Through the Bible: Genesis

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: it is certainly infallible.

Are you familiar with the following quotes? What are your thoughts about them?

"The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will." AG 198

"The Bible presents a perfect standard of character; it is an infallible guide under all circumstances, even to the end of the journey of life. Take it as the man of your counsel, the rule of your daily life. . . ." {Mar 44.2}

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: Do you believe the angel Gabriel-- a mere creature-- could be the third person of "the eternal Godhead"?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Give me the actual quotation within its proper context. I did try to locate the text without success!

"The work of salvation is not a small matter, but so vast that the highest authorities are taken hold of by the expressed faith of the human agent. The eternal Godhead-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost-- is involved in the action required to make assurance to the human agent,... confederating the heavenly powers with the human that man may become, though heavenly efficiency, partakers of the divine nature and workers together with Christ." The Upward Look, page 148, paragraph 3.

"The prince of the power of evil can only be held in check by the power of God in the third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit." Evangelism, page 617.

In Ev. 618, Ellen White refers to the Holy Spirit as one of the three "eternal heavenly dignitaries" who arm the disciples with more than mortal energy. She calls these three dignitaries "God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit."

In SDA BC 7, page 959, par. 8, Ellen White refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" as "three great personal dignitaries of heaven."

Please explain who is the following talking about:

"The Spirit of God has made me..." Job 33: 4.

"You send forth your Spirit, they are created..." Ps. 104: 30.

Who is this Holy Spirit that was involved in creation?

"But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit..." Is. 64: 10.

Are any of these verses referring to the angel Gabriel? If not, who is the Holy Spirit in these verses?

[Nic Samojluk]

Nic: 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.

[Nic Samojluk]

My question to you is, do you beleive this refers to the angel Gabriel? Do you believe believers are baptized with the angel Gabriel?

[Felix Florimon]

None of the following verses refer to an angel of the Lord. As a matter of fact, one would have to do a great deal of alteration to the message given in many of those verses in order to substitute Holy Spirit with an angel of the Lord.

Quote:

Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me. Psalm 51:9

Yet they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy Isaiah 63:10

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Mathew 3:11

David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' Mark 12:36

Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Mark 13:11

for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from birth. Luke 1:15

His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied. Luke 1:67

At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth… Luke 10:21

If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! Luke 11:13

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26

In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach

until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. Acts 1:1-2.

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. Acts 1:8.

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 2:4.

Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. Act 2:33

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people Acts 4:8.

You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? Acts 4:25

After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly. Acts 4:31

This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit… Acts 6:5

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own… 1 Corinthians 6:19

Godly men and heavenly angels are instruments of the Holy Spirit; God’s spirit is actively working within their minds.

But when we go to the book of Daniel, we find his worried sick about the future of his people. He remained in said condition for 21 days because the Angel Gabriel was busy doing some lobbying in the courts of Persia. Then Gabriel came to his rescue and apologized for his delay and stated that there was nobody to assist him in this task except Michael. How do you explain the absence of the Holy Spirit and the fact that an angel is doing the Holy Spirit's work?

Angels do the Holy Spirit’s work because they are instruments of the HS.

In order to say that the Holy Spirit is an angel of the Lord and not the third person of the Godhead, one would have to make a great distortion to most biblical passages regarding the HS and ignore most of what EGW says about this topic.

FF

[Felix Florimon]

The moment God, the Creator, experienced two ideas in his mind there was a sequence of two events. Besides, since God always existed, there has always been a sequence of events. There was no need for God to create time.

You are doing something very silly by equating the human mind or human consciousness with God’s mind or consciousness. We need time to understand a sequence of events or to experience two different ideas. God is not like that. If God needed time “to experience two ideas in His mind in order to have a sequence of events” then He could not have created this planet with life in it in six literal days. This is the problem evolutionists have, they believe that nothing could be faster in the universe than human perception; they see the human mind with the ability of self-perception as the pinnacle of evolution of the entire universe. Then based on such yardstick, we are forced to consider that it is something unequivocal to consider that life on earth and the whole physical universe is millions of billions of years old and that life on earth is a process of many events taking place either by itself or by a god that needs time in order to consider one idea of creation after the other has been put in place. One will need a god playing with the big bang in order to set in motion the process of creation of the entire physical universe and depending on “natural laws” working through millions of years to make our human presence on this world something possible.

