Through the Bible: Genesis

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

How Biblical MSS Were Altered When The Great Apostasy Began

CONYBEARE

"In the case just examined (Matthew 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising for as Dr. C. R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us, 'the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them,' and which they held to be the right readings. Canon and Text of the N T, 1907, page 424."

FRATERNAL VISITOR (1924, p. 148)

"Codex B. (Vaticanus) would be the best of all existing MSS if it were completely preserved, less damaged, (less) corrected, more easily legible, and not altered by a later hand in more than two thousand places. Eusebius, therefore, is not without grounds for accusing the adherents of Athanasius and of the newly-arisen doctrine of the Trinity of falsifying the Bible more than once." Fraternal Visitor, in The Christadelphian Monatshefte, 1924, page 148.

CONYBEARE

"The exclusive survival of (3) in all MSS., both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin MS., the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew. But in any case the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. We have no codex older than the year 400, if so old; and long before that time the question of the inclusion of the holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominate party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespectively of its textual affinities" [Hibbert Journal].

ROBERT ROBERTS

"Athanasius... met Flaivan, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom: 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, etc.' This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology: 'Glory to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit" [Robert Roberts, Good Company, Vol. iii, p. 49].

See my next posting!

[John317]

Quote:

John: In fact, you're the first person I've ever met who makes that argument

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Have you ever heard or met the late Dr. Richard [Dick] Koobs, a LLU teacher? I inherited my views about the HS from him.

Was Dr. Richard Koobs, from whom you inherited your views, a medical doctor?

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

ONE TEST is that of the CONTEXT

Examining the context, we find that in the AV the sense of the passage is hindered, but if we read as under, the whole context fits together and the tenor of the instruction is complete:

"All power is given unto ME ... go therefore... baptizing in MY name, teaching them... whatsoever I have commanded... I am with you..."

ANOTHER TEST is that of FREQUENCY

Is the phrase "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" used elsewhere in Scripture? NOT ONCE!

Did Jesus use the phrase "in my name" on other occasions? YES! 17 times!

Matthew 18:5, 20; 24:5

Mark 9:37, 39, 41; 13:6; 16:17

Luke 9:48; 21:8

John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26, etc..

ANOTHER TEST is that of PRACTICE

Did the Disciples afterwards baptize in the threefold name?

NEVER!

Did they baptize in the name of Jesus?

ALWAYS! Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16, etc..

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

ANOTHER TEST is that of PARRALLEL ACCOUNTS

Now it happens that Matthew was not alone in recording the words of Jesus before his ascension. Let us compare the parallel accounts of Luke 24:46-47: who writes in the third person:

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached IN HIS NAME among all nations."

This passage therefore restores the correct text to Matthew 28:19-"in my name."

Futhermore, the last twelve verses of Mark record the last discourse of Jesus before his ascension. If these are to be regarded as the inspired writing of Mark himself, then we have yet another witness to the correct text, for Mark, after using similar words to Matthew:--

"go ye ...all the world ...preach ....Every creature...baptize..."

includes not the triune name but the phrase--"in my name."

ANOTHER TEST is that of PRINCIPLE

It is written--

"Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" [Colossians 3:17].

Now here is a principle laid down, and the comprehensive word "whatsoever" certainly includes baptism, which is a rite involving both word and deed.

Now of the alternative readings of Matthew 28:19, the threefold name is clearly not in accordance with the above principle. The shorter phrase is. This item of Internal Evidence, therefore, proves which of the two variant readings is the spurious one.

What Happened To The Earliest MSS?

Why have we no copies of the Scriptures written earlier than the 5th century (except for the two which were written in the 4th century)?

The following quotation will supply the answer: "Diocletian in 303AD ordered all the sacred books to be burnt, ...but enough survived to transmit the text (Swete in Variorum "Aids")."

"One of the reasons why no early MSS. have been discovered is that they were, when found, burned by the persecutors of the Christians: Eusebius writes: "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razzed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place (H.E. viii 2.)."

