:23 AM, Gustave said:

IF Christ, God the Son, The Word, The Messiah ALWAYS does the will of the Father what is the possibility for His sinning and loosing His salvation? From the outside it appears all the apologetics employed to affirm an impossible possibility are a desperate defense to retain the status of prophet for someone when perhaps, at least in this case, it should be admitted the person wasn't exercising spiritual gifts in this particular case. 

I am NOT SDA.   I do not read EGW writings as I would Scripture.   I am NOT arguing Christ's FREE WILL, in an attempt to support EGW as a prophet.  

What was the point of Satan's temptations (including his attempt to break Christ through crucifixion and mind torture)?   Was Satan just trying to see for himself, whether Christ could sin?   Was Satan just experimenting?   You'd think a being that intelligent would know better than to waste his energy.   

What was the point - the mission - of the incarnation and punishment death of the Son of God?    Did God the Father just need a better blood sacrifice?   That surely casts the Father in a bad light - blood thirsty, with no other purpose served.   I do NOT believe the cross was some kind of "payment" to God, so He would allow Christ to save some humans.  No!    Besides.  If Jesus had no choice,  then it was not really a payment.   It was a forced human sacrifice.   That is NOT how God our Father treats humans.  

If our Creator is the God of Covenant - and the covenant gave earth to mankind (upon condition of obedience), then God was not going to take it back.   Earth belongs to mankind, to live on with blessing, or to die on without God's blessing.   ONLY A MAN could recover dominion of the earth - under the covenant.   This is WHY the Son of God BECAME a man.  This is WHY He endured every test that Satan could devise.  He knew the mission, and the goal.  He CHOSE to do what He did - out of love for miserable human beings.  That one, I will never understand.  

[Gustave]

24 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

 

I believe that the Son of God was somehow reduced to something akin to a strand of human DNA, in a fallopian tube of Mary, to combine with her ovary - to produce a new being.   Exactly HOW that was possible - no one but God knows.   We do know that God the Father "brought" this about.   God the Father "brought" His Son into the physical world (Heb. 1:6).  

With this amazing and severe reduction,  the Son of God was stripped of power.   All that was left to Him, once incarnated, was the power He would receive from His Father's indwelling.  

Because the Father is incapable of iniquity,  does not prove that His Son - once incarnated, once changed in form and nature (to that of human flesh) and without His own divine powers,  was also incapable of iniquity.   One does not prove the other.  

 

Given that God said Christ wouldn't be guilty of iniquity proves that He couldn't be guilty of it.

Psalms 22, 31: "They SHALL COME, and SHALL DECLARE his righteousness unto a people that SHALL BE BORN, THAT HE HATH DONE THIS."

Done what? 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

32 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Matthew 10, 1: Jesus, summoned His twelve disciples and GAVE THEM authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness."

In the military structure,  authority comes from the president.   The president authorizes military chiefs, who authorize - who authorize - who authorize.   

God the Father is HEAD over all.   He is HEAD of Christ (1Cor 11:3).   Christ is HEAD of the Church (comprised of those who believe) (Eph 5:23,  Col 1:18). 

The Father authorizes and empowers His Son, who then authorizes and empowers His followers.  This is where the empowering stops.  I cannot empower you, and you cannot empower me.

The disciples were not stronger than the unclean spirits.  The loyal heavenly angels, would enforce the commands given by the disciples - forcing the unclean spirits to leave.   Diseases were healed in the name of Christ, by the omnipresent spirit of God the Father, who is "above all and through all and in all".  

[8thdaypriest]

6 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Given that God said Christ wouldn't be guilty of iniquity proves that He couldn't be guilty of it.

Psalms 22, 31: "They SHALL COME, and SHALL DECLARE his righteousness unto a people that SHALL BE BORN, THAT HE HATH DONE THIS."

Done what? 

 

 

Once AGAIN Gustave.

"Would" is not the same as "Could".   Because God sees the future, does not mean that God controls the future, and removed any free choice on the part of His Son or His created sentient beings.   

You can quote a hundred verses that say God "knew" what would be.  Still doesn't mean that God would make it happen.  Not where human free will choice was involved.  

[Gustave]

11 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I am NOT SDA.   I do not read EGW writings as I would Scripture.   I am NOT arguing Christ's FREE WILL, in an attempt to support EGW as a prophet.  

What was the point of Satan's temptations (including his attempt to break Christ through crucifixion and mind torture)?   Was Satan just trying to see for himself, whether Christ could sin?   Was Satan just experimenting?   You'd think a being that intelligent would know better than to waste his energy.   

What was the point - the mission - of the incarnation and punishment death of the Son of God?    Did God the Father just need a better blood sacrifice?   That surely casts the Father in a bad light - blood thirsty, with no other purpose served.   I do NOT believe the cross was some kind of "payment" to God, so He would allow Christ to save some humans.  No!    Besides.  If Jesus had no choice,  then it was not really a payment.   It was a forced human sacrifice.   That is NOT how God our Father treats humans.  

If our Creator is the God of Covenant - and the covenant gave earth to mankind (upon condition of obedience), then God was not going to take it back.   Earth belongs to mankind, to live on with blessing, or to die on without God's blessing.   ONLY A MAN could recover dominion of the earth - under the covenant.   This is WHY the Son of God BECAME a man.  This is WHY He endured every test that Satan could devise.  He knew the mission, and the goal.  He CHOSE to do what He did - out of love for miserable human beings.  That one, I will never understand.  

Jesus was "led by the spirit" to be tested by the Devil so that there would be proof there was no sin in Him. 

