The Adventist perspective on the Godhead (or Trinity)

[miz3]

Powerful stuff Gustave!

[miz3]

Israfel,

Gustave is correct that the Scriptures up to the point of the Jerusalem Council of Acts chapter 15 said nothing to change the requirement of "circumcision". In fact there was never any Scripture used in that Council to counter the "circumcision" requirement.

Then what changed so that requirement was set aside? Acts chapter 15 tells us plainly what tipped the balance. I quote here for your edification.

"The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

Acts 15:6-11.

Notice what changed. The issue was the fact that Peter's visit to Cornelius (a gentile) revealed that God confirmed the Gentile heart conversion by pouring out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles. No circumcision here! It was this event by God who changed His own command.

The command was changed by God not through Scripture but a clear unambiguous outpouring of God upon the Gentiles.

Once the Council saw the Truth of Peter's Testimony they had no choice but comply and they did. The Council used its Authority to carry out God's command. A command that circumcision was no longer a requirement to show that one belonged to God.

The Council did not change the rules merely upon their own authority but changed the rules upon the clear Authority of God which He demonstrated unambiguously for them to see.

The Council was superior to the word of the Prophets only because it obeyed the clear Testimony of God.

You see what the Bible can do if you read it carefully.

[Gustave]

Powerful stuff Gustave!

Thanks miz3,

It's just Catholicism 101...

...And I only posted approx 1/10th of the Scriptures.

...Which state Jerusalem / Israel is the greatest "whore" the world has ever known.

I think the biggest shock many SDA's have...

...Is when they realize many Catholics "know their Bible".

...Perhaps even better than they thought they knew it.

[miz3]

Israfel,

When I look at the context of Revelation chapter 11 it does indeed look like the "great city" which is symbolically called "Sodom and Gomorrah" is indeed JERUSALEM!

I don't see any wiggle room here!

[cheddar]

I agree with Gustave and Miz on this one.

Jerusalem is talked about in many OT, NT verses as playing a prominent role in last day events.

But these facts never go over well with Adventists who have let Ellen White and Uriah Smith do all their prophetic thinking for them.

[ClubV12]

cheddar, you wouldn't have a clue without Ellen White, your house would be built on sand. This is a fact that doesn't go over well for all the bible thumpers out there who have need of nothing or nobody but the bible and the bible alone.

[doug yowell]

Israfel,

Gustave is correct that the Scriptures up to the point of the Jerusalem Council of Acts chapter 15 said nothing to change the requirement of "circumcision". Notice what changed. The issue was the fact that Peter's visit to Cornelius (a gentile) revealed that God confirmed the Gentile heart conversion by pouring out the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles. No circumcision here! It was this event by God who changed His own command.

The command was changed by God not through Scripture but a clear unambiguous outpouring of God upon the Gentiles.

Once the Council saw the Truth of Peter's Testimony they had no choice but comply and they did. The Council used its Authority to carry out God's command. A command that circumcision was no longer a requirement to show that one belonged to God.

The Council did not change the rules merely upon their own authority but changed the rules upon the clear Authority of God which He demonstrated unambiguously for them to see.

The Council was superior to the word of the Prophets only because it obeyed the clear Testimony of God.

You see what the Bible can do if you read it carefully.

Your conclusion might be considered correct if you only read the few verses of Scripture that you quoted.Why did you leave out James' conclusion as to why the council should agree with Paul,Barnabas, and Peter's view of Scripture in verses 13-19? This statement proves that the justification of the Gentiles apart from circumcision was foretold in the Bible long before there was a question about it. Paul devotes chapter after chapter in his explanations of why the circumcision issue was clearly spelled out in the OT. None of his treatises mention the authority of the Jerusalem council as the reason why anyone should not need circumcision. Conclusion: the council merely acknowledged the authority of the OT validated by the testimony of God thru the ministries of those who brought salvation to the Gentiles.

[doug yowell]

Israfel,

The Council was superior to the word of the Prophets only because it obeyed the clear Testimony of God.

You see what the Bible can do if you read it carefully.

If this is an example of the clear Testimony of God then it should be clear to all that He keeps changing the rules as He goes along and His only way of communicating those changes seems to come thru those who He specially contacts who then act authoritatively on what their experience dictates. "..if they speak not according to this Word...","All Scripture is...profitable for doctrine,reproof,correction...","I Am the Lord God,I change not"...ad infinitum..., must no longer apply? It's good Roman Catholic theology but I ain't buying it.

[doug yowell]

I agree with Gustave and Miz on this one.

Jerusalem is talked about in many OT, NT verses as playing a prominent role in last day events.

But these facts never go over well with Adventists who have let Ellen White and Uriah Smith do all their prophetic thinking for them.

The good old Protestant eschatological interpretation of Israel and Jerusalem is the same one that all early SDA's subscribed to. If the inspired NT writers make the impressive case for a spiritual Israel and a spiritual Jerusalem then why would U.Smith and EGW be out of sync to also use it? Too much dispensational,too little covenant??

