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

[John317]

Question: In what sense did God the Father give His one and only Son? Does "giving His only Son" mean that the eternal Son of God was forever lost in some way to the Father?

I think the answer is found at least partly in Phil. 2: 6-9 and John 1: 12,13:

Philip. 2:6-9

[Christ] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, [8] he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. [9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

John 1:12-13

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, [13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

[John317]

One of the problems in discussing this subject is that people frequently don't distinguish between the verses dealing with Jesus Christ the man and those dealing with pre-incarnate Christ. Jesus the man was totally dependent on the Father, and God the Father was literally his Daddy. On the other hand, the pre-incarnate Christ was not dependent on the Father for His existence, and He wasn't literally a son.

[Gibs]

God the Father isn't limited as we are. Being primarily Spirit it was within His ability to extend himself in the person Isa. 44:6 gives the Name "Yahweh Of Hosts". Yahweh of Hosts then did the creation to make things visible that were before invisible and he also is the creator of all the hosts, hence His name. Then at Bethlehem He was incarnated into the Body Prepared for him. God now was with us in Him.

Then we remember He told Philip,"you've seen me you've seen the Father", yes really.

b 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Then Mary was instructed to call Him Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us. That extended part of the Father that did all creation and so dwelt in that body prepared.

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Believe it Jesus said it too,

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gustave]

I know that the prophecies are conditional to how people respond.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

I know that the prophecies are conditional to how people respond.

The Prophecy of God coming to save His people was never conditional...

...It was 100% a work of "God" so unless you are claiming God is not God.

...There was zero chance of God not coming and saving us.

...It was NEVER a matter of "IF" - it was only a matter of "WHEN".

Yes, of course. SDAs don't believe any differently than you do on this point.

Where we differ is on the matter of the actuality of the tempetations of Christ and the reality of the risk in God's coming here to live and die as a human being.

[John317]

.... we remember He told Philip,"you've seen me you've seen the Father", yes really.

Here's the reason that Jesus could say this:

Hebrews 1:3

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, ...

Christ was and is of the very same esssence or nature as God the Father. Christ is not the Father really. They are two distinct Persons, yet they are one in purpose, in mind, and in character. See 8 T 269.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gustave wrote:

“What you are saying tells me you have not been placing the Scriptures over Ellen White....

...This is easy to see Nic.

...Here:”

And what this tells me is that you are ignoring the texts which do not support the traditional Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus.

“Matthew 16,21

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he MUST go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, AND be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Matthew 20,18

Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man SHALL BE betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, AND they shall condemn him to death

John 18,4

Jesus therefore, KNOWING all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

John 18,11

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father HATH given me, shall I not drink it?”

The clue here is the ”From that time forth” phrase. Tell me: Why did Jesus wait until chapter 16 to make this prediction? What follows is the Mount of Transfiguration and the final events which led to his death. At this point Jesus could see that the Jewish leaders had crossed the point of no return. They were determined to get rid of Jesus, and he realized that his chances of sitting on David’s throne had been destroyed.

“John 18,37

Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, AND for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice”

I am glad you included this text. If Jesus was born exclusively to die on a cross, why did he not say this to Pilate the way he stated it to his disciples? Why did he acknowledge that he was born to be a king? This passage plus what the Angel Gabriel told Mary the mother of Jesus suggests that Jesus was ready to sit on David’s throne or—in the event he was rejected by his own people—to die if necessary.

“1 John 3,8

For THIS PURPOSE the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Eph 3,10

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the ETERNAL PURPOSE which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord”

God was in control EVERY step of the way Nic....

...Just like He eternally is and has been in control.

...You must give up this anti-Trinitarian rubric.

...Of claiming Jesus could have sinned and lost His salvation.

...And that He might not have died for us.”

Are you perhaps confusing me with some other blogger? Did I ever say anything about Jesus’s chance of sinning? I don’t think I did! Nevertheless, I suspect that the risk was real for Jesus as a man. If there was no risk, the Devil would not have tried so hard to make him fall. The Devil is not stupid. He calculated that if he had been successful with Adam and Eve, he had a similar chance with Jesus.

“The Father "PURPOSED" Christ would save us.”

Yes, he was determined to save repentant sinners, and if the Jews had repented of their sins, he would have saved them both from their sins and from their enemies the way Samuel did and many others. Jerusalem would have remained intact.

Didn’t Jesus lament following his triumphal entry into Jerusalem saying ”If only you had known what pertains to your peace”? Why did he say this? Isn’t it because there was a chance that he might have been accepted by his people as their promised Messiah and King?

“These are pleading arguments based on the error of believing God, not knowing what would happen...”