Our human consciousness is something created and cannot be used as a yardstick to measure how God’s mind works. Time did not exist and it was not needed by God before any angelic intelligence was created. Again, it is very foolish to use how our minds operate and think as a yardstick on how God’s mind works. Time began at the moment the firstborn of all creation came from the Father. The Holy Spirit has always been in the Father and in His Son. Regarding the nature of the Holy Spirit, EGW says: “silence is gold.” This is because one would be in danger of falling in a very horrendous kind of foolishness by using the nature of angels as a yardstick in order to describe the nature of the Holy Spirit.

FF

[John317]

Quote:

Felix Florimon: In order to say that the Holy Spirit is an angel of the Lord and not the third person of the Godhead, one would have to make a great distortion to most biblical passages regarding the HS and ignore most of what EGW says about this topic.

I agree. One would have to resist and twist the obvious meaning of many sentences.

[John317]

Nic: 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.

By using the definite article with a noun in the Greek language, the writer is identifying someone or something as "THE holy spirit."

The definite article is used for the purpose of identification or particularizing.

It is like the difference between "a house" and "the house." If I say I am going to THE house, that is quite different from saying I'm going to "a house." "The house" is a particular one whereas "a house" could be any house. Therefore when the Bible speaks of "the Holy Spirit," it is talking about a particular Holy Spirit.

The Bible often speaks of "holy Spirit" without the definite article, just as it does with the word "Lord" and even "Christ," because it has become a personal name rather than a title.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Gabriel is not omni-present, so cannot be the Holy Spirit communing with all of us at once.

Ellen White states that all the miracles performed by Jeus were done through the ministry of God’s Holy angels. Add to this the fact that the Bible describes God’s angels as Holy and as “ministering spirits” and you have everything you need to equate the HS with the Angel Gabriel and the millions of Holy Angels=Spirits at his command.

Remember also that the practice of capitalization was not invented at the time the Bible was written. This means that there is no distinction in the original between Spirit and spirit, or God and god. This distinction is a modern invention.

Originally Posted By: John

The Holy Spirit dwells in each of us, once again removing Gabriel as a candidate, as Gabriel is a singular angel, not an omnipresent being and would have to dwell in every single one of us to fit all the texts.

The “indwelling” idea is mutual as described in John 17. God dwells in us and we dwell in him.

Quote:

21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Do a search of Ellen White writings with the term “indwelling” and you will discover that the indwelling includes God, the Creator, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Of course God is both Spirit and Holy. So are all his angels.

You seemed to miss the main point Nic. :-)

Gabriel is not omni-present.

And unable to dwell in every believer at once.

Mark :-)

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: However, I do believe that God did allow some changes to occur in the ancient manuscripts.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Some changes? Have you taken the time to examine the huge diversity of manuscripts? I have one version of the Bible with hundreds of comments as follows: This is not in many of the extant manuscripts.

Yes, I know textual criticism very well, Nic. Textual criticism and NT translation are both hobbies of mine. I'm fully aware of the variants among the NT manuscripts and printed Greek texts.

The problem with the comments you will find in the footnotes of many translations is that their notes are often inaccurate. For instance, frequently when they say, "Only a few manuscripts contain this word," the truth is that the majority of the manuscripts contain it whereas a minority don't contain it.

Most modern translations are based on the Critical Text, and the Critical Text in turn is largely based on two or three manuscripts, mainly the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, together with one or more papyrus manuscripts.

If you look carefully at all the variants that exist among the ancient manuscripts-- and there are thousands-- you will find that most of them have to do with spelling, and the majority of these don't even affect the translation.

A lot of the other difference may cause the editors to drop a phrase, a word, or even a verse, yet it almost always is found elsewhere in the NT. The Bible's teachings are redundant so that what may not be found in one verse is found in one or two others.

I don't know of any variants that change the NT message in a significant way so that the story is not basically the same.

Can you tell me any variants that change Bible doctrines?

In other words, what doctrines can be taught from the Majority Greek Text or from the Textus Receptus, but cannot be found in the Critical Text? I'm OK with either of those printed texts.

Seventh-day Adventist pastors and scholars usually get their training in the Critical Text published by teh United Bible Societies, which today is the 4th edition, the same in the main body as that found in the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text.

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. There are absolutely no significant variants in the ancient manuscripts as far as this verse is concerned. Even most Arians, or anti-Trinitarians, aknowledge that it is a legitimate part of the Gospel of Matthew.