[Pastor_Chick]

I was looking online for someone besides "back-yard theologians" to give some input on this "Trinity theory." I am finding no scholars in the ranks of Islam or Judaism who can see a Trinity in the Old Testament.

Here is a sampling of just one site:

Dr Laurence Brown on the Trinity

Dr Laurence Brown does not believe the Trinity is in either the Old or New Testament

Rabbi Tovia Singer on the Trinity

To represent those who follow the Hebrew Bible (i.e. Jews) we can refer to Rabbi Tovia Singer who does not see any Trinity in the Old Testament.

Dr William Lane Craig on the Trinity

Dr Craig is a renowned Christian apologist and scholar, who upon reading the Old Testament, does not see any Trinity therein.

Professor Bart Ehrman on the Trinity

Professor Bart Ehrman mocks the manner at which some Christians promote the idea there is a trinity in the Old Testament. Ehrman does teach us the absence of the Trinity in the Bible has troubled Christian theologians for centuries. In fact, Ehrman teaches us there is no trinity in the ENTIRE Bible and the only reference to the trinity was the 1 John 5:7-8 forgery. Daniel B. Wallace writes:

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold [The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 by Daniel Wallace]

Conclusion

We could present more evidence against the claims of the Christian zealot (Keith Truth) but it would simply be a case of striking the carcass and I am beginning to worry that Keith will continue going against logic and scholarship regardless of the evidence against him.

The fact remains, the Trinity is not in the Old Testament according to honest scholarship and logical reading of the Old Testament.

Perhaps the real reason why we are seeing a glut of Christian fundamentalists absurdly claiming to possess “air tight” arguments for the Trinity being present in the Old Testament is due to the recognition of the confusion surrounding the Trinity:

For many Christians, the Trinity is an abstract principle, a confusing and difficult doctrine that they believe, although they are not really sure why in their most honest moments. [Loving the Trinity, James R White, Christian Research Center]

DISCLAIMER: I, personally (and normally), do not subscribe to the conclusions of "scholars" per se. However, IF the Trinity doctrine is to be clearly understood from a writing, one would think a scholar in the proper field of study could detect it.

[Gustave]

Your conclusion might be considered correct if you only read the few verses of Scripture that you quoted.Why did you leave out James' conclusion as to why the council should agree with Paul,Barnabas, and Peter's view of Scripture in verses 13-19? This statement proves that the justification of the Gentiles apart from circumcision was foretold in the Bible long before there was a question about it.

[doug yowell]

.

...Either way, a person educated in the Scriptures has ZERO business in teaching doctrines APART from Apostolic Authority.

...So says the Bible.

Ah yes, the foundation of Papal Authority. Start another thread on this subject,G, I don't think it's helpful to hijack this particular thread so I'm not going to go any farther on this here.But I've never heard an in depth argument that Biblically tried to explain this view so I'm looking forward to your opening this subject elsewhere.

[Gustave]

Ah yes, the foundation of Papal Authority. Start another thread on this subject,G, I don't think it's helpful to hijack this particular thread so I'm not going to go any farther on this here.But I've never heard an in depth argument that Biblically tried to explain this view so I'm looking forward to your opening this subject elsewhere

It wasn't a hijack at all - miz3 affirmed, in keeping with the Scriptures...

...That the Christians that came from Jerusalem who were subverting the Antioch Church...

...Had absolutely no authority to teach what they were teaching.

You said miz3 had it wrong and that the Apostles teaching was in Scripture all along...

...I demonstrated that your premise was patently false.

...By showing from the Scriptures WHO has the authority to interpret Scripture and who doesn't.

Don't worry - if you can't repudiate what I said here in this thread...

...You can take it to the bank you wouldn't be able to in another thread.

...But thank you for your input.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...] Start another thread on this subject,G, I don't think it's helpful to hijack this particular thread so I'm not going to go any farther on this here.[...]

Now, there's a breath of fresh air! I would call that the Spirit (and be on topic).

[Israfel]

Thank you Pastor Chick for these supportive references. Well appreciated.

[Israfel]

Gustave I have somewhat a pile of thing to answer you that are worth talking about. I have made note of some Hope not to have missed any for you write pretty often. I wish to answer you on every point and show you a thing or two.

I do not claim to be a vested scholar, I cannot boast of any merits of my own, save in the cross of Christ my savior

1)I think you responded to Jody about Arianism.

I do agree partly with her on Arianism, I do not consider myself Arian, and I do not think she is neither But I can only speak for my own, I am non-trinitarian and a firm beliver that the Spirit of our Father Yahweh, and of his Son, our Savior Yahshua, is the Spirit of both that they have promised and that they used on our behalf all through the old and new testament.

