Leaderboard

I'm not disagreeing with your comment. God is ONE Substance which is co-equally owned by The Father, The Son & The Holy Spirit - the oneness is "Substance". Catholics, in my limited understanding, are at liberty to believe in many things, provided the belief doesn't contradict Church teaching,. A Catholic is at liberty to believe in Evolution ( as a mechanism ) that God used as part of creation. Catholics are not allowed to believe in Evolution in the sense it was random. Catholic Doctrine is God created everything from NOTHING. How God did this is beyond our grasp.

Rachel: You have asked for a clear statement of the doctrine of the Trinity. I suggested one. What do you think of my proposed statement? Part of my participation in this discussion is my desire to accurately understand the doctrinal positons of the Roman Catholic Church, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. IOW, I do not want to falsely present those teachings to others. In my statement, I presented the idea that God is one. A common problem that people have is in understanding how the members of the Godhead are distinct from each other. Below, I will quote from a Roman Catholic Catechism, on that point, and I will welcome any comment that Gustave may wish to make on it: 252 The Church uses (I) the term :substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others. 254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary. 86 “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirt,” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another. “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” 87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin. “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” 88 The divine Unity is Triune. 255 The divine person are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another. “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” 89 Indeed” everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” 90 Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly I the Father and wholly in the Son.” 91 Catechism of the Catholic Church 2nd edition, Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 1994, 1997 & 2000, 904 pages. NOTE: The bolded numbers in the quote above are not page numbers. Rather they are specific citations in the cited work that will allow one to access the quote.

A group of Israeli university students was taking a criminology course when the instructor told the class about a man who was described as a “mystic” who contacted the police who were working on a missing-persons case. "The old man gave eerily detailed instructions on where to find the body," the teacher said. "In fact, the detectives did find the body just as he had described. Now what would you call that kind of person?" While the rest of the class pondered the question, a police officer taking the course raised his hand and replied, "A suspect."

Morty, Marvin, Hymie and Berel had been friends since they were kids and were all now well into their 80s. They met once a week for a game of golf at the club. "Oy, these hills are getting steeper as the years go by," Morty complained. "Oy, these fairways seem to be getting longer too," said Marvin. "Oy, the sand traps seem to be bigger than I remember them too," said Hymie. After hearing enough from his buddies, 87 years old Berel, piped up and said, "Just be thankful we're still on the right side of the grass!"

Moishe was reading the newspaper and on page two was a picture of a famous politician and his gorgeous wife. Slightly jealous of the politician, Moishe turned to his wife Miriam and said, "It's unfair that the biggest jerks in the world catch the most beautiful wives." Miriam smiled and replied, "Why, thank you Moishe."

Some of the main views of trinity that I am familiar with include: Modism where one God shows up at one time as God the Father, another time as God the Son, and other times as God the Holy Spirit. I like how it has the oneness and threeness, but I find it wrong because it only has one being playing 3 different roles and it ends up dealing with God inside of time and space only. Another is the idea that the trinity is like one rope consisting of 3 strands, or a three leaf clover, one clover three leaves (which apparently St. Patrick did not believe and use.) This is still too small. I have come across that Pope John Paul the II believed something that sounds like what some of our pioneers followed: That first there was God the Father. Then the mind of God the Father conceived the idea of God the Son and what ever God the Father conceives becomes real and there was God the Son. Then the mind of God the Father conceived the idea of the Holy Spirit and what ever the mind of God the Father conceives becomes real and there was the Holy Spirit. Apparently, Kellogg's view was that God was everything, starting out with the problem that everything is just the complete collection of the finite world, time and space. The view that it has been suggested fit's Mrs. White's view (and which other scholars are pointing out as being the second temple's view) has been described in ways as a glass of water that represents time and space, and someone outside of time and space putting three fingers into the glass of water but where the fingers are a way to communicate with life within the glass of water. Or a mountain who's top is covered by a thick cloud and we are not able to penetrate above the cloud but experience the mountain by the three slopes/ridges that are below the cloud. (of course the mountain is smaller and comes to the end in the peek, while for God the part above the cloud is much bigger with no end. The ancient world understood the universe to be sort of egg shaped with the upper world being reflected on the earth and then the underworld. At the very top of the dome is where all the forces of nature (the gods) join together at the far north and top of the cosmic mountain into the king god. The Hebrew variation on this was that at the far north was open where God is entering the picture and instead of being a oneness of the forces of nature is a real personality that we experience as El/Eloheim (God as power). Yahweh/Wisdom/the Angel of the Lord who turns out to be the Lord (God as personal friend) and the Spirit of God actively working on our hearts and experiences. (which the Second Temple Jews described to Greeks and Romans as the one God who's name is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

? Not hearers only ? James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

I will say this again, EGW is not THE MOST HIGH! I accept her visions, why? Because they are in the Bible and they are in line with the Bible. You will not be save on the book GC, you will be save from what Thus say THE MOST HIGH! Did EGW make some good points sure but as she said herself TAKE THE BIBLE! She also said not to hold on to Error but she also said not come up with your own unrealistic fanatical beliefs also! YAHWEH IS INFALLIBLE she said as well, not her or any earthly being! The prophet did what we all should do search the scriptures diligently and more in depth. The Bereans did and that is why Paul did not write them a letter! HCH you stood up against THE MOST HIGH and that is very serious! Plus you was very disrespectful to Pastor Matthew for disagreeing with you. I respect Pastor Matthew and we have some differences but I will always know he is a man of integrity! We all can agree to disagree as long as we all respect one another. I am sorry HCH you have an I sydone that you know more then writers of the Bible. You use EGW to also suit your purpose and shoot her down in other ways. We ALL HAVE A MIND AND A RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Present your thoughts or views with proof and Biblical evidence then allow others to accept or reject them. Please don't base your presentation on who you are but what you say and how you say with love, humility and respect! Blessings!

How 'bout this one? "I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that Jesus had left it [the first apartment]. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, 'Father, give us Thy Spirit.' Satan would then breathe upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satan's object was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive God's children." Early writings pg 56, top of page, describing her vision about the end of the 2300 Days, which description begins on page 54. Brackets are mine. "I saw that the nominal churches, as the Jews crucified JESUS, had crucified these messages, and therefore they have no knowledge of the move made in heaven, or of the way into the Most Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of JESUS there. Like the Jews, who offered their useless sacrifices, they offer up their useless prayers to the apartment which JESUS has left, and Satan, pleased with the deception of the professed followers of CHRIST, fastens them in his snare, and assumes a religious character, and leads the minds of these professed christians to himself, and works with his power, his signs and lying wonders." Spiritual Gifts page 171-172

It is one of the more probable scenarios for the end. Fallen angels posing as beings from the planet Omicron 4 over in the Delta Quadrant - 200 parsecs away. They will get here using wormholes and hyper-warp drive. RRRIIIGGGHHHT! Yet, if it occurs that way, so many people will believe it. And God will allow them to believe the deception. Why? Because they refuse to believe the truth that is in Jesus Christ - the ONLY Name under heaven by which we may be saved.

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Billy the Kid_2 On July 14, 1881, Billy the Kid was shot to death in New Mexico by Sheriff Pat Garrett in an ambush. At the time, Billy had a $500 bounty on his head. Think you know Billy the Kid? Here are five of the most interesting facts about the young outlaw... He May Have Spoken Irish, and He May Also Have Become Fluent in Spanish Billy the Kid was born in New York to immigrant Irish parents, and in 2016, one of the historians who studied the Kid's life found evidence that the Kid may have spoken enough Irish to act as a translator for other Irish immigrants. In the 1800s, many Irish immigrants to the U.S. did not speak English, and the Kid may have put that skill to use, helping those who couldn't speak English adjust to living in their new country. There is also evidence that the Kid learned to speak Spanish fluently after moving to New Mexico territory. In fact, the most popular telling of the Kid's death has him calling out "Who's that?" in Spanish when Sheriff Pat Garrett arrived at the place where the Kid was hiding out. No One Really Knows His True Name The nickname "Billy the Kid" was derived from the name William H. Bonney (sometimes written as William H. Bonney, Jr.), an alias that he started using in 1877. However, no one really knows what his birth name was. Current theories hold that he was named Henry McCarty or William Henry McCarty, and that at one point he went by Henry Antrim. The Sheriff Who Supposedly Shot Him Also Created His Legendary Persona The current story of the Kid's death has Sheriff Pat Garrett shooting the Kid in Fort Sumner in New Mexico territory. At that point, Billy was already famous and infamous, but his status as a real Old West legend didn't start until after his death when Garrett wrote a biography of the Kid. The book created a sensationalized persona that captivated readers. As the decades went by, Billy the Kid's public image became the subject of countless books and movies. The Kid's Case Came up for Review for a Possible Pardon in 2010 Toward the end of former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's last term in office in 2010, he took another look at a pardon that had been proposed for Billy the Kid back in the 1800s. The pardon was part of a deal between a former governor and the Kid: a pardon in exchange for testifying for the state. Unfortunately, even though Billy the Kid kept his part of the deal, he was never pardoned. Richardson was not the first 21st-century lawmaker to look at granting the pardon, and in each case, descendants of both the Kid's family and Garrett, as well as descendants of others murdered by Billy the Kid, gave passionate testimony regarding pardoning or not pardoning. In the end, Richardson declined to pardon the Kid in 2011. He Managed to Escape Captivity Just Before He Was Scheduled to Be Hung The Kid's death was not the first time Garrett had dealt with Billy. In 1880, Garrett managed to capture Billy and had him convicted of killing another sheriff. The Kid was sentenced to hang, but in 1881, he managed to slip away, get out of his handcuffs, steal a gun, and shoot a guard. He then shot a second guard, gathered weapons, cut off his leg shackles, stole a horse and fled. Garrett found him again and shot him a few months later.

The following are names of some early SDA leaders and their possible views on the Trinity: J B Frisbie (1816-1882) Possible (?) Docetism. He taught that God had body parts. As to him, Gustave is correct in what he has said. Frisbie understood the doctrine of the Trinity to teach that God was a spirit only and he rejected that. Joseph Bates (1791-1872) His understanding of the Trinity was faulty (Modalistic Monarchianism). He rejected a version of the Trinity that is not an accepted verson. He condemned what had already been condemned. John Loughborough (1832-1924) He rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, as he thought it taught theat there were three Gods (Tritheism). J. M. Stephenson: He taught that Christ was a created being, based upon what he said was the Biblical evidence. John H. Kellogg: HIs actual views are in debate. Some have said that he was "Pantheistic." Others have argued against this. In any case, this short space is not enough to properly present his view. What I find of interest is that some of the Anti-Trinitarian views expressed by our early leaders was due to a misunderstanding of the actual doctrine of the Trinity. I suspect that might be true today, to include, in part, some who post here. NOTE: My source for the above is below, but the wording is mine. Biblical & Theological Studies on the Trinity, pages 165 - 217, with major emphasis to pages 176 - 179.