SDAs, The Trinity & Christ Sinning

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Sacred Scripture identifies The Holy Spirit as God.

Can you please show a scripture or two where it clearly and explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is God (i.e., a Person)?  I couldn't find any.  I found lots that says God gives His Spirit, pours out His Spirit, withdraws His Spirit, and that His Spirit communicates with our spirit.  But nothing saying the Holy Spirit is God.  It is an integral part of God; but it is His divine power and influence - not a person. Pardon my blasphemy, but I kinda view it as an intergalactic, interdimensional communication network - one of the ways He is everywhere in every time.

38 minutes ago, Gustave said:

When do you understand that The Son was begotten by The Father?

I won't answer for Rachel; I'll answer for myself - before anything was created (i.e., before the "Beginning").  The word "begotten" is crucial. It means Christ was not a created Being; but made of the same "stuff" the Father was made of.

[8thdaypriest]

Matthew 6:6  "pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."

The Father doesn't just "see" into the "secret place", He is actually "in" the hidden place.   That makes Him spirit - omnipresent.

The Father dwelt "in" Christ.  How?  As spirit. 

Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."   How?  As spirit. 

If God the Father were literally to appear in this dimension, He would consume it. 

Revelation 20:11 "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them." 

Certainly no human being can exist in His literal glorious presence.  That is why He comes to us as spirit.  When we have His spirit, we have Him. 

 

[Gustave]

13 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Can you please show a scripture or two where it clearly and explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is God (i.e., a Person)?  I couldn't find any.  I found lots that says God gives His Spirit, pours out His Spirit, withdraws His Spirit, and that His Spirit communicates with our spirit.  But nothing saying the Holy Spirit is God.  It is an integral part of God; but it is His divine power and influence - not a person. Pardon my blasphemy, but I kinda view it as an intergalactic, interdimensional communication network - one of the ways He is everywhere in every time.

I won't answer for Rachel; I'll answer for myself - before anything was created (i.e., before the "Beginning").  The word "begotten" is crucial. It means Christ was not a created Being; but made of the same "stuff" the Father was made of.

Acts 5, 3-4:  But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God

We know this is another Person apart from the Father & the Son - because:

John 14, 16:  And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever

John 14, 26:  But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you

[8thdaypriest]

35 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Acts 5, 3-4:  But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God

We know this is another Person apart from the Father & the Son - because:

John 14, 16:  And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever

John 14, 26:  But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you

People who quote John 14:16 to prove a third divine person, quote only the one verse.  They don't quote the entire passage.

John 14:16  "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (NIV)

The other Advocate would be Christ Himself, as spirit, who would come to be "with" and "in" His sheep.  The key is in the last words.  "I will come to you."   Paul spoke of "Christ in me, the hope of glory."  God sent forth the spirit of His Son "into your hearts".   Jesus said that both He and His Father would come "into" those who loved Him.  How?   As spirit.  "The last Adam has been made a life giving spirit."  (1Cor 15:45).  Christ has been made the Spirit with us and in us, to comfort us, to bring everything to our minds that He once said, to take of what is the Father's and show it to us. 

I believe Jesus is here speaking of His future glorified SELF - His future glorified self as "spirit".  He spoke of Himself in third person on other occasions too.  Called Himself "the Son of Man", and used pronouns "he" and "him", when He was clearly speaking of Himself.

The "other" Paraclete would be "the spirit of His Son" which God the Father would send forth.

God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

As for lying to the Holy Spirit,  if "God" IS the Holy Spirit, then one has "lied to God". 

You say "the Holy Spirit is God".   I say God is the Holy Spirit.   Is there a difference? 

If you touch my arm, you touch me.  You can't separate my arm, from me - except surgically.  My arm is part of me.  Same with the Spirit of God.  His Spirit is Him.  You can't separate God and His Spirit.  His spirit is His presence. 

Consider the "unpardonable sin".
Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

There is no mention of speaking a word against the Father.   He is missing in this warning.  Or is He?   If the Holy Spirit IS the presence of God the Father with us and in us, then a word against the Holy Spirit is a word against God the Father. 

Is "the Spirit of Christ" different somehow from "the Spirit of the Father" ?   I don't think so.  To have One, is to have the Other.

My own theory of how this works:  Jesus came as the physical presence of His Father, so that men could "see" His Father.  

Now the Father comes to us "as" His Son.  To experience the presence of the Father "in" the heart, is to experience Christ. 