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty." 2Cor 3:17 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corin. 10:4

(IBW,imagine if the Spirit was a distinct person, why Christ had to become that Rock, He could have sent the HS)

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1Cor. 2:11

2)Circumcision as you say is not said in the bible that it was abolished because we DO NOT SEE IT from black and white, but so were the other ordinances that were all pointing out to the Redeemer such as the sacrificial ordinances, the[size:14pt]y were all nailed to the cross.

For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." Romans 2:24-29;

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Galatians 5:6;

"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances" Ephesians 2:14-16

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" Colossians 2:14

[Israfel]

Gustave can you please keep to the subject at hand, it is already getting a little complicated and I do not want my thread to get drawn further.

Thank you for understanding:)

[doug yowell]

[Don't worry - if you can't repudiate what I said here in this thread...

...You can take it to the bank you wouldn't be able to in another thread.

...But thank you for your input.

I say let's take it outside,G.

[Gustave]

Gustave I have somewhat a pile of thing to answer you that are worth talking about. I have made note of some Hope not to have missed any for you write pretty often. I wish to answer you on every point and show you a thing or two.

I do not claim to be a vested scholar, I cannot boast of any merits of my own, save in the cross of Christ my savior

1)I think you responded to Jody about Arianism.

I do agree partly with her on Arianism, I do not consider myself Arian, and I do not think she is neither But I can only speak for my own, I am non-trinitarian and a firm beliver that the Spirit of our Father Yahweh, and of his Son, our Savior Yahshua, is the Spirit of both that they have promised and that they used on our behalf all through the old and new testament.

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty." 2Cor 3:17 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corin. 10:4

(IBW,imagine if the Spirit was a distinct person, why Christ had to become that Rock, He could have sent the HS)

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." 1Cor. 2:11

2)Circumcision as you say is not said in the bible that it was abolished because we DO NOT SEE IT from black and white, but so were the other ordinances that were all pointing out to the Redeemer such as the sacrificial ordinances, the[size:14pt]y were all nailed to the cross.

For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." Romans 2:24-29;

For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Galatians 5:6;

"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us]

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances" Ephesians 2:14-16

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" Colossians 2:14

You are reflecting the faith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church....

...Within the time-hack of Ellen White's direct association with it.

...Ellen White believed as you do.

...I'm only saying according to the Scriptures you are holding onto heresy.

The point you're missing is that Romans, Galations, I Corinthians and Ephesians....

...DIDN'T exist at the time Acts 15 took place.

...So those texts can't be appealed to.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

You are reflecting the faith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church....

...Within the time-hack of Ellen White's direct association with it.

...Ellen White believed as you do.[...]

It seems "Is" believes similar to Creation 7th Day Adventists, according to your take on it.

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

[...]

You are reflecting the faith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church....

...Within the time-hack of Ellen White's direct association with it.

...Ellen White believed as you do.[...]

It seems "Is" believes similar to Creation 7th Day Adventists, according to your take on it.

It appears to be so.

[Pastor_Chick]

Gus,

This is a tad off topic, but I do have a question. First, you consider me a heretic, and I you. We are "even" on that score.

Why do you and I get along better than me and many of my "former brethren?" Just interested in your "scholarly" view on that. OR, in the alternative, you may open a thread on it.

[Gustave]

Gus,

This is a tad off topic, but I do have a question. First, you consider me a heretic, and I you. We are "even" on that score.

Why do you and I get along better than me and many of my "former brethren?" Just interested in your "scholarly" view on that. OR, in the alternative, you may open a thread on it.

Simply because you have the courage of your convictions and are right....

...In that Ellen White repudiated the Trinity which the official SDA Church now advocates.

...Allbeit a false heretical view of the Trinity.

[Israfel]

Gustave,

Are you so "drunk with the wine of Babylon" that you are using Scripture to nullify Scripture? I have difficulty with your reasoning.

"ALL Scripture is given by inspirition and is good for..." you know that Scripture right, I quoted it at the biginning of this thread.

Now if God be true and you are a scholar of the Holy Writ, let Him guide your thoughts and look at this:

God inspired Saint Luke to write the book of Acts where the Christian Church is springing forth; Later on, He chose Saint Paul, who wrote those books I referenced above, do you think that they must have contradicted each other, or they did not cross path with each other, or they must have received two different Holy Spirit and we know that this last assumption cannot be true.

Well, I say now, according the referenced Scripts that during or after Acts, the Church Authority (the Apostles) came to understand that Circumcision and the likes, were nailed to the cross.

[Israfel]

The Faith of Historic SDA's as well as mine is in the Bible in its entirety and we do not put our own twist on it! The Bible is not heretical, is it? So we cannot be. And the Holy Word does not have a trinity into it, now that is heresy! See and compare the two Manuscripts that Erasmus translated from, you know the story probably, the Greek had NO trinity but the forged Latin one had a trinity in it. And I do have an old bible with no trinity in, and I believe it is dated before the latest version of Erasmus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum