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

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“Do you not have any Faith that God would keep the integrity of the Scriptures? That doesn't mean that there haven't been those that have tried to change the Scriptures. Throughout history many have tried destroying the Bible. Its still here by the way.”

Yes, I do. Nevertheless I also believe that Ellen White was right when she stated the following:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

God could have prevented this, but he did not! God could have protected Jesus from harm, but he did not! The Lord could have protected my young daughter from dying in a car accident, but he did not! God could have protected my son from the massive stroke a year ago, but he did not!

There are many events God could have prevented, but he didn’t! He could have protected Job and his family from all the harm he was the victim of, but he did not! The argument that God could have done this or that proves nothing.

[phkrause]

pkrause wrote:

“Do you not have any Faith that God would keep the integrity of the Scriptures? That doesn't mean that there haven't been those that have tried to change the Scriptures. Throughout history many have tried destroying the Bible. Its still here by the way.”

Yes, I do. Nevertheless I also believe that Ellen White was right when she stated the following:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

God could have prevented this, but he did not! God could have protected Jesus from harm, but he did not! The Lord could have protected my young daughter from dying in a car accident, but he did not! God could have protected my son from the massive stroke a year ago, but he did not!

There are many events God could have prevented, but he didn’t! He could have protected Job and his family from all the harm he was the victim of, but he did not! The argument that God could have done this or that proves nothing.

I agree, he could've prevented my father from having a heart attack and dying, but he didn't. Death to God is but a sleep has nothing to do with his word the Bible. He's not gonna allow his word to be preverted, sorry that I don't buy it.

[doug yowell]

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

Do you trust EGW's understanding of Biblical accuracy but not her understanding of Biblical truth?

[Overaged]

There is no mystery here! Jesus would no longer live with them. He would be physically absent, but spiritually living in them. The Counselor would be Jesus in spiritual form.

Nic; you are reinventing one of the greatest doctrines of Christianity - that of The Person of The Holy Spirit. What you are saying here is starting to sound like The Watchtower, Bible & Tract Society.

Where does the Bible verbatim refer to Jesus "in spiritual form" taking the place & position of the Person of The Holy Spirit?

An even more important point to consider is the following question: "Where is Jesus now?"

(see Heb 7:25, for starters).

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

Do you trust EGW's understanding of Biblical accuracy but not her understanding of Biblical truth?

Excellent point doug, I was thinking that too.

[John317]

True! Nevertheless you must have read what Ellen White said about this: When manuscripts of the Bible were few, some copyists attempted to clarify sone biblical texts and introduced errors into Scripture [my paraphrase].

As long as you are quoting Ellen White on this matter, you might as well quote her statements in which she said that we can totally trust the Bible just as it reads. She never suggested that the Bible is not completely trustworthy. As I said before, God did allow some things to be added which were not a part of the original, but He didn't allow false doctrines to be added.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

There were no printing presses nor computers then, and copying was made by hand. There were few libraries and history tells us that there was a concerted effort to destroy all the older documents. Have you ever wondered why older manuscripts go back only so far? They were destroyed and entire libraries were burned.

It also makes sense that the earliest manuscripts, particularly the ones considered the best manuscripts, would see more use and therefore would be more likely to be worn out.

But yes, there were many who tried to destroy God's word, but the same God who inspired the New Testament to be written protected it just as He protected the Old Testament.

There is far more and far better manuscript evidence for the Bible than for any other ancient piece of writing. Most of the great, ancient books are based on only a few, fairly late manuscripts, whereas the Bible is supported by many hundreds of manuscripts, some of which date to within a century of the original composition.

[John317]

John317 wrote:

Dr.Waite, Ellen White sang praises to the Holy Spirit, and she also said that when she prayed, she included the Holy Spirit.

I thought that your mission was to prove the Trinity doctrine from the Bible!Not Ellen White!

The Trinity can only be shown from the Bible. But we also need to have a clear understanding of what Ellen White believed and taught. I noticed that when it is beneficial to your viewpoint, you have no objection to quoting Ellen G. White.

[John317]

... Nevertheless you must have read what Ellen White said about this: When manuscripts of the Bible were few, some copyists attempted to clarify sone biblical texts and introduced errors into Scripture [my paraphrase].

