Why Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed.

[John317]

Speaking of judging, miz3, it is you who have been "judging" forum members and the SDA church as well.

Take a review of your posts on this discussion and on the others.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: gerrycabalo

Why don't you check your history before making some asenine statements? As far back as 1120, Bernard of Cluny, in his "bitter satire De Contemptu Mundi cried out against fallen Rome, characterizing the pope as "king of this odious Babylon." And the Reformers did not mince any words as to who Babylon was.

Gerry, Gerry, are you now reduced to name calling. Especially name calling from what is supposed to be a Christian mouth. More especially from the mouth of an SDA who is the remnant of the remnant.

By the way it is spelled, "asinine".

I wasn't going to say anything, but I've noticed numerous misspellings and mispunctuations by miz3. To wit:

from post #440881:

Originally Posted By: miz3

But lets be clear...

Miz3, "lets" should have an apostrophe after the "t"... it stands for "let us"...

Can I get in on the name-calling? IMHO, someone here is a manipulator, suggestive of a codependent nature.

[John317]

Adventist Review and Herald Oct 8,1903

"The doctrine of the Personality of God IS the fundamental doctrine of the Scriptures..."

..."

"NEITHER was this image of God a mere concept; FOR the Bible declares that the Lord has PARTS, THE SAME AS the human body".

"OUR EXISTENCE as a people is FOUNDED on a belief in the truths stated above".

Of course the "truths above" that statement are explicit...

...That God has a body of FLESH AND it's NOT a concept or figurative IN THE LEAST.

Later on, after the death of Ellen White the SDA Church put it's best foot forward....

...To distance itself from this strange teaching.

Please notice that you've said that the SDA church and Ellen White taught that God the Father has a body of flesh. This is false. You're adding words that are not found either in our publications or in Ellen White's writings. When it speaks of "body parts the same as a human body," it doesn't mean that it is the same in all the details or that God's form consists of the same material as a human body. God is invisible and is Spirit. Ellen White states this many times. That is why it's so important to read and consider everything Ellen White says. The same principle applies to the Bible as to Ellen White.

The statements in the Review and Herald must be seen in their historical and theological context. Ellen White was fighting against a false doctrine which attacked the personality of God.

Seventh-day Adventsts believe what the Bible teaches, which is that Christ and the Father are in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. We understand this to be literally (not metaphorically) true. Since God is in the Most Holy Place in heaven, He cannot at the same time be everywhere at once. He is everywhere at once through His Holy Spirit, but not personally.

By the way, keep in mind that there are many things written by SDA writers and ministers which are not neceesarily in agreement with official beliefs and teaching of the SDA church. So, merely because something is found in a book by an SDA does not mean it represents the SDA church as a whole. For instance, Uriah Smith wrote in 1865, 1867 in his books and in the Review and Herald that Jesus was "the first created being." Yet the SDA church has never held that belief. Smith later wrote, too, about "evolution" within the deity, but again, that was his own personal view, not the church's. As I've pointed out several times before, there was at that time no single view of the Godhead that was shared by the entire church. It was a real mix of views. Spicer's father, for instance, was an SDA minister during those early years who believed in the Trinity.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Yet we are told-- and I do believe it-- that it was a struggle for the Father to give up His only Son to die for the world. It was not an easy decision.

I'll need to see the Bible on this one, John.

As you doubtless realize, this is a statement made by Ellen G. White. While it is not in the bible, yet it also does not contradict the Bible. The Bible simply does not go into details on that matter. But you should be OK with it, I think, since you support Ellen White's other statement (which is also not found in the Bible) that there will be children in heaven without their parents. I believe both statements because I have learned that Ellen White can be trusted. For the same reason I trust the Bible even when I have no proof that it is correct.

[John317]

Where in the Bible do you read that Satan has flesh or that Michael the archangel or Father God has flesh..?

...I'm speaking of PRIOR to the Incarnation.

Ellen White doesn't say that God the Father or Michael the archangel have (had) flesh.

Clearly, however, Jesus Christ now has flesh, that of a glorified human body, the same as the saved will have at the resurrection.

Ellen White wrote about Lucifer after the fall:

Quote:

I was shown Satan as he once was, a happy, exalted angel. Then I was shown him as he now is. He still bears a kingly form. His features are still noble, for he is an angel fallen. But the expression of his countenance is full of anxiety, care, unhappiness, malice, hate, mischief, deceit, and every evil. That brow which was once so noble, I particularly noticed. His forehead commenced from his eyes to recede. I saw that he had so long bent himself to evil that every good quality was debased, and every evil trait was developed. His eyes were cunning, sly, and showed great penetration. His frame was large, but the flesh hung loosely about his

153

hands and face. As I beheld him, his chin was resting upon his left hand. He appeared to be in deep thought. A smile was upon his countenance, which made me tremble, it was so full of evil and satanic slyness. This smile is the one he wears just before he makes sure of his victim, and as he fastens the victim in his snare, this smile grows horrible. {EW 152.3}

The flesh she speaks of here is obviously not human flesh becasue she's describing the body or form of a fallen angel. Angels have spirit bodies, not of flesh and blood, yet their body evidently does undergo changes. At least this is how it was portrayed to Ellen White in vision.

