RE: Father, Son & Holy Ghost....3 gods.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“The same kind of question could be asked in regard to Acts 1: 2---

".... [Christ] was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."

If the Holy Spirit is Christ, this verse could read, "Christ was taken up, after he had given commands through Christ to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Did Christ give commands to the disciples through Jesus Christ?”

Read my previous posting! My answer is: Yes, he gave them the order through his invisible presence. Remember that in John 14 Jesus stated that he would not leave them orphans. He would come back to them—not visibly as before, but invisibly.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“Nic will also have a hard time explaining this one, as he teaches that the Holy Spirit is really just Jesus; yet, Christ Incarnate was "conceived" by The Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary. How could Jesus conceive Himself? The Holy Spirit has to be a separate Person in order to do this.”

How could he? Very easy! He divested himself of his divinity and his conception and miracles were performed by the power and presence of God the Father—not himself. Jesus was not the Son of the Holy Spirit, but rather the Son of God Almighty!

You are forgetting that God is “Holy” and that he is “Spirit.” And you need to remember that in the book of Psalms, as I pointed out in a previous posting, the Holy Spirit is equated with God’s Presence.

When God’s presence is visible, we find the “Angel of the Lord” phrase; but whenever said presence is invisible, the “Holy Spirit” is used in the Bible. Read the Bible again without the Trinity dogma in your mind.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Ellen White's writings are not "human opinions," Nic. However, we do need to test her writings by the Bible.”

Do you believe that she was infallible when she wrote that God does not love disobedient children?

Do you believe that she was right about the fall of the Ottoman empire?

Do you believe that she was truthful when she denied relying on the writings of other authors?

I hope you do not misinterpret what I am saying. I do have her books, and I believe that God used her in a powerful way to build her church. Nevertheless, I also believe when she stated that only God is infallible and that even the Bible contains certain texts which have been altered by some copyists when Bible manuscripts were few.

“Everything in Scripture is firmly established truth. The entire Bible is God-breathed.”

Do you believe that inspired means infallible and free from any minor discrepancies and a few minor mistakes?

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“Exactly; there are dozens and dozens of texts that show in a similar way, the fallacy of Nic's teachings here on the nature of Christ, and the third person of the Godhead, The Holy Spirit.”

I have already answered all these objections! Read my previous postings!

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“That is based on the assumption that Christ commanded his disciples to repeat the words "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But is that what Christ said? It isn't necessary to list each Person in the Godhead by name in order to preach and baptize in His authority. All Three have one Name, just as Matt. 28: 19 itself says.”

Do you mean that one allegedly fraudulent text inserted by Trinitarians overrules all the other texts where the baptismal formula is in Jesus name? The weight of evidence is against your theory!

“There's no reason to expect that the Holy Spirit must be mentioned in the book of Daniel any more than the Holy Spirit must be mentioned in any other book of the Bible. That is like saying that the Holy Spirit must not exist because He is not mentioned in John 1: 1. Some people make the same argument against the existence of Christ during creation because He is not mentioned by name in Genesis 1 and 2. It's childish thinking.”

When you consider all the cumulative biblical evidence I have submitted so far against the Catholic Trinitarian dogma, the weight of evidence seems overwhelming to me. You need to read all the argument I have presented so far.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“Eusebius and all of his "testimony" mean nothing in comparison to Holy Writ; I think you should also practice your advice to us and use only Scripture:”

I have been using Scripture to establish my belief. The information provided by Eusebius only confirms what I have found in Scripture. In this, I have followed the example set by Ellen White. She used the Bible, but also used what historians have written. Do not forget that her book “The Great Controversy” is full of quotations from historians.

“This whole business of the Holy Spirit really just being Jesus is extremely far-fetched. Nic is very wrong on what he is saying here. Of all the doctrines to pick on; this is likely the worst one he could have chosen to attack. There is just so much evidence to the contrary in Scripture; to deny it is not reality.”

The Trinity dogma has blinded your eyes to the point that you can’t see what I see in Scripture.

“Jesus said of Himself: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor, He hath sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

(Luke 4: 18,19).”

What Jesus said makes logical sense provided you remember that Jesus divested himself from divinity while on earth and relied entirely on the presence and power of his Father who is “Holy” and is “Spirit.”

“How then can the broken-hearted be healed without the Third Person of the Godhead; without The Holy Spirit, who sent Jesus to do this? Does the Bible say "Jesus sent Himself?"”

No, he was sent by his Father.

“How then can the Holy Spirit really just be Jesus? How is it possible that Jesus would send Himself?”