Evidence Of The Versions

Again, ...In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are GONE which contained the end of Matthew (F.C. Conybeare)."

So that we have no MS. earlier than the 4th century, and in the case of these two earlier versions the end page of Matthew has been destroyed?

http://jesus-

For more evidence:

messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html#7.

[John317]

John 3:17: Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: When the King James Version of the Bible was translated, the term “Spirit” was used, but we need to remember that the word “breath” could have been used instead, which makes more sense because it would agree with the reference to the creation made by the Psalmist where the term “breath” is used:

"By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth." [Psalm 33:6]

Notice that Psalm 33 is a poem and that the language is poetic. On the other hand, Gen. 1: 2 is part of an historical narrative.

It makes no sense to say that the "breath of God" was hovering over the waters at the time of the creation if we understand "breath" in a literal sense. Similarly it would make no sense for God to say, "My breath shall not always strive with man." Gen. 6: 3

Is Isaiah 63: 10, 11 referring to "His holy breath" or to God's Holy Spirit? Did the people rebel and grieve God's breath? No. You can't grieve someone's breath. Only a Person can be grieved.

The Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the earth. Job 33: 4.

The Holy Spirit was also involved from the beginning in the plan of redemption.

God's prophet, Ellen G. White, wrote:

"The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption" (Counsels on Health, page 222).

The Holy Spirit was stirred with pity. The Holy Spirit can be "grieved."

The Holy Spirit was involved in working out the plan of redemption.

Then the Spirit of prophecy makes this statement:

"The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, powers infinite and omnicient, receive those who truly enter into covenant relation with God. They are present at every baptism, to receive the candidates who have renounced the orld and have received Christ into the soul temple" (SDA BC, vol. 6, page 1075). (Written in 1900, Ms. 27 1/2)

The above quote leaves no doubt that she is NOT referring to the angel Gabriel, because the angel Gabriel is not one of the persons of the Godhead nor is he infinite and omnicient. It's blasphemy to even suggest it that any creature is a "power infinite and omnicient."

Matt. 1: 21 is not saying that Mary was found to be with child of the holy breath. She was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Godhead. All three members of the Godhead created the earth, just as all three members of the Godhead are involved in our salvation.

To believe what you do, you have to not only reject much of the Bible but also Ellen White. She says plainly in the book, Education, and elsewhere, that it was the Holy Spirit who is mentioned in Gen. 1: 2. This agrees perfectly with everything else the Bible says about the Holy Spirit. Anyone should be able to see that Jesus wasn't led up into the wilderness by God's breath.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: In order for a single angel, say Gabriel or Lucifer, to be referred to under the title "THE Holy Spirit," it would mean that whatever angel is being referred is in some sense holier than other angels.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I do not see the need for such an assumption. You are trying to equate Holy with Holier, which would be improper. When I say Saint Peter, or Saint John, I am not implying that one saint is holier than another.

Of course not. That's because you don't refer to any of the Apostles as "The Holy One," which is the expression for the Holy Spirit. In the Greek language, the purpose of the definite article is that of indentifying and distinguishing.

Can you see the difference between "the house" and "a house," or between "the saint" and "a saint"?

If the angel Gabriel were referred to by the name "THE Holy Spirit," it would mean that Gabriel is being distinguished from other holy spirits.

Where do you believe the Bible clearly does this?

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Have you noticed that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Matt. 28: 19 is a legitimate text, but they have a different argument for showing that this text doesn't teach the Trinity? Their standard argument is that the Baptismal formula doesn't prove the Holy Spirit is a person. They believe the Holy Spirit is God's "active force," but you will never see anywhere that they teach the Holy Spirit is the angel Gabriel or one of the other angels.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The book of Daniel is a good example where the angel Gabriel did perform the work of the Holy Spirit. This does not necessarily mean that every time the Bible refers to God’s “Spirit” we should or could substitute it with the name of Gabriel.

Are you referring to what's described in Daniel 8: 16 and 9: 20-27, where the angel comes to Daniel for the purpose of instructing him about the vision he had had?