Jesus said the "other" would come "in my name".  Jesus came in His Father's name.  After Christ was glorified, His Father "came" in Christ's name - representing His Son's presence with us/in us.   This is how we have BOTH the Father and His Son, "with" us and "in" us. 

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."  (NKJ)

I see no third being here.  Only God our Father and Christ His Son.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

People who quote John 14:16 to prove a third divine person, quote only the one verse.  They don't quote the entire passage.

John 14:16  "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (NIV)

The other Advocate would be Christ Himself, as spirit, who would come to be "with" and "in" His sheep.  The key is in the last words.  "I will come to you."   Paul spoke of "Christ in me, the hope of glory."  God sent forth the spirit of His Son "into your hearts".   Jesus said that both He and His Father would come "into" those who loved Him.  How?   As spirit.  "The last Adam has been made a life giving spirit."  (1Cor 15:45).  Christ has been made the Spirit with us and in us, to comfort us, to bring everything to our minds that He once said, to take of what is the Father's and show it to us. 

I believe Jesus is here speaking of His future glorified SELF - His future glorified self as "spirit".  He spoke of Himself in third person on other occasions too.  Called Himself "the Son of Man", and used pronouns "he" and "him", when He was clearly speaking of Himself.

The "other" Paraclete would be "the spirit of His Son" which God the Father would send forth.

God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

As for lying to the Holy Spirit,  if "God" IS the Holy Spirit, then one has "lied to God". 

You say "the Holy Spirit is God".   I say God is the Holy Spirit.   Is there a difference? 

If you touch my arm, you touch me.  You can't separate my arm, from me - except surgically.  My arm is part of me.  Same with the Spirit of God.  His Spirit is Him.  You can't separate God and His Spirit.  His spirit is His presence. 

Consider the "unpardonable sin".
Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

There is no mention of speaking a word against the Father.   He is missing in this warning.  Or is He?   If the Holy Spirit IS the presence of God the Father with us and in us, then a word against the Holy Spirit is a word against God the Father. 

Is "the Spirit of Christ" different somehow from "the Spirit of the Father" ?   I don't think so.  To have One, is to have the Other.

My own theory of how this works:  Jesus came as the physical presence of His Father, so that men could "see" His Father.  

Now the Father comes to us "as" His Son.  To experience the presence of the Father "in" the heart, is to experience Christ. 

Jesus said the "other" would come "in my name".  Jesus came in His Father's name.  After Christ was glorified, His Father "came" in Christ's name - representing His Son's presence with us/in us.   This is how we have BOTH the Father and His Son, "with" us and "in" us. 

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him."  (NKJ)

I see no third being here.  Only God our Father and Christ His Son.

The entire passage reflects the same thing I quoted.

No, Christ was the advocate "that was leaving" & He said the Father would send ANOTHER advocate. 

God so loved the world that He gave /"SENT" His Only Son (the advocate) who did exactly what God said He would for certain do.

Jesus leaves but before He does tells His followers that the Father would be sending ANOTHER ADVOCATE. 

Let's paraphrase the texts using your understanding. 

 

"And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, which is the Father and myself so that we may abide with you for ever."

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name is the Father & myself, we will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you."

The one who's sending isn't sending Himself & the one who's leaving isn't leaving to be sent as soon as He leaves.

Now, the part that you bolded RED:  " I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you"

Read

John 16, 13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

Jesus IS with you in the Person of the Holy Spirit, He hears Christ & The Father like they are next to Him BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY ARE.

 God IS the Holy Spirit, God IS the Son & God IS the Father.

The Father is not The Son nor is the Holy Spirit the Father or The Son. 

Here is a Text you should contemplate,

"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things." 1 John 2, 18

THAT, right there, demonstrates that the Tradition of the Apostles was more than a "fabricated talking point" that was created by evil men. The Tradition of the Apostles says very clearly that God was Triune - the Early Church Father's understood this and this teaching has survived to this very day. You may not see the value in leveraging Historic Christianity and you may honestly believe that as long as you really believe what you believe that's good enough. I'm afraid I can't do that. 

Scripture is explicit that the Old Testament had a Religious Authority that was established by God and the New Testament is even more explicit that the Church was modeled in a similar fashion only with a new Priesthood and a new High Priest that had once for all paid the debt we all incurred. There were Christians that walked away from the 1st Christian Council in Acts 15 because they didn't like what they heard and the same thing has happened with each and every subsequent Council. 