However, as I said earlier, if you feel the need of rejecting it, in order to sustain your view of the Trinity, I would be quite willing to discuss the topic without mentioning Matt. 28: 19. It really is not necessary to the doctrine at all. Neither is 1 John 5: 7.

Have you noticed that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Matt. 28: 19 is a legitimatte 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.

In fact, you're the first person I've ever met who makes that argument. Do you know of any Adventist Bible scholar or Adventist "pioneer" who taught that the the angel Gabriel is referred to as the Holy Spirit?

[Nic Samojluk]

What the Internet says is irrelevant because we're talking about the Bible's use of "eternal," not the way it's used commonly by people on the street.

[Nic Samojluk]

The word "Godhead" in the Bible is translated from the Greek word, theotetos. See Col. 2: 9.

[Nic Samojluk]

But to take Eusebius' word for it is to put more confidence in him than in the prophet of God, Ellen White.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: Paul is saying if they didn't receive the Spirit, it must be because they weren't baptized into the Holy Spirit at the time they were submerged in water.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: This seems evident to you because you are still in the Trinitarian camp. When you decide to join those who are no longer under the influence of this Catholic dogma, you will probably see this my way.

What I believe has nothing to do with Catholicism any more than your belief in the Incarnation, the death of Christ, or the second coming, is due to Catholic influence. The Catholic Church teaches some basic Bible doctrines, and therefore it would be a mistake to reject a belief simply because it is found in the Catholic Church. They are wrong in some of the things they teach about the Trinity, but they are also correct on some things. The main thing that makes the doctrine of the Trinity is that the Godhead consists of three divine Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I could just as easily argue that you can't see this because you are under the influence of Arians or anti-Trinitarians. I don't argue that way, though, because while it may be true, it's not really a help in persuading people to change their minds about the meaning of the NT. It's about as useful that way as telling an 6 year old child that the reason he can't grasp certain abstractions is that he's a child.

Quote:

Nic Nic Samojluk: The choice here is between John's baptism and the baptism in the name of Jesus. Read the passage with care. Notice what happened after they learned about Jesus:

"5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

It doesn't say that they were baptized in the name of the HS, nor does it say that they were baptized in the triple name.

This can be explained in several ways or in a combination of ways:

1) The events in Acts 19 occurred about 55 AD, whereas the book of Matthew was written between 58 to 68 AD; that is, Matthew 28: 19 was written after the events recorded in Acts 19. It took a while before the NT church fully understood the significance of many of the doctrines we find written in the NT. These beliefs and practices of the church were more clearly defined over the next century, as the early church dealt with false doctrines. Compare, for instance, the writings of Paul about the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 and the letters to the Thessalonians. These make it obvious that the church was just beginning to work out the details of its beliefs on a number of doctrines. This was certainly true of the church's view of the nature of Christ and the nature of the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead.

2) The writer didn't believe it was necessary to list each person in the Godhead under which believers were baptized, since it was assumed his readers were aware that they included the Father and the Holy Spirit. In the same way today, when people ask me about my baptism, I don't give the exact words the pastor said when I was baptized. Instead, I say that I was baptized into Christ. I would usually only give the other names if people asked for the words the pastor actually used when baptizing me. See below for more textual evidence that this is the case.

Quote:

Nic Nic Samojluk (quoting): 1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit whena you believed? They answered, No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit. 3So Paul asked,Then what baptism did you receive?”

"Paul said, 'John baptized those who were sorry for their sins and told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, Jesus.' When they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." Acts 19: 4, 5.

I believe the writer's purpose is not to give a detailed account of the words that were said at their baptism, but to point to the fact that they were baptized into Christ. John instructed the people to believe in Jesus and they were never told anything about the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit could not be poured out on people until after Christ's ascension to heaven. People who learn of the baptism into Christ know about the Holy Spirit because it is a necessary part of the baptism. It was a regular part of the instruction given to candidates of baptism. As Peter said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven, and you will be given the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2: 18).

Remember, also, that the record doesn't pretend to give us everything the speakers said. For instance, Acts 3 doesn't record anything about baptism, yet we can be sure that Peter told the people to be baptized. According to Acts 3: 19-21, Peter said, "Repent then, and turn, to have your sins wiped out that a time may come when the Lord refreshes you and send Jesus, whom He appointed to be your Savior and whom heaven had to receive until the time when everything will be restored as God said long ago His holy prophets."

Notice it does not even mention baptism, yet we can't assume on the basis of what Peter said here that the only thing people should do is repent. So it is obvious the record of what was said is incomplete.

Acts 9: 18 also doesn't mention what was said at Paul's baptism, but it would be wrong to assume that He wasn't baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. My point here is that simply because it doesn't use those particular words is no reason to assume that they weren't used at Paul's baptism. (cf. Acts 22: 18) Notice that Paul's retelling of the events in Acts 16 doesn't even refer to his baptism, let alone to any specific words that were said at the baptism. But from this we obviously can't assume there was no baptism, nor that the Trinitarian baptismal formula was not used.

Acts 10: 48 tells us Peter ordered that Cornelius and other non-Jews be baptized in the name of Jesus. There's no reason to believe this is all that Peter said. It is simply telling us that Peter ordered that they be baptized, but it obviously is not a quote, much less a detailed quote. The writer is not claiming to tell us the exact words of Peter at the moment of baptism.

Acts 16: 31-33 is obviously not a complete record of what was said at the time of the baptism of the Philippian jailer and his family. It merely said they were baptized. Paul told him, "Believe in the Lord Jesus." Does that mean Paul did not tell him about the Father and the Holy Spirit? Obviously not, yet the record doesn't mention any thing else that he was taught, except, "They spoke the Lord's Word to him and everyone in the his home."

It seems to me that the above review of the verses dealing with baptism in the book of Acts shows without question that Luke is not giving us a complete record of what was said at the baptisms. Therefore, we can't assume that since the baptismal formula of Matt. 28: 19 is not repeated in the book of Acts, it was never used at early Christian baptisms.

But speaking of Matt. 28: 19, don't you think the words in 2 Cor. 13: 14 teaches the same thing about the Trinity?

2 Cor. 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

Isn't it obvious that these are all three living, divine Persons? How can we have fellowship with the Holy Ghost [or Holy Spirit] if He's not a Person?

I find it impossible to think that an angel or angels are being put on the same level with the Father and with God the Son, especially in view of what we find in Rev. 19: 10 and 22:9.

Here is what the angels said about themselves:

Rev. 19:10

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev. 22:9

Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Do you notice they refuse to be elevated to the level of God and instead describe themselves as our fellow servants and as being no higher than the prophets.

How then can we believe 2 Cor. 13: 14 refers to the angels:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

What we are being asked to participate in is fellowship with the Godhead, not with another mere creature.

Why would anyone choose to reject an invitation to enjoy fellowship with a third Person of the Godhead and replace it instead with fellowship with a mere creature similar to themselves?

Your thoughts, Nic?

[John317]

Quote:

John: What the Internet says is irrelevant because we're talking about the Bible's use of "eternal," not the way it's used commonly by people on the street.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Fine, let’s go by the biblical meanings of the term “eternal.” Here are some examples.

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. [Matthew 25:41]

"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7]

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire." [Matthew 18:8]

"If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It's better to enter eternal life with only one foot than to be thrown into hell with two feet." [Mark 9:45]

Can you conclude from the above texts that the biblical definition of eternal always means without beginning and without end?

Certainly not, Nic. You've used examples that deal with mortals, not with the immortal God.

Try some examples of the use of "eternal" in relationship to God or to people after they receive immortality.

For instance, look carefully at the following:

Deut. 33:27

The eternal God [Heb Elohim]is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

John 12:34

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

Romans 16:26

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

Do you see a difference between "eternal Godhead" and "eternal fire"?

The is elementary. The fire that destroys the wicked cannot possibly go on buring endlessly because mortal beings don't continue to exist endlessly. Therefore the word "eternal" or "everlasting" refers to a time that is only as long as the thing that it refers to exists.

"Eternal life" is not the same as "immortality." Believers begin to experience "eternal life" now but they don't have "immortality" until the resurrection. Compare 1 John 5: 13; 1 Cor. 15: 53.

"Eternal life" in Matt. 18: 8 and Mark 9: 45 refers to the life believers have after they've been made immortal, i.e, not subject to death.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: So the question is, what is the Godhead?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Good question! Notice how this term found in Young’s literal translation was rendered by other Bible versions:

Young's Literal Translation

And causest him to lack a little of Godhead, And with honour and majesty compassest him [Psalm 8:5}

Notice that Robert Young understands it to mean that Christ was reduced in status when He became a man. He doesn't mean that Christ was made less than the angels, as the writer of Hebrews gives it. Robert Young understands it to have the same significance as it has in the New Living Translation.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk (quoting): New International Version (©1984)

You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

New Living Translation (©2007)

Yet you made them only a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honor.

King James Bible

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Bible in Basic English

For you have made him only a little lower than the gods, crowning him with glory and honour.

I conclude that the original elohim Hebrew term can be translated as godhead,heavenly beings, God, angels and even gods.

Nic, I'm referring to the way Ellen White uses the word "Godhead," not the various ways the Hebrew word elohim can be translated. She speaks of the "eternal Godhead" and includes the Holy Spirit as being the third Person of this "eternal Godhead."

The question we have to answer is, what evidence is there that Ellen White ever used the word "Godhead" to refer to anyone but the eternal and living God? Can you find any example of where she used it in any other way?

The word "Godhead" occurs only once in the New Testament, and that is in Col. 2: 9, in reference to Christ.

It says, "Col. 2:9 (ESV)

For in him the whole fullness of deity [Gk theotetos] dwells bodily,

Col. 2:9 (KVJ)

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

But you are right about the Hebrew word, elohim, Nic. This word is variously translated as "God," "angels," "gods," "rulers or judges," "a god or goddesses," and a man in a position like a god.

Its meaning, like most words in the Hebrew Bible, is determined by its context. In the vast majority of instances, the word Elohim is correctly translated "God."

Having said this, it is interesting to see how it's translated by the Septuagint in Ps. 8: 5 and then again how the writer of Hebrews 2: 7 quotes it in the Greek language.

The Greek translation of Ps. 8: 5 translates the word elohim by the Greek accusative plural masculine noun, aggelous [angels], the identical word that the writer of Hebrews used.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: And when we speak of the Godhead being "eternal," do we use "eternal" to mean a limited period of time?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Was the fire which destroy Sodom ever lasting? Is it still burning today? Do you believe that the fire which will destroy the wicked will last forever?

Nic, all Seventh-day Adventists should know the elementary rule for the use of the word "eternal" in the Bible. The rule is that when it is used in reference to God, it means something different than when it is used in reference to mortal man. Do you believe this?

This is a principle that is found in all Bible studies written by Seventh-day Adventists.

There's a fundamental difference between "eternal God," "eternal Godhead," and "eternal fire."

The difference? God is immortal and fire is not. God by definition is not subject to death. Fire lasts only as long as the thing being burned lasts. When fire has done its work, it goes out. That's what happened at Sodom and it is what will happen to the fire that destroys the wicked.

This comes up regularly when we study Rev. 14: 11; 20: 10 and Rev. 22: 5.

On the one hand, the wicked are said to be tormented in fire "for ever and ever," but we say this means the wicked will eventually die and pass out of existence.

On the other hand, Rev. 22: 5 says the righteous will live with God "forever and ever." The reasonable question we are asked, is, why do we give a different meaning to "forever and ever" in Rev. 14: 11 than we give to the same expression in Rev. 22: 5?

The answer is that in one place it has reference to mortals [the wicked] and in the other place it has reference to immortal beings [the righteous]. See 1 Cor. 15: 53. Mortals are subject to death whereas immortals are not. Therefore, "forever and ever" logically has a different meaning when referring to immortals than when used about mortals. In reference to the "Godhead," since God is immortal, it has a totally different meaning than when used about beings who are not immortal. Angels are not immortal. If they were immortal, Satan and his evil angels could not be destroyed. See Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 1, page 31, 44.

What say you?

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: The word "Godhead" in the Bible is translated from the Greek word, theotetos. See Col. 2: 9.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: And also from elohim, which has been translated as godhead, heavenly beings, God, angels, and even gods. Please, read my previous posting and the way Psalms 8:5 has been rendered in several versions of the Bible!

Yes, I read your previous post and replied to it. Here, just let me say that I'm talking about the word as it occurs in the Greek New Testament.

It's quite true that the Hebrew word, elohim, can be translated in different ways, although it is usually translated "God."

But again I'm referring to the word "Godhead" in the New Testament and particularly in the writings of Ellen White because that is where we have her statements about the "eternal Godhead."

What do you understand its meaning to be in Col. 2: 9? This is the only place in the NT where the word "Godhead" is correctly translated from the Greek. In all other places, as I show below, it is translated as "divine being" or "divine

nature."

Where it is correctly translated "Godhead," it can only have reference to Jesus Christ.

Quote:

John3:17: Again, we don't get our definiton of Bible words from the Internet or Webster's dictionary. We need to get them from the way the Bible uses those words.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I did give you the biblical definitions already.

But here's the critical question: where in the Bible or in the writings of Ellen White are the words "eternal Godhead," "eternal God," or "everlasting God" used in reference to anyone but the true, living God?

The KJV does not translate any word as "Godhead" in the Old Testament.

(As you see below, the KJV incorrectly translates three different Greek words as "Godhead.")

Genesis 21:33

And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God (el).

Isaiah 26:4

Trust in the Lord [He. Yahweh] forever,

for the Lord God [Heb. Yah Yahweh] is an everlasting rock.

Elohim in conjunction with "eternal" or "everlasting" is used in the following:

Deut. 33: 27:

The eternal God [Heb. elohim] is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

Psalm 41:13

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,

from everlasting to everlasting! Amen and Amen.

Psalm 93:2

Your throne is established from of old;

you [the living, eternal God] are from everlasting.

Jeremiah 10:10

But the Lord is the true God [Heb Elohim];

he is the living God [Heb Elohim] and the everlasting King.

At his wrath the earth quakes,

and the nations cannot endure his indignation.

Habakkuk 1:12

Are you [the living, eternal God] not from everlasting,

O Lord my God [Heb Elohim], my Holy One?

We shall not die.

O Lord, you have ordained them as a judgment,

and you, O Rock, have established them for reproof.

In the New Testament:

2 Cor. 11:31

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.

Godhead (KJV):

1) Acts 17:29

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead [Gk theios] is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

This is more accurately translated by the English Standard Version:

Acts 17:29 (ESV)

Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being [Gk theios] is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.

2)Romans 1:20 (KJV)

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead [Gk theion] so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:20 (ESV)

For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature [Gk theion], have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

3) Col. 2:9 (KJV)

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [Gk theotees, theoteetos] bodily.

Col. 2:9 (ESV)

For in him the whole fullness of deity [Gk theoteetos] dwells bodily...

NOTE: Col. 2: 9 is saying that Christ never stopped being truly God. This can't possibly refer to angels or humans. It's talking about the very essence of deity, or God, as opposed to qualities such as love and patience, etc., which humans can also share. But neither humans nor angels can share the very essence of deity, or the Godhead. Humans and angels can never become God. We can become like God, yes, but that is totally different from being deity, or God Himself.

Quote:

John 3:17: "Godhead" is never used of anyone but the true, living, Eternal God of the Bible.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Wrong! Read my previous posting!

Yes, I did read it, and I've made a reply to it. However, let me say here that you didn't show "Godhead" as referring to angels or gods, but you correctly showed that the Hebrew word "elohim" is sometimes translated "a god" and "angels," among others. Robert Young's Literal translation does translate "elohim" as "Godhead" in Ps. 8: 5, but please notice the translator gives it the meaning of "God," not angel.

Most translators understand Ps. 8: 5 to be referring to "angels," and we know that the writer of Hebrews 2: 7 certainly did. The Greek of both the LXX and the NT show that Ps. 8: 5 is a reference to the angels, not to God, deity, or the Godhead. Therefore, Robert Young's translation, "causest him [Christ] to lack a little of Godhead," is in error, when the context is considered, although it is grammatically possible. Jesus didn't cease being God when He became a man, but as Phil. 2: 7, 8 shows us, Christ did voluntarily give up some of his rightful prerogatives but not his essential nature.

Quote:

John3:17: It is not referring to "a god" or to "gods."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Wrong! Read my previous comments about Psalm 8:5!

Again, it's true that the Hebrew word elohim may sometimes refer to "a god," or "gods," but the word "Godhead" never does so. At least I have never seen it used that way.

Psalm 8:5

Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings [Heb elohim]

and crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:5

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [Heb elohim], and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

The fact that elohim is sometimes translated as "angels," "heavenly beings," "God," or "Godhead," does not mean that "Godhead" ever refers to angels. Elohim is never translated as "Godhead" where the translator means the reader to understand "angel" or "heavenly beings." When the translator means for us to understand "angel" or "heavenly beings," he translates it as such, not as "Godhead."

Quote:

John: It is often translated as "deity" in the Scriptures, and we know that no creature of any kind is "deity."

