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

[John317]

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.

Gustave, I'm OK with your thinking that it is the doctrine of the Antichrist or that it is "simply heresy."

It may well be heresy according to the creeds. I don't know, since I haven't studied the creeds very closely at all.

But where does the Bible teach that it's the doctrine of the Antichrist to teach that Christ could have sinned?

Perhaps it can't be reconciled with your understanding of the Trinity, but who says your view of the Trinity is the right one? What's important to me is that it can be reconciled to the understanding of the Trinity as held by the SDA church. I've said many times before that the SDA view of the Trinity is different from the view held by the Roman Catholic Church. I don't see the problem in that. I'm not insisting that the Catholic Church understand the Trinity in the same way that SDAs understand it.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Gibs said:

You can't make three God's out of the one and only TRUE GOD.

He will eternally be but the one and only ONE there is.

From Moses' counsel Israel was to come out once a year and pronounce "The Lord our Gods are ONE". And that is as far as you can compress the Godhead, Gibs.

That commotion was designed to impress their minds that the members of the Godhead are in total agreement, unlike the gods of Egypt who schemed one against the other.

When man was created, God said, "Let us make man in Our Image" The plurality in this reference was not based on self aggrandizement. God is not vain.

And as EGW said it best, God signed His name throughout nature and the Universe.

To start with, The Universe is based on three distinct elements.

• Space, Mattergy and Time!

  Space, however, has three dimensions: X,Y,Z.

  Time has three parts: Past, Present and Future.

  Mattergy is a complex of three elements: Matter, Motion and Energy.

  Matter comes in three forms. Solid, Liquid and Gas.

  Conserved Energy is expressed in three forms as well. Potential Energy, Dynamic and Kinetic expressions.

  Motion comes in three forms too. Linear motion, Harmonic Motion and curvilinear acceleration.

  Also, Matter on the lowest layer, consists of two types, each of which has three quarks. Up, Down and Strange.

  Matter also is composed on a higher layer with Electrons, Protons and Neutrons

  Dynamic energy , however is able to express three forces: Gravity, EWM, Strong force

  The EWM force is a force which expresses three forms of enmeshment. Electrostatic force, the Week force and the Magnetic force.

  Gravity is three dimensional

  Strong force acts three dimensionally

  The EMW forces are each one dimensional, but there are three of them

  Light is composed from a pair of quarks, but there are three combinations of quark anti-quark which can produce the light photon.

And I can keep going like this ad infinitum. There are enough triplets to make anyone dizzy. Everything in this universe, when broken down to the elemental ingredients ends up with three basic elements equal in importance of role on their common layer. Take one away and the whole system collapses.

One of the finest minds ever born on this planet, Nikola Tesla, once advanced that if you make a discovery and you have not found the third foundational element, you have more studying awaiting you. He advises folks to keep researching.

God the Trinity signed their name in the very fabric of our existence, friends. Everything that is a system is based on three! Digital design logic is based on three fundamental gates. They are the And gate, the Or gate and the NOT gate. The highest data compression possible is one which is based on a trinary, not binary system.

Physics, logic and innumerable engagements or the deepest studies of man always end up with three elements. If they do not, then either the researcher was not too swift or he has not found the bottom layer of his project.

Creation speaks with a loud voice about God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. What more do you need to hear? This reality about physics is like a 12.0 earthquake. But one needs to be sensitized to recognize this stunning reality earth shattering reality.

And you do not have to be highly educated to figure this out. In a wholesome family there is the father the mother and the kids! See how that works? Take away any one of those three and that family cannot perpetuate.

To say that our Savior is not God is to wreck the magnitude of the sacrifice of the Savior. We would then have a God who delegates the harder tasks to others and His love for man could never be tested. We could never be sure of how much He really loves us.

But God came down and willingly suffered, taking a risk with His own life to show His love for the creature. That is the real love of God. To risk His own future to save man was the greatness of God's Gift to us.

And now we deny this reality for some imagined sophistry to make one appear to be a critical thinker! Critical thinker? I'm leaving it there... Time to blush critical thinker ...!

Dennis

[John317]

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

You're right, Doug. Trinitarians don't believe in "3 gods." We believe in Three Divine Persons who are One God.

[Gibs]

DK,

I don't have to do any compressing, as there is but one God, Yahweh the Father and He was in Christ Jesus. He was not another God. The Holy Spirit is primarily what God is, the Holy Spirit is not another God.

Jesus made it clear to Philip, that when he saw Him, Jesus he was seeing the Father.

The Father is not limited that He could not make of Himself our Redeemer and He did just that.

The Father was in Jesus Christ so He then could truthfully and rightly proclaim He is the first. There is only one first, it means before any other! Who alone is that one? Yahweh, the Father, the King of Israel.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

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.

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

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.

And if the Savior is unable to sin, then the sacrifice was not a risk! So the value of this sacrifice is not more than Saddam proclaiming that he is doing everything he can to bring peace to his country. I wonder if the Kurds would believe him?

If there is no risk or cost, then the achievement cannot have greatness. Even humans could and would gladly sacrifice their lives if they were certain that they will attain an even greater reality. Just look at the Arab who straps a bomb around his belly and sets it off in a bus! No risk, man! But wait until he wakes up in judgement!

How much more is the Savior's gift of value, realizing that He understood death and its eternal grip with a clarity unparalleled in our generations. The last words of His agony speak to us with great clarity as to what tortured His soul. And remember the words, "If it is possible Father let this thing pass from me..." He could not have sinned? Then what was the worry???

This is the great reality which we face, my friend. A God who is willing to take a risk for His creation. No greater love could be shown.

Dennis

[Gustave]

Gustave, I'm OK with your thinking that it is the doctrine of the Antichrist or that it is "simply heresy."

It may well be heresy according to the creeds. I don't know, since I haven't studied the creeds very closely at all.

[John317]

....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.

Yes, Gibs, there is only one God. You're also right that "there is no trinity of Gods."

SDAs believe in one God who is manifested in Three divine Persons. That is quite different from three Gods, or gods. As Ellen White says, the One God is "one in purpose, in mind, in character, but not in person." (8 T 269) In CH 222 and elsewhere, Ellen White defines eternal Godhead as consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

[Gustave]

And if the Savior is unable to sin, then the sacrifice was not a risk!

[John317]

But where does the Bible teach that it's the doctrine of the Antichrist to teach that Christ could have sinned?

Originally Posted By: Gustave

1 John 2,22

1 John 4,3

2nd John 1,7

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist"

I asked where the Bible says that the doctrine of the Antichrist teaches Christ could have sinned.

Those verses you referenced and quoted don't deny that Christ could have sinned.

2 John 1: 7 actually says that deceivers teach Christ did not come-- and is not continuing to come--- in the flesh. In other words, Satan wants people to believe Christ did not come as a real man.

Who teaches this today?

It applies to people who teach that Christ is not a real man and that when Jesus returns, He will come as an invisible spirit rather than as a glorified man.

[John317]

....Do you believe that a "good Mormon" is safe with their view of the Trinity...

...Given that they used a valid formula for baptism?

...I guess the question would be is Doctrine important - does it factor in salvation at all?

Gustave, I believe there will be Catholics saved, just as I believe there will be Mormons saved. I don't believe that it's essential to be exactly correct theolgically in order to be saved in God's kingdom. Christ never said that correct theology is necessary for salvation, and neither did any of the other Bible writers. If that was a qualification for enterance into God's kingdom, who would get there?

But does that mean doctrine is not important? No.

[Stan]

Hoe can finite mind understand an infinite God?

We may think we are all that and more, but we are like ants trying to explain to other ants how supercomputers function.

[Guest]

Quote:

But where does the Bible teach that it's the doctrine of the Antichrist to teach that Christ could have sinned?

If Jesus couldn't have sinned, then that means that the whole thing was nothing more than an acted out play. A performance, if you will. When Jesus got back to heaven, the angels probably all clapped and said: "Very good, you recited your lines perfectly"

Then if you really think about it, Satan would have had to have been in on it also. Can you imagine Satan trying so hard to tempt Jesus, if he knew that it was an impossibility for him to sin? That would be like mocking himself.

[phkrause]

Quote:

But where does the Bible teach that it's the doctrine of the Antichrist to teach that Christ could have sinned?