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

Nic, you said that Ellen White wrote that errors were introduced into the Scriptures, but that is not what she said. She said some people had changed words and had mystified that which was plain. That's not the same thing as introducing doctrinal errors. Some relatively insignificant words were changed or added, but by comparing all the manuscripts, we can almost always determine which words were in the original. For instance, many manuscripts of Jude 5 have "Lord," others have "Jesus," and at least one has "God." The truth is that all of those readings are correct. It was indeed our great God, the Lord Jesus Christ, who led the children out of Egypt. The oldest manuscript evidence of Jude 5 attests to the reading of "Jesus." (Compare the KJV and UBS 4th edition at 1 Cor. 10: 9.)

[John317]

...God[is] not gonna allow his word to be preverted, sorry that I don't buy it.

You're right, pk. Allowing some people to make some insignificant changes in words or even adding a few verses, is not the same as allowing perversions into the Bible. The Old Testament contains instances where words which were originally in the margin eventually worked their way into the main text, and this sometimes also happened in the New Testament. I believe 1 John 5: 7 is a good example of this, as is John 5: 4. But those verses and others like them don't lead us to believe false doctrine.

[John317]

This verse clearly describes the identity of the Holy Spirit: It is the Power of the Most High.

If we say that the Holy Spirit is the power of God, then Luke 4: 15 makes no sense, because we would then need to read the verse as follows:

"And Jesus returned in the power of the power of God to Galilee,..."

And Acts 10: 38 would then read, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the power of God and with power..."

What we can say is that the Holy Spirit is used by God the Father to accomplish His will. We could summarize the Bible's teaching concerning the Trinity in the following way:

The Father wills.

The Son carries out the will of the Father by coming to this earth and representing the Father and dying for lost humanity.

The omniscient Holy Spirit, as the personal representative of Christ, applies the work of Jesus Christ to our individual lives, drawing us to Christ and sanctifying us.

(Only a divine Person can be the personal representative of another divine Person, Jesus Christ.)

[John317]

Nic, do you believe Ellen White was also right when she stated the following concerning the Holy Spirit:

Quote:

The promise of the Holy Spirit is not limited to any age or to any race. Christ declared that the divine influence of His Spirit was to be with His followers unto the end. From the Day of Pentecost to the present time, the Comforter has been sent to all who have yielded themselves fully to the Lord and to His service. To all who have accepted Christ as a personal Saviour, the Holy Spirit has come as a counselor, sanctifier, guide, and witness. The more closely believers have walked with God, the more clearly and powerfully have they testified of their Redeemer's love and of His saving grace. The men and women who through the long centuries of persecution and trial enjoyed a large measure of the presence of the Spirit in their lives, have stood as signs and wonders in the world. Before angels and men they have revealed the transforming power of redeeming love. {AA 49.2}

Those who at Pentecost were endued with power from on high, were not thereby freed from further temptation and trial. As they witnessed for truth and righteousness they were repeatedly assailed by the enemy of all truth, who sought to rob them of their Christian experience. They were compelled to strive with all their God-given powers to reach the measure of the stature of men and women in Christ Jesus. Daily they prayed for fresh supplies of grace, that they might reach higher and still higher toward perfection. Under the Holy Spirit's working even the weakest, by exercising faith in God, learned to improve their entrusted powers and to become sanctified, refined, and ennobled. As in humility they submitted to the molding influence of the Holy Spirit, they received of the fullness of the Godhead and were fashioned in the likeness of the divine. {AA 49.3}

The lapse of time has wrought no change in Christ's parting promise to send the Holy Spirit as His representative. It is not because of any restriction on the part of God that the riches of His grace do not flow earthward to men. If the fulfillment of the promise is not seen as it might be, it is because the promise is not appreciated as it should be. If all were willing, all would be filled with the Spirit. Wherever the need of the Holy Spirit is a matter little thought of, there is seen spiritual drought, spiritual darkness, spiritual declension and death. Whenever minor matters occupy the attention, the divine power which is necessary for the growth and prosperity of the church, and which would bring all other blessings in its train, is lacking, though offered in infinite plenitude. {AA 50.1}