Scripture, Sacred Tradition all attest that the One God has revealed Himself as Three distinct Persons and that this is a mystery - it shouldn't be lost on anyone that every heresy attempts to explain away the mystery. 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Tradition of the Apostles says very clearly that God was Triune - the Early Church Father's understood this and this teaching has survived to this very day. You may not see the value in leveraging Historic Christianity and you may honestly believe that as long as you really believe what you believe that's good enough. I'm afraid I can't do that. 

Scripture is explicit that the Old Testament had a Religious Authority that was established by God and the New Testament is even more explicit that the Church was modeled in a similar fashion only with a new Priesthood and a new High Priest that had once for all paid the debt we all incurred. There were Christians that walked away from the 1st Christian Council in Acts 15 because they didn't like what they heard and the same thing has happened with each and every subsequent Council. 

Scripture, Sacred Tradition all attest that the One God has revealed Himself as Three distinct Persons and that this is a mystery - it shouldn't be lost on anyone that every heresy attempts to explain away the mystery. 

I look only to the Bible.  I do not incorporate "tradition" into my search for truth, though I do read and consider it.  I'm always asking whether the tradition agrees with the Bible (looking to the most ancient available manuscripts).  In the case of a Triune God,  I must respectfully disagree with the Triune view. 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

"But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things." 1 John 2, 18

Are you saying that the men at the Council mandated by Constantine 300 years after the death of Christ, knew "all things" ?   Is that why you believe they could not have erred?  What about later Councils - the one that allowed the use of images to "assist" in worship - the one that validated prayer to saints and to Mary? 

[8thdaypriest]

Mark 13:11 "But when they arrest you and deliver you up, do not worry beforehand, or premeditate what you will speak. But whatever is given you in that hour, speak that; for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 10:19 "But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 "for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God the Father.

[JoeMo]

Do you know what the very middle verse in the KJV or NIV Bible is?

" It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Ps 118:8)

That goes for people of all denominations.

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Do you know what the very middle verse in the KJV or NIV Bible is?

" It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Ps 118:8)

That goes for people of all denominations.

JoeMo, that's in a different context than 8thday's question (and my answer). 

 

 

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Are you saying that the men at the Council mandated by Constantine 300 years after the death of Christ, knew "all things" ?   Is that why you believe they could not have erred?  What about later Councils - the one that allowed the use of images to "assist" in worship - the one that validated prayer to saints and to Mary? 

According to Sacred Scripture they absolutely did know on what side of the issue to come down on. 

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:....." Acts 15,28

I'm fairly certain that if pressed, you'd reject the all the Councils all the way back to the one recorded in Acts 15. 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

4 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I look only to the Bible.  I do not incorporate "tradition" into my search for truth, though I do read and consider it.  I'm always asking whether the tradition agrees with the Bible (looking to the most ancient available manuscripts).  In the case of a Triune God,  I must respectfully disagree with the Triune view. 

What ancient manuscripts have you consulted, that assert the early Church was not markedly Trinitarian in it's belief? 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Do you know what the very middle verse in the KJV or NIV Bible is?

" It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Ps 118:8)

That goes for people of all denominations.

By listening to Moses the Children of Israel were putting their trust in the Lord.

Korah applied your reasoning - it didn't work out well for Korah and those who followed him. 

Jesus spoke to this question in very clear terms. 

Matthew 23, 1: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, ² “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; ³ so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. ⁴ They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear,^[a] and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.

In other-words go against what the Scribes and Pharisees defined as Religious law and you were going against God. This is CHRIST saying this JoeMo. 

 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

JoeMo, that's in a different context than 8thday's question (and my answer). 

I didn't think so.

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I look only to the Bible.  I do not incorporate "tradition" into my search for truth, though I do read and consider it.

 

[Gustave]

JoeMo, 

How so? 

[Gustave]

NOTE TO READERS OF THIS THREAD

 

 

This thread started out as a discussion of SDA's, The Trinity & Christ Sinning.

 

Looking at the O.P.'s question from a Biblical perspective - I think it's pretty safe to say Scripture strongly repudiates the suggestion that 'Christ could have sinned & lost His Salvation'.

The Ancient Christian Councils (which systematized Scripture) and carried on "the Tradition of the Apostles" affirmed that the Faith once Deposited included belief in a Triune God AND specifically included it a heresy to affirm The Christ was capable of evil (sin). 

 

ALL Non-Trinitarian Groups EXCEPTING a portion of the SDA Church  believe that Christ could have sinned and lost His Salvation. This is logical given that the early SDA Church was decidedly anti-Trinitarian. 

Jesus established a "Teaching Church". 

Jesus didn't say to make copies of the Scriptures and distribute them so individual folks could become their own Bishop & promulgate what they "think is" the real Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ YET this is seriously what some people really believe. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church unequivocally condemns the idea that Christ could have sinned as heretical - this in itself should be significant as the Eastern Orthodox Church, in totality, reject the Catholic Doctrines of Papal Infallibility along with Specific Doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary. 

As we move forward in this discussion these above points are worthy of consideration. 

. 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

On 8/6/2019 at 8:33 PM, JoeMo said:

Can you please show a scripture or two where it clearly and explicitly says that the Holy Spirit is God (i.e., a Person)? 

Jesus said He would not speak of Himself. However, even without an explicit text stating He is God, you can see from the many activities that He is a sentient Being and not a mindless force. Continuing to invade what we have not been given specific information is an invitation to being led away by our own understandings which may have nothing to do with truth. However, as the following quotes note, we are of such limited capabilities that we cannot really define Him:

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. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. – {AA 52.1}

[Gustave]

13 minutes ago, B/W Photodude said:

Jesus said He would not speak of Himself. However, even without an explicit text stating He is God, you can see from the many activities that He is a sentient Being and not a mindless force. Continuing to invade what we have not been given specific information is an invitation to being led away by our own understandings which may have nothing to do with truth. However, as the following quotes note, we are of such limited capabilities that we cannot really define Him:

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. Men having fanciful views may bring together passages of Scripture and put a human construction on them, but the acceptance of these views will not strengthen the church. Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden. – {AA 52.1}

Did Ellen White also say that the Nature of the Father is a Mystery and that the Nature of Christ was a Mystery OR in Ellen's view was it only the nature of the Holy Spirit that was a mystery? 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. ... he nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them.

?  Good to see you back, B/W.  You have been missed.

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/7/2019 at 5:07 PM, Gustave said:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:....." Acts 15,28

I'm fairly certain that if pressed, you'd reject the all the Councils all the way back to the one recorded in Acts 15. 

Key word is "seemed".  The writer of Acts does not say that an angel appeared to prescribe their policy.  Rather they prayed and debated and then voted.  There was no pope back then. 

What is it you think I would reject about the statement put out by the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council? 

[Gustave]

30 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Key word is "seemed".  The writer of Acts does not say that an angel appeared to prescribe their policy.  Rather they prayed and debated and then voted.  There was no pope back then. 

What is it you think I would reject about the statement put out by the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council? 

The power to bind and loose was given "collectively" to the Apostles and to Peter INDEPENDENTLY  of the others. Therefore if it "seemed" good to the people Jesus gave binding and loosing power to and they believed it seemed good to the Holy Spirit that's a wrap - there WAS a Pope back then.

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/7/2019 at 9:17 PM, Gustave said:

Looking at the O.P.'s question from a Biblical perspective - I think it's pretty safe to say Scripture strongly repudiates the suggestion that 'Christ could have sinned & lost His Salvation'.

His Father did "save" Him - from death.  He would not have "saved" Him from sin.  IF Christ had sinned, the Father would have left His Son dead in the grave. 

We've gone over it a dozen times.  "Could" He sin, is not the same as "would" He sin.  Of course He "would not".  The Father sees the future and knew He would not.  Therefore the prophecies all said He "will not".   Is there one that says "He cannot?" 

One who believes that "God" IS "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" - three divine persons, cannot help but believe that "God the Son" cannot act any differently from "God the Father" or "God the Holy Spirit".  The "three" are one, and are not separate.   

One who believes as I do - that "God" is not a Trinity, but IS rather "our Father", who beget a Son, can believe that Son could act differently from His Father - could even act against His Father if He chose to do so.  He had a separate will and mind. 

Because Church "councils" - under the control of Roman Emperors - later decided points of doctrine, does not constrain me to agree always with their conclusions.  Neither do later decrees of Popes, or Lutheran councils, or Episcopal councils, or SDA councils.  The majority is not always right.  Those in power, with authority over members of the congregation, are not always right - as Old Testament prophets right up to Christ clearly showed, and Christ Himself so clearly pointed out. 

Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)

We should respect authorities, and should not try to overthrow authorities by violent means, but we must search the Scriptures for ourselves - to find what is truth.  For a thousand years Church "authorities" kept the Scriptures away from the common people.  (Lest they search and understand?)  Just that action, would make me doubt those "authorities" and any doctrinal teachings they pushed. 

In rare places, even Bible translations themselves have been altered to facilitate a certain view or teaching.  Thank God those instances were very rare. 