If Jesus couldn't have sinned, then that means that the whole thing was nothing more than an acted out play. A performance, if you will. When Jesus got back to heaven, the angels probably all clapped and said: "Very good, you recited your lines perfectly"

Then if you really think about it, Satan would have had to have been in on it also. Can you imagine Satan trying so hard to tempt Jesus, if he knew that it was an impossibility for him to sin? That would be like mocking himself.

[Dr. Waite]

quote:

Ellen White also states that Lucifer occupied the third position of honor in heaven before his fall. My question: Did the Holy Spirit occupy the fourth position?

I cannot find any evidence that the holy spirit occupied the 4th position. Can YOU?

[Dr. Waite]

quote:

“In fact, what He said was very specific: ANOTHER Comforter would come. The word "ANOTHER" is the opposite of the same, as you say it.”

Jesus referred to himself in the third person more than once in Scripture.

Another perspective is that Father of Jesus is the first comforter and Jesus is the "another comforter"

John 14:1 - "Let not your heart be troubled, ye believe in God, believe also in me."

Jesus was talking to Jews. Even today most Jews do not believe in Jesus, but they believe in God and by believing in God - that is their comforter. But, in addition to the first comforter, Jesus wanted them to believe in Him who is the "another comforter".

[Dr. Waite]

Yes, Jesus Christ is God. See Hebrews 1:8

However, Jesus is not God in the sense His Father is God.

Jesus as God has a God that he calls "my God"

See Matthew 27:46, John 20:17, Rev. 3:12

But, the Father of Jesus does NOT have a God that he calls "my God"

[Dr. Waite]

QUOTE:

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.

"Christ uttered no sentiments, notions, or opinions that were simply such. That which he spoke was the truth. He had come forth from the bosom of the Father, and was the revealer of the infinite mind. He spoke with the authority of the divine oracle. He uttered the words of eternal life, unfolded truths of the highest order. Then what comfort should come to the believer as he reads these words: "Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

{ST, October 1, 1896 par. 11}

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

What risk was there of "Christ" not being born of a Virgin, Dennis?

...What risk was there of Christ having every bone of His body broken, Dennis?

That's like saying "IF" Jesus didn't have the chance of sinking and drowning when He walked on water....

...Then Christ's walking on water was all a farce and mockery - it wasn't any big deal at all.

...That's exactly what you are saying.

If Jesus according to SDA theology is really "God" then the rubric could naturally be conintued...

...By claiming that when there was war in heaven - if Lucifer didn't have a chance to defeat God.

...Then the war in heaven was all a farce and mockery.

...Again, this simply demonstrates the Arian DNA buit into SDA theology from the ground up.

Before you reply, you need to understand what was said! Plain ranting does not imply that you have a point. But it may impress you!

And when someone like me says something like "risk", that does not mean that you can spread it like butter over everything that you choose to spread it, so you can mutilate the original idea. That is analogous to cheating.

What do you imagine, that if you don't make sense you can compensate by ranting? It must have worked before with some neophytes, Gustave. It's not going to work here.

Did I say anything about the Savior being born or sinking in the water? If physical risk is all you can think of you need to go back to 101.

And about every bone being broken, you must have watched Mel Gibbs' "Passion of Christ" and confused it with the real facts!

So, calm down, sit down and make an effort to understand what was said. It is probably that Catholics are taught that pain is what it takes to pay for sins, and you misunderstood things because of that.

But if you feel that way, you need to express it. To argue with critical points of your view being unsaid is very effective to confuse people and then take advantage of the situation to rant and seem like you said something.

You said nothing in your reply, Gustave. You just let off some steam which was misdirected to begin with.

So, make an effort to work with known ideas, which are on the table. And do not manufacture ideas that Dennis or others have not said to build your World Trade Towers. And when you start to make sense I will reply to you with the known arguments and points you have expressed.

Otherwise this is a NON-SEQUITER, so you have no basis for your rants!

Dennis

[Guest DennisKean]

---

[Guest DennisKean]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted By: John317

But where does the Bible teach that it's the doctrine of the Antichrist to teach that Christ could have sinned?

From Gustave:

1 John 2,22

1 John 4,3

2nd John 1,7

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist"

Christ EXISTED eternally prior to being manifested in our flesh...