Since this is the means by which we are to receive power, why do we not hunger and thirst for the gift of the Spirit? Why do we not talk of it, pray for it, and preach concerning it? The Lord is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to those who serve Him than parents are to give good gifts to their children. For the daily baptism of the Spirit every worker should offer his petition to God. Companies of Christian workers should gather to ask for special help, for heavenly wisdom, that they may know how to plan and execute wisely. Especially should they pray that God will baptize His chosen ambassadors in mission fields with a rich measure of His Spirit. The presence of the Spirit with God's workers will give the proclamation of truth a power that not all the honor or glory of the world could give. {AA 50.2}

With the consecrated worker for God, in whatever place he may be, the Holy Spirit abides. The words spoken to the disciples are spoken also to us. The Comforter is ours as well as theirs. The Spirit furnishes the strength that sustains striving, wrestling souls in every emergency, amidst the hatred of the world, and the realization of their own failures and mistakes. In sorrow and affliction, when the outlook seems dark and the future perplexing, and we feel helpless and alone,--these are the times when, in answer to the prayer of faith, the Holy Spirit brings comfort to the heart. {AA 51.1}

Notice a few points:

1) When we receive the Holy Spirit, we are receiving the fullness of the Godhead.

2) The Holy Spirit comes to us as our Counselor, Sanctifier, Guide, and Witness.

3) The Holy Spirit is the personal representative of Christ. As such He cannot be Christ, since a representative is never the same person as the one He represents. The Holy Spirit is "another Counselor" of the same kind as Christ, which means the Holy Spirit is not one and the same Person as Christ.

4) The Holy Spirit cannot be merely "the power of God" or "the influence of God." Rather, the Holy Spirit does indeed empower

us and influence us, but the Spirit is not the power or influence itself. The Holy Spirit is a divine Person just as the Father and Christ are divine Persons.

[John317]

It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13.

Yet if the Holy Spirit and Christ are one and the same Person, of whom is the Holy Spirit speaking when He speaks of Christ? Wouldn't He be speaking of Himself in that case? That is one proof that the Holy Spirit is not Christ but is the representative of Christ. Ellen White says the Holy Spirit is the personification of Christ yet a distinct personality.

[Dr. Waite]

It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13.

Yet if the Holy Spirit and Christ are one and the same Person, of whom is the Holy Spirit speaking when He speaks of Christ? Wouldn't He be speaking of Himself in that case? That is one proof that the Holy Spirit is not Christ but is the representative of Christ. Ellen White says the Holy Spirit is the personification of Christ yet a distinct personality.

The words that Christ spoke were not His own words.

John 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."

[Overaged]

It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13.

Yet if the Holy Spirit and Christ are one and the same Person, of whom is the Holy Spirit speaking when He speaks of Christ? Wouldn't He be speaking of Himself in that case? That is one proof that the Holy Spirit is not Christ but is the representative of Christ. Ellen White says the Holy Spirit is the personification of Christ yet a distinct personality.

[Overaged]

Quote:

2.Pentecostal Coming

As there was a historical coming of the Son to the world, there was a historical coming of the Holy Spirit to the church. The mode of historical presence of the Spirit is different from the mode in which the Son was present. The Holy Spirit’s coming does not involve the taking on of human nature as did Jesus’ incarnation. The mode in which God the Holy Spirit is present is such that makes Him accessible to all, while the incarnated mode of God the Son in Jesus limited His divine presence to a few human beings. This remarkable difference may have been one of the reasons why Jesus said it would be to the disciples’ advantage that He should go away so that the Spirit could come to them (John 16:7).

The historical coming of the Holy Spirit to the church occurred at Pentecost, following the Resurrection. That the coming of the Holy Spirit to the church occurred on the day of Pentecost could be seen as a mere coincidence bearing little theological significance; however, the specific timing deserves special study.

a.Typological setting. In the OT, Passover and Pentecost were closely related festivals. Both were memorials and prefigurations of important aspects of God’s acts of salvation. Passover (Lev. 23:5; Num. 28:16; Deut. 16:1–8) was a memorial of God as a source of freedom in connection with Israel’s liberation from under Egyptian bondage (Deut. 16:1, 3, 6). Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks (Ex. 23:16; 34:22; Lev. 23:15–22; Num. 28:26–31; Deut. 16:9–12), was a memorial of God as the source of all good gifts. The very name, Feast of Weeks, or Pentecost, pointed to the close connection between the Passover and Pentecost by making explicit reference to the 50 days between them (Lev. 23:15, 16; cf. 6BC 133, 134).