The Holy Spirit does teach us but so do angels and people. God uses both angels and people to teach others His truth. But that certainly doesn't mean that people or angels should be called "the Holy Spirit." Just because God gives creatures the privilege of working together with God in teaching others God's will or plan is no reason to think that they are the Holy Spirit.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: you have chosen to build your entire doctrinal edifice on a single questionable statement found in the Bible.

How so? Do you think that the doctrine of the Trinity needs Matt. 28: 19?

No single text of Scripture is absolutely essential for the Trinity. It is supported by the whole of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.

I just find it interesting that you realize you have to get rid of a text that God inspired. But it doesn't matter how many texts you want to throw out. The truth is still there. You can't get rid of all of them. I could teach the Trinity out of the Jehovah's Witnesses translation, which the Watchtower organization made in order to destroy the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Even they, who hate the Trinity, could not destroy all evidence of it that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to put into it.

What will you do with 2 Cor. 13: 14? Compare Phil. 2: 1. It is obviously referring to three different persons, the same Persons that are named in Matt. 28: 19. You can't have fellowship with a breath or a thing--- you can only have fellowship or communion with a Person, and that Person is the third Person of the Godhead.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: The point I would make here is that there is perfect agreement among all the ancient manuscripts in regard to the reading of Matt. 28: 19.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I am not an expert in biblical manuscripts.

You don't need to be. All you need to do is recognize the fact that that there is perfect agreement among all the ancient manuscripts in regard to Matt. 28: 19. No one has to be an expert in biblical manuscripts in order to believe and have confidence in the Bible.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: This is why, I believe, we need to heed Jesus’ wise advise when he stated that in the words of two or three witnesses ever issue should be settled.

That isn't what Jesus said or intended for us to understand from his words in Matt. 18: 16. He actually said that man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. He didn't say we could ignore something in the Bible if we didn't find it two or three times.

The statements about two or three witnesses have to do with convicting people of wrongdoing. It isn't speaking of how we should know when to believe the Bible. That's misinterpretaing what the Scriptures say.

See Numbers 35: 30; Deut. 17: 6; 19: 15; John 8: 17; 2 Cor. 13: 1; 1 Tim. 5: 19; Heb. 10: 28. None of those are dealing with belief and practice of the word of God.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Before I accept any fundamental doctrine of the church, I need a thus said the Lord in more than a single text.

The Bible doesn't teach this. Jesus taught no such false teaching. Jesus said, "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

Some people do the same thing as you do with respect to the Ten Commandments as proclaimed and written by the finger of God in Ex. 20. Such people say that since Deut. 5 is different from Ex. 20, we don't have to accept the commandments as given in Ex. 20. They're wrong.

God should not have to repeat everything in order for us to obey Him.

WE can be quite sure that God commanded Adam only one time not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam wouldn't have been right to use the excuse that since God only said it once, God must not have meant it. That would have been foolish.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: This is why I question our practice of baptizing in the threefold name which appears in only one text of the Bible when in fact most baptismal formulas are based on the name of Jesus only. This practice of Christians defies the rules of biblical interpretation.

If you think about it, however, I'm sure you can see why the threefold name makes sense and is biblical.

We are baptized into the covenant relationship with God. That covenant is more than with Jesus Christ. It is also in covenant with the Father.

The name under which we are baptized is God, or Jehovah [Yahweh]. The name represents God's character, power and authority. That is certainly all of the Godhead, not only one Person of the Godhead.

Who does both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy say is in the Godhead? All three Persons-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are all working for the salvation of human beings.

Consider:

"The eternal heavenly dignitaries-- God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit-- arming them [the disciples] with more than moral energy,... would advance with them to the work and convince the world of sin" (Ms 145, 1901, Evangelism 616).

Angels are not eternal heavenly dignitaries. This can only be said of the Godhead, or Deity.

The three Persons of the Godhead are given in the following verses, outside of Matt. 28: 19--

Notice it is more than the two witnesses you say you need:

"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all." 1 Cor. 12: 4-6.

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Cor. 13: 14

"Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 1: 2.

NOTE: We are made holy by the Holy Spirit.

"And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, 'Abba, Father.'" Gal. 4: 6.

NOTE: in the above verse there is God the Father and His Son, and both of them send the Holy Spirit into our hearts. The Holy Spirit is not a mere breath or influence but is a real Person who guides and teaches us.

"The Spirit of His Son" is not the Son or else it would say God sent forth His Son into our hearts. The Holy Spirit is the personal representative of the Son, and in order to be the personal representative of Christ, the Holy Spirit must be personal just as Christ is personal.

[Nic Samojluk]

Are you saying that before we accept anything in the Bible it has to be plainly taught there at least two times?

[Nic Samojluk]

John7:17: Finally your view requires you to jettison the writings of Ellen White on the subject and in their stead to hold on to your theory and to Eusebius' opinion.

[Nic Samojluk]

But it was never a question of Adventists giving too much attention to Ellen White.

This is what I did observe from my youth until approximately 1980 both in South America and the U.S.: Almost every doctrinal disagreement was settled with quotations—not from the Bible—from Ellen White. This was reversed by the church and for some time even our Sabbath School Study Guides contained less material from Mrs. White and more from the Bible. More recently, we seem to move back to the old ways.

[John317]

Are you saying that before we accept anything in the Bible it has to be plainly taught there at least two times?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: When dealing with a fundamental doctrinal teaching of the church, I believe that it is safer to side with the Bible as opposed to tradition.

Yes, true. We can't allow tradition to determine doctrine. But that is what you do when you take the word of an early church historian named Eusebius instead of a text that appears in all of the Greek manuscripts of the Scriptures. You let this uninspired man-- who praised and supported the unbaptized, pagan Emporer Constantine-- determine what the Bible teaches.

That isn't siding with the Bible.

We have to understand that God didn't allow Satan to introduce false doctrines into the Holy Scriptures. God did allow some changes to occur but none that teach false doctrines.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: We have strong biblical evidence that at the beginning people were baptized in the name of Jesus. Five biblical texts should weigh more than one questionable passage.

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that you're right, that in the early church people were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Do you realize that in the very early years, the church hadn't had time yet to think through many things and therefore did not always have the correct understanding of the Bible's teaching?

It took the church several generations-- and the necessity of dealing with false teachings-- before it began to understand the church doctrines. This comes out in the book of Acts as well as in the letters of Paul.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that the early church didn't understand the significanse of many of Christ's words, including those in Matt. 28: 19. I'm sure many in the church didn't even know those words during the first 30 years of its history, to say nothing of fully comprehending their practical application. In addition, there's also the fact that the record in Acts doesn't pretend to quote word for word what was said at the baptisms.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Besides, Jesus gave us a practical advice which we should not lightly ignore. He said that in the mouth of two or three witnesses everything should be settled.

But those words of Jesus don't have anything to do with the necessity of seeing something taught two or three times in the Bible before you are to believe it.

If Jesus says this, please quote the verse and show the context.

That would contradict Jesus' own teaching that "man shall live by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God," and that "the Scriptures cannot be broken."

[John317]

Quote:

John7:17: Finally your view requires you to jettison the writings of Ellen White on the subject and in their stead to hold on to your theory and to Eusebius' opinion.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: In this I am following Ellen’s advice. She said the following:

If the Testimonies speak not according to this word of God, reject them. Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 691. {3SM 32.4}

Notice well what she says here: "... reject them." She is saying if she writes things that are contrary to the word of God, REJECT THE TESTIMONIES. She is not telling you to accept some and reject others.

Nic, I hope you read more than this single line. Read the whole chapter in which it occurs. Read the whole of the chapter, "Influence of the 'Testimonies'" in 5 T 654-691.