My suspicion is that God probably knew—knowing the character of the Devil and how sinful humans are—that the rejection of Jesus was the most likely outcome. Nevertheless, we need to remember the lesson we have in the story of Jonah the prophet.

The Lord predicted that the city of Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. His prediction failed, and Jonah was very unhappy, but God was overjoyed because and entire city was spared.

From this story, which you prefer to ignore, we can safely deduce that, had the Jewish nation repented and accepted Jesus as their rightful King, God would have had a ball in heaven.

Jesus stated that all heaven rejoices over one sinner who repents. Imagine the joy over an entire nation repenting from evil.

“...And based on the error of thinking God formulated a plan SUBSEQUENT to sin entering the world.”

Did I ever say that the Plan of Salvation was an afterthought? God knew in advance what he would do either way: if the Jews decided to accept his as the Messiah, and also in the event they decided to reject him. God had every potential outcome in mind. Nothing surprised him and nothing could find him unprepared.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Actually, if you understand Matt. 28: 19 correctly, you will see that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ is the same as baptizing in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All Three divine Persons have a single Name, or authority. It isn't necessary to repeat the names of all Three divine Persons in order to be citing their authority.”

If Jesus gave them the right pabtismal formula, and if your reasoning is correct, I believe that we would find at least one example of his followers using said threefold name for baptism. We find not a single one. Besides, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the practice of baptizing in all these three name started about the time the Trinitarian dogma was accepted by the church.

If we accept the Catholic Trinity dogma, perhaps we should be consistent and also accept the worship of images, infant baptism, the priestly confession, and Sunday worship.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Then you have this statement by Jesus,

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Question here now is, how many firsts can we have? Answer, JUST ONE!

That is your proof it is the Father that is in Christ rconciling the world unto Himself.

Gibs,

When the savior was resurrected he spoke to the disciples and said:

Quote:

• 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

  19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The reason the Savior deferred to His Father was not because He was not a member of the Godhead. It was because He gave up power in order to solve the issue of sin by the Spirit of God, not by power.

Quote:

Zec_4:6 Then he answered and spake unto me, saying, This is the word of the LORD unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the LORD of hosts.

If the Father is God only, how could ALL POWER in earth and heaven be given to the Son? It makes no sense. Power was restored to the Son of God. And the Savior is God because He is the only begotten son of the Father. If He was not a member of the family of God, then He would be nothing more than what we are. For we all are the sons of God! But He is referred to as "THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD"

And most importantly, if the Savior was not God. then God would not have saved man. It would have been a man who saved us!!! It might as well have been Gabriel. But such an act, though grand for Gabriel would be meaningless to bring salvation of man. The Sacrifice of the Savior was a sacrifice of God the very Almighty God. Lucifer was known to be a murderer from the beginning. But the infamy of his character was that he did not hesitate to kill his own God to advance his cause.

To preach that the Savior is not God is to discredit the plan of Salvation, my friend. It is to insult God from the highest honor He has shown toward His creation. God came to die in order to save man. You do not realize what you are saying, dear friend. This is one of the harshest position one could take to slander God and His marvelous character of love.

Finally, here is the clearest reason to recognize the Savior as God! The Bible says that He is God!

Quote:

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Savior has a Father and our direct Father outside of the GrandFather God (whom we call Father) is the Savior. He is our immediate Father because He created us!!! The Bible is a precision instrument when you read it carefully. The only limitation is the Hebrew language. Grandfathers were referred to as Fathers.

Dennis Kean

Dennis,

You look rather young, but you are very smart.

[Nic Samojluk]

I am totally persuaded that Jesus, the Son of God is 100% equal with His Father, and fully God, despite the fact that the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy leave no room for a role play--that is, that despite Christ being fully God and from eternity, is truly His Son. Not a pretended Son. That is a mystery we may never figure out till we get to heaven, but we accept it by faith. That God is truly the Father of Christ, and Christ is truly the Son of God, as inspiration says.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." (Phil. 2:5,6)

"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18)

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name." (Phil. 2:18)

Inspiration sheds more light on this:

• God IS the Father of Christ; Christ IS the Son of God. To Christ has been given an exalted position. He has been made equal with the Father. All the counsels of God are opened to His Son. {8T 268.3}

Very well stated!

[Nic Samojluk]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

I am totally persuaded that Jesus, the Son of God is 100% equal with His Father, and fully God, despite the fact that the Scriptures and the Spirit of Prophecy leave no room for a role play--that is, that despite Christ being fully God and from eternity, is truly His Son. Not a pretended Son.

Is Christ a "pretend Son" if He isn't a Son like humans are sons of their fathers?

What does the Bible mean when it says Christ is "the Son of God"?