...Scripture said "God Himself" would come & save us.

...Could God the Father sin & eternally cease to exist?

Gustave,

This rationalization is just that. Once again you manufacture meaning on your own as if meaning depended on you.

The Savior coming in the flesh is in fact support for the idea that the Savior could have sinned. You, however, try to use it the other way! How strange!

The Savior came in the flesh and he fasted 40 days. Have you ever fasted for a week? Man the temptation to gorge yourself is so present. It takes a strong will to hold back. So, strangely enough the devil waits patiently until 40 days of fasting and he approaches the Savior with some good ideas, when He is the weakest. Why would he do that if the Savior could not do anything wrong? Why would he waste his time?

Well, the Savior was victorious. And everyone credits the Savior for being victorious over the devil in that outcome. And it is recorded in Scripture that the Savior was tempted.

Dennis

[Nic Samojluk]

Gibs wrote:

“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.”

Can you explain why entire libraries were burned and old manuscripts destroyed?

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

Catholics needed two verses to build their Trinity dogma on, so they added 1 John 5:7 to Matthew 28:19. The evidence is rather strong against both of those texts. Even Ratzinger admitted that this strange Trinity dogma had its origin in Rome and not in Jerusalem.

Read what Revelation says about Rome, the mother of all harlots. If we hold on to the Trinity, tell me why do we need to reject Sunday worship, the priestly confesssion, the worship of images, and the baptism of babies? All those unbiblical beliefs came from Rome.

“If we can pick and choose from the Bible we certainly have put ourselves in a peck of trouble.”

Can you avoid picking and choosing when one verse in the Bible states that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and another one tells us that Pharaoh is the one who hardened his own heart?

Can you avoid picking and choosing when one verse in the Bible tells us to give the strong drink to the one of heavy heart and another text warns us about the dangers of wine?

Can you avoid picking and choosing when one verse in the Bible states “happy is the one who will dash your babies against the rocks” while another instructs us to love out enemies?

Can you avoid picking and choosing when one verse in the Bible states that God incited King David to number Israel while another affirms that it was Satan who prompted him to perform a military census?

“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.”

God is able to do many things which he does not do. Even Ellen White did admit that some changes were made to the original manuscripts.

This is why we have so many texts which testify that the practice of baptizing in the three names is not biblical. You can’t find a single text when the threefold baptismal formula was used. In every instance, baptism was done in the name of Jesus. Do you need more evidence?

[Nic Samojluk]

And if the Savior is unable to sin, then the sacrifice was not a risk! So the value of this sacrifice is not more than Saddam proclaiming that he is doing everything he can to bring peace to his country. I wonder if the Kurds would believe him?

If there is no risk or cost, then the achievement cannot have greatness. Even humans could and would gladly sacrifice their lives if they were certain that they will attain an even greater reality. Just look at the Arab who straps a bomb around his belly and sets it off in a bus! No risk, man! But wait until he wakes up in judgement!

How much more is the Savior's gift of value, realizing that He understood death and its eternal grip with a clarity unparalleled in our generations. The last words of His agony speak to us with great clarity as to what tortured His soul. And remember the words, "If it is possible Father let this thing pass from me..." He could not have sinned? Then what was the worry???

This is the great reality which we face, my friend. A God who is willing to take a risk for His creation. No greater love could be shown.

Dennis

Excellent!

[Gibs]

I run onto a lot of people who find God was not able to keep His Word to us as He wants it.

Then men presume to know better than God and change it.

Mt 5:17 ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I will stick to the best we have in English, the KJV it is head and shoulders over the rest. Just learn the old English and there is no problems.

Another beauty of it is, you can run the Hebrew and Greek with it and get all the original text.

It is foolish to put faith in men on this matter and on most any other matters today as there is very few trustworthy men left.

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.

[Gibs]

Yes Jesus is God for the simple reason the Father was in Him. He said so and so did the apostle.

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?

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God, that is the Father was in Christ. Who else is left?

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]

DennisKean wrote:

“When man was created, God said, "Let us make man in Our Image" The plurality in this reference was not based on self aggrandizement. God is not vain.”

Plurality? Yes! Trinity? No!

“To start with, The Universe is based on three distinct elements.”

God is not made of physical elements!