Read also the lines just above those which you have quoted. If you do, you will see that she didn't mean that people should reject some of the Testimonies and accept others. She is saying that if we find the Testimonies to contradict the word of God, we are to reject all of them. She is asking us to make up our minds whether she is trust-worthy as God's messenger. If not, reject her. That is her meaning.

Here is the full quote:

"Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. DO NOT FEEL THAT YOU CAN DISSECT THEM TO SUIT YOUR OWN IDEAS, CLAIMING THAT GOD HAS GIVEN YOU ABILITY TO DISCERN WHAT IS LIGHT FROM HEAVEN AND WHAT IS THE EXPRESSION OF MERE HUMAN WISDOM. If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united." 5 T 691.

She is saying that the work of Christ and the work of Belial will not be found together in either the Bible or in the Testimonies. If you think she wrote words of Belial, she is telling you to reject the Testimonies, not part of them.

She says the same things in 1 SM 43:

"You who have been educating yourselves and others in a spirit of criticism and accusing, remember that you are imitating the example of Satan. When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail. But how is it when light is given to correct your errors? Do you then accept the light? When the Testimonies speak contrary to your ideas, you treat them very lightly."

Quote:

JOHN3:17: I believe God is leading out a church, not a lot of separate individuals scattered here and there. As Ellen White said, if God has truth to reveal to us, He will reveal it to more than one person in the church.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I know several Adventists who believe like I do.

You can find SDAs today who believe almost anything, including that Paul was of Satan and that Ellen White received her visions from Lucficer.

You can't go simply by the fact that there are some Adventists who believe something.

Why do they believe it?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: My views on this issue are more in harmony with the views of the early Adventist pioneers.

The early Adventist pioneers didn't believe the Holy Spirit was the angel Gabriel. Can you name the Adventist pioneer who agrees with you with respect to the Holy Spirit-- that there are times when the Bible is referring to the angel Gabriel under the name Holy Spirit?

But it doesn't matter whether we agree with the early Adventist pioneers. They wouldn't want you to build your doctrines and beliefs on what they believed just because they believed it. They were sometimes wrong, and they made mistakes. They didn't even agree with each other as regards the Godhead or the Trinity.

To build on their beliefs is to build on church tradition, and they fought against building on church traditon, including Adventist tradition. They taught that we should build on God's word, not on the teachings of men, particularly on uninspired men outside the Scriptures.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: But it was never a question of Adventists giving too much attention to Ellen White.

Quote:

Nic: This is what I did observe from my youth until approximately 1980 both in South America and the U.S.:

Interesting that you mention 1980, which was when Desmond Ford brought his false teachings into the church, including his beliefs about Ellen White being merely "pastoral."

It is true that many in the church relied too heavily on Ellen White to tell them what the Bible teaches, instead studying directly from the Bible.

But it didn't mean SDAs were putting too much faith in Ellen White. It meant that they weren't studying the Bible as God wants us to study it and obey it.

However, that wasn't Ellen White's fault. If anyone has ever urged people to study their Bibles, it was Ellen White.

Today there are many more SDAs as well as non-SDAs who don't study the Bible or Ellen White, but they read books about the Bible and they read web-sites against SDAs and against Ellen White.

Quote:

Nic: Almost every doctrinal disagreement was settled with quotations—not from the Bible—from Ellen White. This was reversed by the church and for some time even our Sabbath School Study Guides contained less material from Mrs. White and more from the Bible. More recently, we seem to move back to the old ways.

I think we need all the light God has given us through Ellen White. But individually and as a church we need to put much more time and energy into Bible study. I don't see that as necessiting ignoring Ellen White. It means becoming more knowledgable as regards to both.

Nic, the reason we're still on this earth and not in heaven is that as a church we're in rebellion against God and His prophet just as the people of Israel were in rebellion against Christ and His prophet Moses while on the very borders of the Promised Land. Christ won't come until He has a people who are living up to all the light He's given us through Ellen White. Until then we will continue to wander around in the wilderness.

[John317]

Quote:

John: The Bible is the measuring stick of truth, and if we sincerely and honestly believe Ellen White contradicts the Bible, we have to go with the Bible.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Amen! That's precisely what I am doing.