To find the answer, we have to study the way the Bible uses the term, "son of". What we find when we do that is that "the son of" EQUALS "of the order of." For instance, the sons of the prophets weren't literal sons of a prophet but they were of the order of the prophets. Simiarly, the sons of the singers weren't the sons of a singer but were of the order of the singers. So the pre-incarnate Christ was "THE Son of God" not because He came out of God's being in some way but because He was of the same essence or nature as God the Father. Christ is the perfect image of God's Person. That's what Hebrews 1: 3 is saying.

Consider this statement:

Quote:

Christ brought men and women power to overcome. He came to this world in human form, to live a man amongst men. He assumed the liabilities of human nature, to be proved and tried. In His humanity He was a partaker of the divine nature. In His incarnation He gained in a new sense the title of the Son of God. Said the angel to Mary, "The power of the Highest shall overshadow

227

thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). While the Son of a human being, He became the Son of God in a new sense. Thus He stood in our world--the Son of God, yet allied by birth to the human race. {1SM 226.2}

When Christ was born on earth, Christ became the Son of God in a new sense. At that point He became the literal Son of the Father. He wasn't the literal Son of the Father before His birth on this earth. The mistake many people make is that they think that unless the pre-incarnate Christ derived His existence from the Father, then He wasn't truly the Son of God.

Being truly the Son of God prior to coming to this earth as the Messiah is not synonymous with being the literal Son of God in the sense of coming out of the Father in some way.

We have to consider all of the Bible and all of the Spirit of Prophecy on this topic. Ellen White says plainly that Christ is "self-existent." "Self-existent" means not depending on anyone or anything else for one's existence. She also makes plain that Christ's life originates with Himself alone. DA 530.

Jesus Christ the man had a beginning, and was the literal Son of God, but the pre-incarnate Christ, the eternal Son of God, had no beginning and was not a son in the exact same sense in which humans are sons.

Excellant response!

[phkrause]

No I'm not suggesting anything!

[Kevin H]

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

I know that the prophecies are conditional to how people respond.

The Prophecy of God coming to save His people was never conditional...

...It was 100% a work of "God" so unless you are claiming God is not God.

...There was zero chance of God not coming and saving us.

...It was NEVER a matter of "IF" - it was only a matter of "WHEN".

I was trying to work with the argument that was being presented and to try to show respect where the one writer was coming from and to build on what he was saying.

Originally Posted By: Gustave

Originally Posted By: Kevin H

However in the Bible and Mrs. White the condition for Jesus to die is having created, non-infinite beings who would need it as an aspect of their growth so that they would be able to trust God for all eternity and maintain that righteousness by faith relationship that is needed to live.

What did you just say???

...Perhaps if you think about it a bit you may want to word that different than you did.

How would you re-phrase it? What do you think I'm saying that upsets you about it?

[Gustave]

I was trying to work with the argument that was being presented and to try to show respect where the one writer was coming from and to build on what he was saying.

[Kevin H]

I am not sure what heretical teaching of the SDA pioneers and Ellen White you are talking about? You have lost me but also peeked my interest and I'd really like to see what you mean please!

[doug yowell]

I still think the OP title is misleading...3 gods?? Seems like the discussion would go down the nature of God road.

[Gibs]

Once it is realized that it is the Father that is in Christ your dilemma of understanding this matter is over. Jesus said so Himself.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

This is why Jesus could rightly say,

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

He in no way could say that if the Father wasn't in Him.

Then He tells us God is Spirit,

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The Word in the KJV is 5'th grade level, not hard to see the meaning.

One God and none other. The Father merely comes to us through His Son whom He is in and by His Spirit and by His own name.

So this verse is correct,

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gibs cited the following text:

“1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

We cannot use this text in support of the Trinity dogma. Notice the following observation found in the margin of the NIV:

“not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century”

If this is not found in any Greek manuscript older than the 14th century, I conclude that Trinitarians are responsible for this insertion into the text. My suspicion is that the same is true about Matthew 28:19. Of course, I cannot prove this, but the testimony of Eusebius seems to be credible. He affirmed that this was the case, and he did have access to the older manuscripts.Let me cite the following in support of this theory:

According to the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius among his many other writings compiled a collection of the corrupted texts of the Holy Scriptures, and "the most serious of all the falsifications denounce by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19."

According to F.C. Conybeare, "Eusebius cites this text again and again in his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ...in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew xxviii. 19, and always in the following form: "

"Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you."

I have collected all these passages except one which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. And Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words "in my name." Thus in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136):

In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare writes: "It is clear, therefore, that the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

For additional valuable information, click on the following links:

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html

http://7thday.web.officelive.com/matthew_28_19.aspx

[Nic Samojluk]

Here is additional evidence:

"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts." --- Introduction to Christianity By Joseph Ratzinger. page 82-83. THE 1968 EDITION.