We have God Almighty and we have the Son of God. Both of them are “Holy” and both of them are “Spirit.” The term “Spirit” is used in the Bible to indicate that God’s presence and power is being manifested in an invisible manner. The Bible talks of God’s Spirit and also about the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

“Jesus, the "first Comforter" was to ascend to heaven; and the "second Comforter" ("another Comforter") has taken over this ministry, as Christ is currently in ministry, in the heavenly sanctuary. (Heb 7:25)”

Here is the mystery solved: Jesus had been living with his disciples in human and visible form. The other comforter was Jesus himself who would come back in an invisible manner. Did not Jesus say in John 14 that he would come back to them?

“The ministry of The Holy Spirit, when properly understood, shows Nic's teachings to be very unBiblical. "Comforter" may not really be the best translation for the word "paraklete;" in John 14. Paraclete is better translated as "advocate;" according to most scholars. paraklete can also mean things like representative; intercessor, pleader, consoler, etc. While paraklete is not an easy word to translate; it is worth noting that it is the exact same word as used of Christ with reference to His work before the Father, in heaven:”

You answered your own objection. The Paraclete is Jesus manifested after his departure in an invisible manner.

You quoted:

"My little children; these things write I unto you, that ye sin not; And if any person sin, we have an Advocate (paraklete) with the Father: JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS." (1 John 2:1)

Amen! Thank you for answering your own objection.

“And so there it is in Holy Writ. Christ is our Advocate with The Father; and The Holy Spirit is Christ's Advocate with us. As Christ pleads for us with the Father; so the Spirit pleads for Christ in our hearts.”

Both Advocates are one and the same.

“Given these and many more important Bible facts; how can it ever be so that The Holy Spirit is not the Third Person of the Godhead? The character and ministry of The Holy Spirit leads us directly into the facts from Scripture showing us the Spirit's personality. I will discuss His personality, from Scripture, in my next post.”

You don’t need to do this for my sake! I am the product of Adventist educational system.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave Wrote:

Acts 2,23

Him, being delivered by the DETERMINATE counsel and FOREKNOWLEDGE of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

The text you have cited does not negate what I had affirmed. I said that most Adventists believe in God’s absolute foreknowledge on the basis of the following biblical text I listed below, forgetting that all we can conclude from reading this biblical passage is that God has absolute power to do what he has purposed to do.

Said text cannot be used to affirm more than what the text says. It doesn’t establish God’s absolute knowledge of what a human being will do a thousand years from now, unless the Lord has designed for that to take place. I don’t think that God knows what flavor of ice cream somebody who has not been even born will choose on a certain future date.

9Remember the former things, those of long ago;

I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like me.

10I make known the end from the beginning,

from ancient times, what is still to come.

I say: My purpose will stand,

and I will do all that I please.

11From the east I summon a bird of prey;

from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.

What I have said, that will I bring about;

what I have planned, that will I do.

You further stated:

“I'm not sure how you are working it all out in your head....

...That I'm going beyond what the Bible says about this matter?

...As far as Scripture goes you are to the left of Mars on this one.”

Welcome to Mars! I hope you brought your bottle of water with you, since there is none here.

[Nic Samojluk]

The man Jesus of Nazareth could die, and therefore by definition, Jesus was not immortal. One of the main reasons the Word became flesh was in order to die. If He had come here in the form of God as He was in heaven, He couldn't have died for man's sins.

So the eternal Son of God, who lived in heaven prior to becoming a man, was immortal, since He was Deity. Deity, of course, cannot die.

The man Jesus was conditionally immortal just like Adam. Christ didn't receive His immortality and glorious new human body until His resurrection from the grave.

Excellent response!

[Gustave]

Originally Posted By: John317

The man Jesus of Nazareth could die, and therefore by definition, Jesus was not immortal. One of the main reasons the Word became flesh was in order to die. If He had come here in the form of God as He was in heaven, He couldn't have died for man's sins.

So the eternal Son of God, who lived in heaven prior to becoming a man, was immortal, since He was Deity. Deity, of course, cannot die.

The man Jesus was conditionally immortal just like Adam. Christ didn't receive His immortality and glorious new human body until His resurrection from the grave.

Excellent response!

Jesus was the only Person intended to die from the beginning...

...This is why He is called the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.

...Was Adam intended to die Nic / John?

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave wrote:

“Jesus was the only Person intended to die from the beginning...

...This is why He is called the Lamb slain from the foundations of the world.

...Was Adam intended to die Nic / John?”

I do not believe that God’s plan was for his Only Son to die. Read what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary about her baby. He was destined to be the King of the Jews and sit on David’s throne.

The Devil and humans are the ones responsible for the death of Jesus—not God! Had the Jewish nation accepted Jesus as their promised Messiah and rightful king, the history of God’s chosen nation would have been entirely different.

God usually presents to human being two opposite alternatives which are contingent on their response. Do not forget the mount of curses and blessings.

Adam did not possess an immortal nature like God. Adam’s immortality was subject to his obedience.

[Kevin H]

Nic, you need to study the Old Testament more, a good summery would be the chapter "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDABC. The great king was to be killed as part of the great eschalogical war, according to Zachariah he gets his wounds from his friends. Even if Jesus was accepted and sat on David's throne there would have been a relationship with other nations joining and rejecting and the war of those who rejected where the great king was to die, and later a false king sitting on the throne. With the issues of the great controversy; whether we were to expirence it (as we did) or if Lucifer and everyone else had taken the time to think about it and study it out and decided to stay faithful, the universe still needed the expirence of Jesus' death.

[Overaged]

I do not believe that God’s plan was for his Only Son to die.

The Devil and humans are the ones responsible for the death of Jesus—not God!

"For God so loved the world; that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON..." (John 3:16)

[Gustave]

I do not believe that God’s plan was for his Only Son to die.

[John317]

I do not believe that God’s plan was for his Only Son to die. Read what the Angel Gabriel said to Mary about her baby. He was destined to be the King of the Jews and sit on David’s throne.

The Devil and humans are the ones responsible for the death of Jesus—not God!

Nic, it's your word against many clear statements in the Bible.

Without Christ's resurrection, none of us would have a chance to be resurrected and saved in God's kingdom. But in order for Christ to be resurrected from the grave, He first had to go into the grave.

This is a good example of how all of us need to lay aside our views when our concludions and opinions contradict Inspiration. [Yes, you are right, though, that the Devil and humans are responsible for the death of Jesus. This is proved by such texts as Acts 3: 14, 15.]

Consider:

Genesis 3:15

"I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel."

Luke 24:46

[Jesus] said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead.." The NKJV reads, "and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer..." (Compare verse 44)

Acts 2:23

"this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."

Acts 3:14-15

"But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, [15] and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses."

1 Cor. 15:17-18

"[17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."

NOTE: Christ's death and resurrection were both necessary for the salvation of the human race. It couldn't happen without Christ's death. This doesn't mean humans and the Devil aren't responsible for Christ's death.

[John317]

X100

[John317]

John317 wrote:

“That is based on the assumption that Christ commanded his disciples to repeat the words "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." But is that what Christ said? It isn't necessary to list each Person in the Godhead by name in order to preach and baptize in His authority. All Three have one Name, just as Matt. 28: 19 itself says.”

Do you mean that one allegedly fraudulent text inserted by Trinitarians overrules all the other texts where the baptismal formula is in Jesus name? The weight of evidence is against your theory!

I don't have a theory, Nic. All I have is the Bible and all of the ancient Greek manuscripts as well as all of the ancient translations of Matthew, which contain the verse that you claim was fraudulently inserted by Trinitarians. It is your theory that you need to prove and it falls flat. The only reason you don't accept Matt. 28: 19 is that you don't like what it obviously teaches: that the Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three disinct divine Persons.

[John317]

John317 wrote:

The same kind of question could be asked in regard to Acts 1: 2---

".... [Christ] was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen."

If the Holy Spirit is Christ, this verse could read, "Christ was taken up, after he had given commands through Christ to the apostles whom He had chosen."

Did Christ give commands to the disciples through Jesus Christ?

.... Yes, he gave them the order through his invisible presence....

But Acts 1: 2 says that Christ gave them commands before He went back to heaven. So it wasn't through His "invisible presence" that He gave them the order. He gave them the order while He was still physically present with them.

[Gustave]

But Acts 1: 2 says that Christ gave them commands before He went back to heaven. So it wasn't through His "invisible presence" that He gave them the order. He gave them the order while He was still physically present with them.

Christ "continued" to issue commandments...

...After He was 'taken up'.

...Via His established Religious Authority.

Acts 1,1

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, AFTER THAT he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

[Kevin H]

The created beings had a nieve love of a child, God wanted it to grow into a mature love and to reach that depended on them looking into the questions about whether or not God is really God or just a higher evolved life form with a natural start, and if he is God can he be both just and merciful. Whether Lucifer and any of the rest of us ever sinned or not the death of Jesus was needed for the non-fallen beings to close their probation.

[Nic Samojluk]

Kevin H wrote:

“Nic, you need to study the Old Testament more, a good summery would be the chapter "The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy" in the SDABC.”