It was said by the Prophets that the Christ HAD TO BE: Born in a certain place / Born in a certain way / specific things HAD TO HAPPEN in a specific Chronology. For Jesus to be the Christ all these things had to happen according to the Scriptures. ONE OF THE THINGS that had to happen was that there would be no sin in Christ, that He would be free of guilt. 

What's going on here is this.

Matthew 2, 4-6 Hebrew Scripture Scholars are asked WHERE the Christ would be born. The answer "according to the Prophet" (long dead by then) was Bethlehem. Same goes for the requirement that the Christ would be ( HAD TO BE ) called a Nazarene, so that what was spoken of by the Prophets would be fulfilled (Matthew 2, 23). The Prophets also said that the Christ WOULD BE WITHIN SIN and this, just like all the other things said of the Christ HAD TO BE FULFILLED - what better way to prove that than to have the originator of sin himself try to get Christ to sin? Especially when Christ was literally in a state of starvation. 

 

[Gustave]

15 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Once AGAIN Gustave.

"Would" is not the same as "Could".   Because God sees the future, does not mean that God controls the future, and removed any free choice on the part of His Son or His created sentient beings.   

You can quote a hundred verses that say God "knew" what would be.  Still doesn't mean that God would make it happen.  Not where human free will choice was involved.  

I agree that just because God sees the future does not mean God controls the future - that's not the point at all. In THIS CASE God saw the future and told us the Future and that future EXCLUDED the possibility of Christ sinning.  For the sake of argument let's say Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation however before the world was created God tells you that Christ WOULDN'T SIN and loose His salvation - WHAT possibility then would there be of Christ sinning and loosing His salvation even if He could have sinned after God assured you 10 ways from Sunday the final outcome excludes the possibility of Christ sinning and loosing His salvation? 

Apply your rubric to Deuteronomy 18, 22 and be honest with me, IF Christ would have sinned would Moses or any other Old Testament Prophet been a Prophet? 

[8thdaypriest]

21 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Jesus was "led by the spirit" to be tested by the Devil so that there would be proof there was no sin in Him. 

It was said by the Prophets that the Christ HAD TO BE: Born in a certain place / Born in a certain way / specific things HAD TO HAPPEN in a specific Chronology. For Jesus to be the Christ all these things had to happen according to the Scriptures. ONE OF THE THINGS that had to happen was that there would be no sin in Christ, that He would be free of guilt. 

What's going on here is this.

Matthew 2, 4-6 Hebrew Scripture Scholars are asked WHERE the Christ would be born. The answer "according to the Prophet" (long dead by then) was Bethlehem. Same goes for the requirement that the Christ would be ( HAD TO BE ) called a Nazarene, so that what was spoken of by the Prophets would be fulfilled (Matthew 2, 23). The Prophets also said that the Christ WOULD BE WITHIN SIN and this, just like all the other things said of the Christ HAD TO BE FULFILLED - what better way to prove that than to have the originator of sin himself try to get Christ to sin? Especially when Christ was literally in a state of starvation. 

 

Good point Gustave.

[8thdaypriest]

18 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I agree that just because God sees the future does not mean God controls the future - that's not the point at all. In THIS CASE God saw the future and told us the Future and that future EXCLUDED the possibility of Christ sinning.  For the sake of argument let's say Christ could have sinned and lost His salvation however before the world was created God tells you that Christ WOULDN'T SIN and loose His salvation - WHAT possibility then would there be of Christ sinning and loosing His salvation even if He could have sinned after God assured you 10 ways from Sunday the final outcome excludes the possibility of Christ sinning and loosing His salvation? 

Apply your rubric to Deuteronomy 18, 22 and be honest with me, IF Christ would have sinned would Moses or any other Old Testament Prophet been a Prophet? 

Same argument you've been making.  

[8thdaypriest]

36 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Jesus was "led by the spirit" to be tested by the Devil so that there would be proof there was no sin in Him. 

It was said by the Prophets that the Christ HAD TO BE: Born in a certain place / Born in a certain way / specific things HAD TO HAPPEN in a specific Chronology. For Jesus to be the Christ all these things had to happen according to the Scriptures. ONE OF THE THINGS that had to happen was that there would be no sin in Christ, that He would be free of guilt. 

What's going on here is this.

Matthew 2, 4-6 Hebrew Scripture Scholars are asked WHERE the Christ would be born. The answer "according to the Prophet" (long dead by then) was Bethlehem. Same goes for the requirement that the Christ would be ( HAD TO BE ) called a Nazarene, so that what was spoken of by the Prophets would be fulfilled (Matthew 2, 23). The Prophets also said that the Christ WOULD BE WITHIN SIN and this, just like all the other things said of the Christ HAD TO BE FULFILLED - what better way to prove that than to have the originator of sin himself try to get Christ to sin? Especially when Christ was literally in a state of starvation. 

 

If the only ones there - in the desert - at the time of the temptations, were Christ and the Devil,  then who needed to be convinced of Christ's sinlessness?   The Devil?  

[LifeHiscost]

I copied this from the SealingTime Thought it might be of interest.

 

•  
•  
•       "It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. Christ tells us that the Spirit is the Comforter, "the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13." {AA 51.3}      "The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them.

   

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If the only ones there - in the desert - at the time of the temptations, were Christ and the Devil,  then who needed to be convinced of Christ's sinlessness?   The Devil?  

No, the Apostles, Berean's  and everyone else who "searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so" (Acts 17, 11).

There was no New Testament Scriptures yet so what the Berean's were doing is testing what the Apostles told them about Jesus AGAINST what the Scriptures they had told them were requirements OF THE CHRIST. One of those requirements would be that He would be without sin.