You evidently misunderstand. Ellen White did not mean to reject some things if you dislike them and to accept only what you like or find agreeable. That is dissecting her writings, the very thing she said we are not to do. Some do the same with the Bible. It's a trap of the Devil.

For instance, some think she was wrong about masturbation, and therefore they think it's OK. But they are wrong. Ellen White was not wrong about it. Masturbation is a sin. We don't need it verified by science in order to know it is wrong, any more than we needed to have her writings on health verified before we knew we should practice health reform. If she is a true prophet, we can trust what she said. But we need to make up our minds if she is in fact a true prophet of God. If she is not, let's throw out her books and forget her. But then if she is a true prophet, let's accept and put into practice what God has revealed to us through her.

Here again is what she said on this subject:

"Do not by your criticisms take out all the force, all the point and power, from the Testimonies. DO NOT FEEL THAT YOU CAN DISSECT THEM TO SUIT YOUR OWN IDEAS, CLAIMING THAT GOD HAS GIVEN YOU ABILITY TO DISCERN WHAT IS LIGHT FROM HEAVEN AND WHAT IS THE EXPRESSION OF MERE HUMAN WISDOM. If the Testimonies speak not according to the word of God, reject them. Christ and Belial cannot be united." 5 T 691.

She is saying that the work of Christ and the work of Belial will not be found together in either the Bible or in the Testimonies. If you think she wrote words of Belial, she is telling you to reject the Testimonies, not just part of them. Anyone who claims to be a messenger from God but who teaches falsehood is a liar and no true prophet. If not a true prophet, they must be a false one.

"You who have been educating yourselves and others in a spirit of criticism and accusing, remember that you are imitating the example of Satan. When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail. But how is it when light is given to correct your errors? Do you then accept the light? When the Testimonies speak contrary to your ideas, you treat them very lightly." 1 SM 43

[Nic Samojluk]

Where do you find the strongest evidence that when she speaks of the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit, she means for us to understand she's talking about Gabriel or any other angel?

[Nic Samojluk]

Now I will ask you a few questions. Read the following texts and tell me how you interpret them:

Quote:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. [1 Cor. 14:15]

Quote:

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. [1 cor. 14:14]

Quote:

My spirit finds its joy in God, my Savior, [Luke 1:41]

Does the expression “My spirit” in the texts I cited mean that there is am entity called spirit which exists apart from our physical body?

If when God talks about “his Spirit” you insist that it represents a separate entity, a third person of the Deity, then why when dealing with the phrase “my spirit” in connection with humans we refrain from using the same argument and say that this is simply a figure of speech and it simply points to our mind?

Why can’t we be consistent in this? We need to remember that the Hebrew tern “ruach” has the following connotations: spirit, breath, wind, mind, and even presence. If you keep this in mind, you will realize that there is no need to assign to God’s Spirit a separate identity. It simply means God’s invisible manifestation either directly, through Jesus, the angel of the Lord, the angel Gabriel, or through and angel of god.

Quote:

"Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. [is. 42:1]

I ask: If Jesus was divine and God incarnate, what need there was for God to put his Spirit in him? He was Deity incarnate, which means there was no need for God to put his Spirit in him.

Quote:

The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. [Rom. 8:16]

If the term Spirit here refers to a separate entity, why don’t we assign a separate entity to the “our spirit” phrase?

Quote:

When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, [1 Cor. 5:4]

Notice here how Paul states that when Christians meet together in Jesus name, Paul is present with them in spirit.

Does this mean Paul had a separate entity which could be detached from his body and thus be present with those Christians?

Shouldn’t we, for consistency sake, use the same argument as evidence that we do have a soul which can exist separate from our physical body?

Quote:

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." [Gal. 4:6]

Is the Spirit of Jesus a separate entity with a separate personhood from God the Father’s Spirit?

Quote:

I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. [Eph. 1:17]

Is the Spirit of wisdom a fourth member of the Deity?