I have been studying the Bible from my childhood and I am the product of Adventist education from elementary school through college. I am familiar with the Adventist and the Christian view of the Plan of Salvation.

I am like the Bereans who after listening to Paul preach went home and decided to check his doctrine against the plain reading of Scripture. I have been discovering as a result of my diligent study of the Bible things almost no one sees.

I believe that there is plenty of evidence that history could have been very different from what took place on earth. Even Ellen White did write that, had God’s chosen nation been willing to accept Jesus as their promised Messiah and the rightful King of Israel, the city of Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital city of the entire world.

When Jesus wept over Jerusalem following his triumphal entry into the city, he lamented the fact that the Jewish leaders did not realize what pertained to their peace. I do not believe that Jesus was sent to die. He was sent to be their king. This was clearly stated by the angel Gabriel when he announced to Mary that she would become the mother of their future King.

The future is pregnant with possibilities both for individuals and for entire nations. This was clearly indicated prior to the Israelites entrance to the Promised Land. They were required to recite both blessings and curses. These promises and curses were contingent on their behavior. The same can be said about King Solomon. God’s promises to him were subject to his behavior.

This applies to the predictions concerning the Jewish Messiah and the future of God’s chosen nation. In the Bible we find both glorious descriptions of Israel’s future and the consequences attending their misbehavior.

The future is not set in concrete. Even in Isaiah 53 we find a contingency. Notice the word “if” in the following literal translations:

"Young's Literal Translation

And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper."

"Douay-Rheims Bible

And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand."

It is high time that we learn something from the story of Jonah the prophet!

“The great king was to be killed as part of the great eschalogical war, according to Zachariah he gets his wounds from his friends. Even if Jesus was accepted and sat on David's throne there would have been a relationship with other nations joining and rejecting and the war of those who rejected where the great king was to die, and later a false king sitting on the throne.”

Yes, and Nineveh was supposed to have been destroyed in forty days according to the sure word of the Lord. It didn’t happen! The forty days were over and Nineveh was still there undestroyed?

“With the issues of the great controversy; whether we were to experience it (as we did) or if Lucifer and everyone else had taken the time to think about it and study it out and decided to stay faithful, the universe still needed the experience of Jesus' death.”

Yes, this is what most Christians believe, but I don’t. I do believe that the promises of a glorious future could have been realized if they had decided to accept Jesus as their promised Messiah and their rightful King. This is why Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem. He could see that their future could have been different.

[Gustave]

The created beings had a nieve love of a child, God wanted it to grow into a mature love and to reach that depended on them looking into the questions about whether or not God is really God or just a higher evolved life form with a natural start, and if he is God can he be both just and merciful. Whether Lucifer and any of the rest of us ever sinned or not the death of Jesus was needed for the non-fallen beings to close their probation.

That is just about the most odd thing I've ever heard Kevin...

...Is this what SDA's believe ( are taught )?

...What you said sounds Mormonish with some Scientology thrown in as well.

"Non-fallen beings closing their probation"????

"Whether or not God is really God or just a jugher evolved life form with a natural start"????

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

I do not believe that God’s plan was for his Only Son to die.

The Devil and humans are the ones responsible for the death of Jesus—not God!

"For God so loved the world; that HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON..." (John 3:16)

How do you interpret the angel's prediction that Mary's Son would sit on David's throne. Even Ellen White commented that if the Jewish nation had accepted Jesus as their King, Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the entire world.

[phkrause]

How do you interpret the angel's prediction that Mary's Son would sit on David's throne. Even Ellen White commented that if the Jewish nation had accepted Jesus as their King, Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the entire world.

Jerusalem will still be the capitol of the world made new! And guess who will be on the throne? Being that Jesus was rejected, does not negate the fact that he was from the line of David and in that respect would've been sitting on David's throne.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

I do not believe that God’s plan was for his Only Son to die.

The Devil and humans are the ones responsible for the death of Jesus—not God!

PLAN OF REDEMPTION INVOLVES ONLY TWO:

Zechariah 6:13 "Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."

HOWEVER, ELLEN WHITE SAYS THAT THE PLAN OF REDEMPTION INVOLVES THREE:

"The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. Here is love--the contemplation of which should fill the soul with inexpressible gratitude! Oh, what love, what matchless love! The contemplation of this love will cleanse the soul from all selfishness. It will lead the disciple to deny self, take up the cross, and follow the Redeemer." {CH 222.2}

Is what Ellen White states above in violation for Revelation 22:18?

Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"

[Gustave]

PLAN OF REDEMPTION INVOLVES ONLY TWO:

Zechariah 6:13 "Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."