[Gibs]

From my understanding Nic, Erasmus was not going to put that verse in unless he was shown it was in the old and trusted manuscripts and he was brought the proof he needed and we have it so today.

It jibs up with the "building" so I cannot see but what it is a very true verse.

It don't suit trinitarians but I am not one of those as the evidence is overwhelming there is no trinity of Gods. Scripture stands for only one God.

Trinity of Gods is an invention of men a few hundred yrs. down the road of time when the Apostolic church got into apostasy.

If we can pick and choose from the Bible we certainly have put ourselves in a peck of trouble. God will not hold us responsible for what is in His Word and we know He is well able to keep it pure and I don't question that for a moment.

[Kevin H]

The evidence for the trinity being developed a few centuries down the road is starting to have a problem. This is information that is only starteding to be known (takes about 30 to 50 years for knowlege to trickel from the scholars to the laiety and into commentaries and books. This is right now in the lecture stage and possibility the journal stage)

However, one of my professors, a Methodist archaeologist, Dr. Jim Fleming was a professor at Hebrew University in Israel. One of his co-workers, and sadly I have not heard Dr. Fleming give the other professor's name to help in our research, is an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, who Dr. Fleming says is the world's leading scholar on second temple Judaism. And Fleming said that this other professor is saying that the trinity was actually developed by the Rabbis of the second temple to expalin things that a Jew and other eastern thinkers would see in the pages of the Bible, but that the Greeks and Western thinkers were not seeing and as the Jews were dealing with Greeks and Romans and the western world they came up with the doctrine of the trinity to explain in western thought what the Bible was teaching that eastern thinkers were catching but western thinkers were not seeing.

[phkrause]

I for one have no problem believing in God the Father, God the Son/Jesus Christ, God the Holy Spirit. Is it a sin to believe in a trinity? Is it going to send us to hell or eternal death? Is it going to change our salvation somehow? Or are we afraid of this? Will this change your view of what you believe? Does it change the truth as you see it? Does it now release you of the Ten Commandments? Does it release us to sin as much as we can because we've been deceived by whoever????? Again I have no problem with excepting in the trinity, hasn't hurt me any. If those that have a problem with the trinity fine, just don't believe in it! Plain and simple.

[Guest DennisKean]

Nic,

I may look young because I took care of my body, being a vegetarian my whole life, but I am an old carcass my friend! I have argued this silly argument since I was a young man. This time, thought, I was trying to find that ultimate argument to put a stop to this silly distraction.

When people argue this dead argument it helps to let everyone know that you are biting your own foot voluntarily. I really can't see why anyone would attempt to take this silly position. It is like painting a red letter A on your chest and screaming out loud "I'm not that swift!" I am amazed that it still persists...

Thank you for the kind words.

Dennis

[Gustave]

Promulgating that Christ could have sinned, lost His Salvation & Eternally ceased to exist...

...Is absolutely the doctrine of Antichrist, it's simply heresy.

...Because this teaching CAN'T be reconciled with the Doctrine of the Trinity.

...Anyone who affirms said teaching, by default, is NOT a Trinitarian.

God the Son was "slain" before the world was even created according to the Scriptures...

...Because God, in the Person of the Eternal Word manifested in our flesh.

...It REALLY was "God" that came to "save us".

...Not some hybridized demi-god which could have screwed up & eternally ceased to exist.

I doubt there is one SDA on this forum that would maintain "The Christ"...

..."Might have" been born of a woman who had been bred by a Jew ( in the normal way ).

...Everyone here would say if Jesus would have come via NATURAL means.

...It would have simply meant that Jesus wouldn't have been the Christ.

...So to if Christ had never healed a lame person, been called out of Egypt, etc.

Now, we get to the Arian theology of Christ being able to sin and loose His salvation...

...And the SDA looks toward heaven & maintains Christ could have sinned.

...And had He sinned the real, the ONLY wise God - would annihilated this creature christ.

[John317]

John317 wrote:

“Actually, if you understand Matt. 28: 19 correctly, you will see that baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ is the same as baptizing in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All Three divine Persons have a single Name, or authority. It isn't necessary to repeat the names of all Three divine Persons in order to be citing their authority.”

If Jesus gave them the right pabtismal formula,....

Where does Jesus say He was giving a "baptismal forumula"? Where does He say that when pastors baptize believers, they must repeat certain words?

When Peter said, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!" was he implying that God the Father and the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with Peter's command? (See Acts 3: 6)

Acts 2:33 says,

"[Christ Jesus]being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he [Christ] has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing."

The power that brought healing to the man in Acts 3: 6 was the power of all three divine Persons of the Godhead. But notice that this doesn't mean Peter must repeat a formula, or say particular words.