Quote:

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [Phil. 2:5]

If we bear in mind the several meaning of the Hebrew term “ruach,” we could rephrase this text as follows: “Let this Spirit be in you.” In this text the term mind points to a mental attitude similar to the one Jesus had.

I invite you to think about the Spirit as a mental attitude, the mental attitude of God and Jesus Christ, a kind of software which when installed in our mental computer will guide our thoughts and actions to heavenly ways of thinking and acting.

[Nic Samojluk]

But since it [the Bible] contains some errors does it mean we don't place our complete confidence in it as God's inspired word?

God’s inspired? Yes! Infallible or dictated? No! It does contain some errors, and this is acknowledge by the internal evidence and by even Ellen White.

[Nic Samojluk]

"The Holy Spirit [Gk to pneuma to hagion] said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

[Nic Samojluk]

Are the following examples "personifications," in your judgment?

Acts 13: 2:

"The Holy Spirit [Gk to pneuma to hagion] said, 'Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

John: In fact, you're the first person I've ever met who makes that argument

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Have you ever heard or met the late Dr. Richard [Dick] Koobs, a LLU teacher? I inherited my views about the HS from him.

Was Dr. Richard Koobs, from whom you inherited your views, a medical doctor?

He was a LLU prophesor.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: The Greek shows that it isn't an angel, for it says, "The Spirit [Gk to pneuma] told Philip..." The Bible never uses the definite article with the noun pneuma to refer to an angel, because the rule Greek grammar shows that it is talking about a specific spirit, not just "a spirit."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: You are forgetting that in the New Testament the Bible is not consistent in the use of the personal pronoun when referring to the HS. Both he and it are used. Can you explain this strange phenomenon? This shows that the argument you posted above breaks down.

Of course it is not consistent in the personal pronoun. I also sometimes refer to the Holy Spirit with the neuter pronoun, as does Ellen White at times. The fact that I sometimes use the neuter pronoun in regard to the Holy Spirit is no evidence that I think of him as a thing rather than as a person. The same must be said about Ellen White's use of the neauter pronoun. She says clearly that the Holy Spirit is a Person and has a personality.

Let's not forget that the word pneuma is neuter and that there's no such word as pneuma in the feminine or masculine gender. This means that if you are going to use the word pneuma, you must use a neuter form.

But that doesn't mean the Spirit is not a person. The word for "child" is also neuter in Greek.

As I've said before, when the rules of grammar require the use of a neuter pronoun in reference to the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Gospel writer break the rules and refer to the Holy Spirit with the masculine pronoun. The only way to explain this is that Jesus thought of the Holy Spirit as a person.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk:

He was a LLU prophesor.

I was wondering what subject Dr. Richard Koobs taught. I assume medicine and not theology.

On the second floor of the Loma Linda University library, a good number of portraits of the various faculty, both past and present, are currently on exhibition. Have you seen them? Is his picture among them? I'm going there today and will look. I don't recall seeing his name there.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: Where do you find the strongest evidence that when she speaks of the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit, she means for us to understand she's talking about Gabriel or any other angel?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I can’t figure out what you are trying to tell me with this question. You quote me as saying the following:

"Ellen never specifically equated the Holy Spirit with the angel Gabriel. Does this prove anything?"

And you respond by asking me provide evidence that Ellen White did have in mind the Angel Gabriel when she was talking about the HS? Were you awake when you wrote this?

My reason for asking the question was to try and understand why you think the Holy Spirit and the angel Gabriel are ever one and the same being. Your statement shows that there's absolutely no reason whatever for anyone to think Ellen White considered the Holy Spirit to be the angel Gabriel. That means there's no genuine, valid evidence for this concept in either the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy. I can't see how the angel being used of God to teach Daniel the meaning of the vision is evidence that the angel took the place of the Holy Spirit. God is able to assign various work to both angels and men, including teaching people His truth, but of course that doesn't mean we're the Holy Spirit. It requires quite a jump in logic to conclude the angel is the Holy Spirit.