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Wrong again!! The term elohim has been translated as godhead,heavenly beings,God, angels, and even gods. The term elohim was derived from the word el which was used in OT times to refer to the pagan gods.

Yes, it's true that the Hebrew word elohim is translated in various ways, including "God," "gods," a few times as "angels," but my point is that when it is translated as "deity," it is not refering to anyone but the true, living God. No created beings are described as "deity" in the Bible. Humans and angels are not "deity." This is my point.

Quote:

John 3:17 Those humans referred to as "gods" were judges who were given the responsibility of doing God's work in the world, but at no time were people required to worship them, whereas the Father commands us and the angles to worship Christ. Heb. 1: 6.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: How do you explain the fact that the sons of the prophets did worship Elisha?

Douay-Rheims Bible

"And the sons of the prophets at Jericho, who were over against him, seeing it said: The spirit of Elias hath rested upon Eliseus. And coming to meet him, they worshipped him, falling to the ground," [2 Kings 2:15]

In OT times it was customary for people to bow to the ground before those in authority. Of course, God is the supreme authority and deserves our worship. Today the term worship has a special meaning which does not exactly match that of the OT.

As you correctly point out yourself, the "worship" referred to in 2 Kings 2: 15 is not religious worship but showing respect. If Elisha had accepted religious worship, it would have been a grave sin on his part. We can be sure that the sons of the prophets were not trying to worship Elijah in the sense of religious worship. The NKJV more correctly translates it as "bow down to the ground before him." As you say, this was the custom in those ancient times, as you can see in Gen. 19: 1; 23:7; Ruth 2:10. This Hebrew word, like the corresponding Greek word, can be used of the mere showing of honor to humans or of spiritual worship of the true, living God, as in 1 Sam. 1:3;15:25.

Compare Elisha's reaction with Peter's when the latter knew someone was trying to worship him as a divine being. Acts 10: 25, 26.

Therefore, why are you bringing this up, since you apparently already recognize that worshipping created beings is idolatry and therefore a sin against God. See Ex. 20: 3-5; Matt. 4:10; Rev. 19: 10; 22: 9.

Quote:

John:3:17: Neither Lucifer nor Gabriel were ever one of the persons of the eternal Godhead.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Do you have credible evidence for this?

What kind of evidence do you need it order to understand that angels are not members of the eternal Godhead?

Created beings-- creatures like you and me and like the angels-- cannot possibly be in the eternal Godhead simply by virtue of the fact that created beings are not God.

One of Lucifer's failings was that he believed he could become deity. That was an impossibility, the same as it is utterly impossible for you or me or the angels to be deity, i.e., a Person of the eternal Godhead.

[John317]

Quote:

John 3:17: But to take Eusebius' word for it is to put more confidence in him than in the prophet of God, Ellen White.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I do not place Ellen White’s writings above the Bible.

But you appear to me to be placing the word of Eusebius, a mere, fallible historian-- and no prophet-- above both the Bible and the prophet Ellen White. Eusebius is known to have made historical errors. I would accept the word of Ellen White, God's last day prophet, before I'd accept the word of Eusebius any day. Eusebius supported and praised the pagan Emperor Constantine.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: All the references to baptism in the NT use the “in the name of Jesus” formula or its equivalent. There is only one example where the triune name is used, and Eusebius did a careful investigation and concluded that said baptismal formula was not in the original. Common sense leads me to have a preference for the “in the name of Jesus” way of baptizing.

Could you post here everything that Eusebius said about his "careful investigation" and conclusion?

I know you posted some of what he wrote, but did you already post everything he said about it? If so, I'll simply reread what you posted already.

By the way, are you aware that Church Fathers testify many times to certain readings in the NT which turn out to be wrong? They must never be given more than their proper weight in deciding a correct reading of the Scriptures.

In this case, it's very probable that Eusebius was in error, and also that Eusebius at some point found better manuscripts, which contained the baptismal forumla, because he does quote it in five documents that have come down to us. He may well have quoted it more often, in writings that were lost.

[Nic Samojluk]

You ignore the evidence that Eusebius quoted the baptismal formula five times in his writings that have survived.

[John317]

Quote:

John3:17: The fact is that Matt. 28: 19 is in all of the ancient NT texts containing chapter 28 of the Gospel of Matthew.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Jesus reminded the Jews on one occasion that everything should be confirmed by at least two witnesses. You have only one questionable witness: Matthew 28:19.