Sometimes - we must simply agree to disagree, with casting moral dispersion s.   One is not immoral, because he/she holds a certain doctrinal view.  

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

there WAS a Pope back then.

According to Catholic tradition there was a pope.  If there was a Pope, it would have been Pope James - Jesus' brother as he appeared to make many of the decisions.  and He was in Jerusalem - not Rome.  There is no biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome.  If he were, why didn't Paul tell Peter "hello" in his epistle to the Romans?  He extends greetings to about 20 people in Romans 16; and Pope Peter I is not among them.  Seems pretty rude for an apostle not to extend a greeting to his boss.

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

His Father did "save" Him - from death.  He would not have "saved" Him from sin.  IF Christ had sinned, the Father would have left His Son dead in the grave. 

We've gone over it a dozen times.  "Could" He sin, is not the same as "would" He sin.  Of course He "would not".  The Father sees the future and knew He would not.  Therefore the prophecies all said He "will not".   Is there one that says "He cannot?" 

One who believes that "God" IS "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Spirit" - three divine persons, cannot help but believe that "God the Son" cannot act any differently from "God the Father" or "God the Holy Spirit".  The "three" are one, and are not separate.   

One who believes as I do - that "God" is not a Trinity, but IS rather "our Father", who beget a Son, can believe that Son could act differently from His Father - could even act against His Father if He chose to do so.  He had a separate will and mind. 

Because Church "councils" - under the control of Roman Emperors - later decided points of doctrine, does not constrain me to agree always with their conclusions.  Neither do later decrees of Popes, or Lutheran councils, or Episcopal councils, or SDA councils.  The majority is not always right.  Those in power, with authority over members of the congregation, are not always right - as Old Testament prophets right up to Christ clearly showed, and Christ Himself so clearly pointed out. 

Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (NIV)

We should respect authorities, and should not try to overthrow authorities by violent means, but we must search the Scriptures for ourselves - to find what is truth.  For a thousand years Church "authorities" kept the Scriptures away from the common people.  (Lest they search and understand?)  Just that action, would make me doubt those "authorities" and any doctrinal teachings they pushed. 

In rare places, even Bible translations themselves have been altered to facilitate a certain view or teaching.  Thank God those instances were very rare. 

Sometimes - we must simply agree to disagree, with casting moral dispersion s.   One is not immoral, because he/she holds a certain doctrinal view.  

1, IF Jesus sinned He WOULDN'T have been the Christ in the 1st place. 

2. He Couldn't sin because He was God & even in your understanding God [The Father] said He WOULDN'T sin  - therefore your hypothetical requires, for you to be right, that God was wrong,  in potentiality. Survey says! 

3. What you propose is possible is identical to the t.v. Show Supernatural. Granted, I'm a fan of the show but it should be understood it's not reality, it's simply entertainment. 

4. The Church Councils were not under the control of the emperors - Constantine was in favor of allowing Arius' views. The Christian Council was NOT. 

5. The Bereans were searching the Scriptures to see if Jesus would qualify as BEING THE CHRIST. I can assure you if Paul would have told the noble Bereans that Jesus WAS the Christ AND that He could have sinned and lost His salvation the Bereans would have dismissed Paul as a dullard pertaining to the Scriptures - that would have been it. 

6. Agreed, I absolutely agree with you here 8thday! We should search the Scriptures - how that goes from there to being established to teach is where you depart. 

7. To be clear I'm not saying you are immoral - you stand before God the same as I or anyone else does. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, JoeMo said:

According to Catholic tradition there was a pope.  If there was a Pope, it would have been Pope James - Jesus' brother as he appeared to make many of the decisions.  and He was in Jerusalem - not Rome.  There is no biblical record of Peter ever being in Rome.  If he were, why didn't Paul tell Peter "hello" in his epistle to the Romans?  He extends greetings to about 20 people in Romans 16; and Pope Peter I is not among them.  Seems pretty rude for an apostle not to extend a greeting to his boss.

James deferred to Peter (Acts 15, 13-14).  In any event James was the Bishop of Jerusalem. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects Papal Supremacy, The Orthodox Church was there, from the beginning and their records attest that Peter was Bishop of Rome. Even the Coptic Christians agree that Peter was the Bishop of Rome and certainly the Copts are not in any way favorable to the claims of the Catholic Church. 

[phkrause]

There is no scripture in the Bible that says that Jesus made Peter the head of the Church!! As JoeMo mentioned the only head of the church was James and as far as I can see/read he never went to Rome. As the head of the church he was in Jerusalem and not Rome??