[Gordon1]

Angels have spirit bodies

What is a spirit body John?

[Gustave]

As Ellen White in her prophetic utterance explicitly stated that Satan had flesh...

...By default that also proves ( in her mind ) God had "flesh".

...Does anyone know if Ellen every wrote anything to the effect of Lucifer's "Incarnation"?

Ellen White

Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing great intelligence. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic.--EW 145. {TA 251.2} I was shown Satan as he once was, a happy, exalted angel. Then I was shown him as he now is. He still bears a kingly form. His features are still noble, for he is an angel fallen. But the expression of his countenance is full of anxiety, care, unhappiness, malice, hate, mischief, deceit, and every evil. That brow which was once so noble, I particularly noticed. His forehead commenced from his eyes to recede. I saw that he had so long bent himself to evil that every good quality was debased, and every evil trait was developed. His eyes were cunning, sly, and showed great penetration. His frame was large, but the FLESH hung loosely about his hands and face. As I beheld him, his chin was resting upon his left hand. He appeared to be in deep thought. A smile was upon his countenance, which made me tremble, it was so full of evil and satanic slyness. This smile is the one he wears just before he makes sure of his victim, and as he fastens the victim in his snare, this smile grows horrible.--EW 152, 153. {TA 251.3}

Ellen said FLESH and that is the terminus of any "spiritual body" argument...

...Unless there is "spirit flesh".

Note: prior to SIN Satan's "FLESH" was not hanging loosley....

...After SIN Satan's FLESH hung loosely.

[teresaq]

For instance, Uriah Smith wrote in 1865, 1867 in his books and in the Review and Herald that Jesus was "the first created being."

If you could supply that statement of his directly from the 1867 and subsequent revision of the Thoughts on the Revelation, and RH I would really appreciate it. I personally have been looking but not able to find it.

I'm not speaking of the "passed around" statement gotten from the books you read, , but the original one as found directly from those sources claimed.

(According to the RH of that year, 1865, U.S. was in the process of "revising and rewriting much" of what had been published in the 1862-63 RH. The book was then published in 1867. The sources listing 1865 must have been a typo, or just a mistake passed on with no one checking its "veracity'.)

[teresaq]

1Cor 15:38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

There isn't much reason to assume that God gave man a different kind of flesh than He did the angels-but He may have.

On another note, we really do need to know if we SDAs are believing in any form of spiritualism, by believing that God and angels, etc., are some kind of phantom-like beings.

[Gustave]

1Cor 15:38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

There isn't much reason to assume that God gave man a different kind of flesh than He did the angels-but He may have.

On another note, we really do need to know if we SDAs are believing in any form of spiritualism, by believing that God and angels, etc., are some kind of phantom-like beings.

"Celestial bodies", according to the Sacred Scriptures ARE the Sun,planets & stars....

...See 1 Cor 15:41

1 Corinthians 15:41

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

"Celestial bodies" does not mean that Lucifer the archangel, Michael the archangel ( as SDA's call Christ ) or "God" ( as in The Father )...

...Had bodies of "flesh".

[teresaq]

I really don't know what you are referring to, nor what you think I am saying...

This also was in texts provided,

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

My main point was to show that Paul seemed to be using "flesh" and "body" interchangeably here.

Whatever God the Father's body is made of, Jesus was made in His form, image...

Philippians 2:6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Philippians 2:7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Hebrews 1:2,3Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, ...Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, ...

[Gustave]

I really don't know what you are referring to, nor what you think I am saying...

[Gustave]

Anyone know where I can find some information on 'spirit bodies'?

...Aside from the Mormons.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

I really don't know what you are referring to, nor what you think I am saying...

It appeared to me that you had offered apologetics in an attempt to demonstrate...

...That it was within the teaching of Sacred Scripture.

...That God might be 'FLESH'.

...And you used the Scripture about clestial bodies as proof.

If this is not the case than my apologies...

...What did you mean then?

Originally Posted By: teresaq

My main point was to show that Paul seemed to be using "flesh" and "body" interchangeably here.

Yes, I agree that he was using it interchangeably yet there is no support...

...That from this can be supported the premise that God the Father has 'FLESH'.

...That was my point.

Originally Posted By: teresaq

Whatever God the Father's body is made of, Jesus was made in His form, image...

Made in God's image and likeness has nothing at all to do with a body of flesh or a form...

...It had everything to do with discernment and understanding.

...This is Judaism 101.

You seem to continue to miss this text which was included with the others and focus only on the "celestial bodies" text which comes after,

This also was in texts provided,

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

If you are doing this deliberately, my brother, it means that you are not really interested in any seeing another's perspective. If that be true, and I hope it is not, then I will respectfully bow out.

[Gustave]

You seem to continue to miss this text which was included with the others and focus only on the "celestial bodies" text which comes after,

This also was in texts provided,

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

If you are doing this deliberately, my brother, it means that you are not really interested in any seeing another's perspective. If that be true, and I hope it is not, then I will respectfully bow out.

Where does Scripture imply that celestial bodies CAN include God?

...We know man, birds and beasts have different kinds of flesh.

...Where are you getting "spiritual flesh" out of this?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

You seem to continue to miss this text which was included with the others and focus only on the "celestial bodies" text which comes after,

This also was in texts provided,

39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

If you are doing this deliberately, my brother, it means that you are not really interested in any seeing another's perspective. If that be true, and I hope it is not, then I will respectfully bow out.

Where does Scripture imply that celestial bodies CAN include God?

[Gerr]

Ellen said FLESH and that is the terminus of any "spiritual body" argument...

...Unless there is "spirit flesh".

Note: prior to SIN Satan's "FLESH" was not hanging loosley....

...After SIN Satan's FLESH hung loosely.

This is getting to be very amusing to me. Let me ask you, do/did angels ever appear as humans to people? When they did so, are we to conclude then that when they ate human food they had real "flesh",and a digestive tract including a "rectum" too?

[Gustave]

You are the one focused on celestial bodies.

[Gustave]

This is getting to be very amusing to me. Let me ask you, do/did angels ever appear as humans to people? When they did so, are we to conclude then that when they ate human food they had real "flesh",and a digestive tract including a "rectum" too?

Jesus said a spirit does NOT have FLESH and bones; Luke 24: 37-39....

...And Hebrews 1:14 says angels are ministering SPIRITS.

...Angels appear as whatever God wants them to appear as.

...And if an angel appearing as a man or woman removed all it's cloths.

...Yes, I'm sure it would look to us as if it had a rectum.

Ellen White said Satan had "FLESH" prior to his ejection from heaven...

....She also described Michael the archangel in such a way that would lead someone to believe.

...That he also had FLESH prior to his coming to earth.

This is all boiling down to the Mormon belief that Father came down from heaven as "man"....

...And quickly 'courted' Mary as any man would court a woman - then bred Mary in the natural sense.

...It would not supprise me if THIS is where this will end up.

There is just too much alien theology here with "Christ's that can mutate" & fleshed Lucifer's, etc...

...Other than Ellen White claiming Lucifer had flesh and that Christ could mutate.

...Where in the Bible do you find justification for these teachings?

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq

You are the one focused on celestial bodies.

Go back and read your "own post" - the one where you suggested it was possible....

...That God, prior to the Incarnation, had flesh.

...That's what we are ( and have been ) talking about..

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: Gerry

This is getting to be very amusing to me. Let me ask you, do/did angels ever appear as humans to people? When they did so, are we to conclude then that when they ate human food they had real "flesh",and a digestive tract including a "rectum" too?

...

This is all boiling down to the Mormon belief that Father came down from heaven as "man"....

...And quickly 'courted' Mary as any man would court a woman - then bred Mary in the natural sense.

...It would not supprise me if THIS is where this will end up.

...

(smile) It hasn't in over 100 years, but "believe" on.

Interesting subject matter you have read on what we believe, and why we are "wrong". :)

[Gustave]

When you say "God" are you referring to Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or Jesus alone?

[Gustave]

Interesting subject matter you have read on what we believe, and why we are "wrong".

Ok, other than the things I've documented about SDA theology...

...That are at massive odds with the Creed ( mutation capable Christ & Christ had a body prior to Incarnation ).

...Why do you say that Adventists don't agree with the Nicene Creed?

[teresaq]

#443784

You are the one focused on celestial bodies.

[Gustave]

Soooo, are you saying all three were incarnated? You can see my confusion here, right?

"IN CHRIST" yes.

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

God the Father was NOT Incarnated NOR was God the Holy Spirit Incarnated...

...God the Son ( the Eternal Christ ) was 'sent'.

...Only God the Son was Incarnated.

There was NEVER a time throughout eternity that God the Father was not with God the Son...

...This, again, is Trinity 101.