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

When Christ asks you why you fought against the Trinity doctrine, are you going to say it's because He didn't inspire His followers to restate Matt. 28: 19 somewhere else in the NT?

The fact is that the doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Bible and that there are good explanations in the NT for what we find in Matt. 28: 19, but that doesn't mean everyone is going to find the explanation sufficient to persuade them. This is true of every doctrine found in the Bible. The Bible is clear about the Sabbath and the state of the dead, for instance, yet how many can't see those truths? Why? Is it the Bible's fault? Is the Bible confusing and does it speak out of both sides of its mouth? Is it God's fault? No. It's the people. The reason lies with the people. Jesus said, "If you will do His will, you will know the doctrine, whether it is from God."

I think it's really important to keep in mind the statements by Ellen White in which she tells us that we won't be able to understand the Bible without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who inspired the prophets and apostles to write it.

[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: Do you consider Ellen White to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture?

I believe that Ellen G. White was a true prophet of God, and I have complete confidence in her as God's messenger to the remnant. This doesn't mean I understand everything she wrote or said, but I don't reject things in the Bible or in Ellen White's writings simply because I don't understand them. I've learned to trust both the Bible and Ellen White's writings.

It's true Ellen White was not infallible, but then neither were any of the prophets of the Bible.

If we're waiting for an infallible prophet before we believe what they write or say, we will never believe anyone.

The Bible doesn't have to be absolutely perfect in order for us to trust and obey it, and neither should the writings of Ellen White have to be completely perfect before God's people accept the messages Christ gave her.

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. The Scriptures judge Ellen White. She can't correct the Bible, and neither can the Church Fathers, historians or theologians.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: That is not the official position of the Adventist Church.

Are you concerned with the official positions of the Adventist Church?

I believe the official teachings of the Adventist church, including what the church says about Ellen White's prophetic ministry. That's why I made the choice to join the SDA church. But I don't believe it's a perfect church-- far from it!-- and I do certainly believe God has more truth to reveal to us. But that truth will be in harmony with what the Bible teaches.

The revelation of more truth doesn't mean the pillars of our faith will be shown to be false, but I have no question that God will show us new applications and additional insights into truths that we've already known. For instance, God will never tell us that the church has been wrong about the Sabbath, but there's no doubt He will keep revealing new truth to us about the purpose of the Sabbath and the connection between the Sabbath and our relationship with Him. I believe we can say the same about all of the fundamental beliefs of the church.

Below are some of the key official positions of the Adventist Church that I support and believe completely:

1. Holy Scriptures:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

2. Trinity:

There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation. (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 14:7.)

3. Father:

God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

4. Son:

God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

5. Holy Spirit:

God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

15. Baptism:

By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)

18. The Gift of Prophecy:

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Besides, Ellen told us that we need to study the bible and that there are new truths to be discovered.

Yes, that's true, and I do believe it.

But why study the Bible-- why have confidence in it--- if it's confused concerning such basic truths as the Godhead?

I believe God is leading out a church, not a lot of seperate 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.

Ellen White wrote, "When you find men questioning the testimonies, finding fault with them, and seeking to draw away the people from their influence, be assured that God is not at work through them. It is another spirit. Doubt and unbelief are cherished by those who do not walk circumspectly." 1 SM 45

"Satan is.... constantly pressing in the spurious-- to lead away from the truth. The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. 'Where there is no vision, the people perish' (Prov, 29: 18). Satan will work ingenuously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God's remnant people in the true testimony.

"There will be a hatred kindled against the testimonies which is satantic. The workings of Satan will be to unsettle the faith of the churches in them, for this reason: Satan cannot have so clear a track to bring in his deceptions and bind up souls in his delusions if the warnings and reproofs and counsels of the Spirit of God are heeded" (1 SM 48).

[Nic Samojluk]

I have no problem with either translation, "the spirit of the holy gods," or "the Spirit of the Holy God." Both are grammatically correct, which is why you will find it translated both ways by excellent translators.

I don’t either! Nevertheless, we must decide whether we have one God or many gods, and a pagan king is not the right person to help us establish Christian doctrine.

[Nic Samojluk]

When was it ever the official position of the SDA church that Ellen White was the standard?

[Nic Samojluk]

OK, sure, God used angels, but that is not the question. The question is, when the Bible says God will put His Spirit upon Christ, is it referring to the angel Gabriel?