As the Passover and the deliverance from Egypt were types of Jesus’ mission (Matt. 2:15; cf. Hosea 11:1) and death at the cross (1 Cor. 5:7), it is possible to see Pentecost and the covenant at Sinai as types of the historical coming of the Holy Spirit. The historical coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, then, would be the antitype of the Sinaitic covenant understood as the good gift of God to His people. As a distinctive function of the Sinaitic covenant was to lead Israel to redemption through a concrete understanding of God’s will for man, the coming of the Holy Spirit appears designed to bring that purpose to new, surprising levels of specificity and closeness.

When Jesus talked to the disciples about the historical coming of the Holy Spirit, He underscored that “the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:26). Between God’s redemptive work at Sinai and the revelation and historical coming of the Holy Spirit there is no discontinuity but rather a clear typologically conceived continuity. This does not mean, however, repetition of the same but rather the disclosure of new aspects of truth not present in past revelations. These bring our knowledge and experience of God’s salvific will and acts to deeper levels.

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (130). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[Overaged]

Quote:

b.The Spirit of God in the OT.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is not explicitly revealed as a divine person in the OT (Gen. 1:2) does not mean that He did not exist or act as a person before His historical introduction at Pentecost. The revelation of the Holy Spirit as a person of the Godhead became possible and necessary after the historical revelation of Jesus Christ as God the Son. The OT, consequently, does not refer to the Holy Spirit as a person different from other divine persons. However, at times it is possible to understand some OT references to the rather general designation “Spirit of God” as allusions to divine activities that properly belong to the Holy Spirit. The giving of spiritual gifts to special individuals for the execution of definite tasks is the activity most commonly associated in the OT with the Spirit of God (Ex. 31:3; 35:31; Num. 11:25, 29; 24:2; 27:18; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 16:13; 19:20, 23; 2 Chron. 15:1; 20:14; 24:20).

The Spirit of God is not so frequently presented as indwelling the heart of the believer, although the idea is, nonetheless, present in the OT. According to the Sinaitic covenant, religion was to be a deep experience of love to God: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to hear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul?” (Deut. 10:12). Thus Paul can describe a “real Jew” as one who is so, not by adhering to external rituals, but rather, according to Deuteronomy 10:16, he who has the real circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28, 29). David knew that the inner change of the heart amounts to a new creation that can be accomplished only by God Himself (Ps. 51:10). Saul not only received gifts from the Spirit, but the Spirit of the Lord changed him into another man (1 Sam. 10:6, 9). Israel in exile anticipated a spiritual revival as a result of God’s putting His Spirit in them (Eze. 36:26, 27; 37:1–14).

The Spirit of God, then, is also associated in the OT with the divine indwelling in the inner being of man (cf. Isa. 57:15; Eze. 11:19; 18:31). On this basis, Jesus Christ could speak to the disciples as if they already knew the Holy Spirit before His historical personal coming at Pentecost (John 14:17). If the Holy Spirit was already acting, giving gifts, and indwelling the hearts of the believers, the newness of the NT ministry of the Spirit needs examination.

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (131). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[Overaged]

Quote:

c.The newness of the Spirit in the NT.

One obviously new aspect of NT revelation on the Spirit of God is that now He is clearly presented as a divine person, distinct from Father and Son (see VII. C. 4). This change, however, affects only our understanding of His personhood and not His redemptive activity. The work of the Holy Spirit in the NT appears to involve thee same areas covered either by God or the Spirit of God in the OT. The newness of the Holy Spirit in the NT has to be found in His new role as representative of Christ. According to John’s interpretation of Jesus’ typological reference to the Spirit (John 7:37–39), the revelation, historical coming, and redemptive task of God the Holy Spirit is essentially connected to the cross and ascension of Jesus Christ. John interprets Jesus’ typology by remarking that He spoke “about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39). Consequently, according to John, the death and glorification of the Son were necessary conditions for the historical outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

When the Holy Spirit came on the day of Pentecost, His coming was witnessed by all because of the external manifestation of supernatural gifts poured out on the believers (Acts 2:2–11). In response to questions on the theological meaning of the event, a very superficial and inadequate explanation was forwarded: “They are filled with new wine” (verse 13). In defense of the apostles, Peter addressed the multitude (verses 14–36). After identifying the seemingly strange event as a miraculous manifestation of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (verses 15–21), Peter explained the event as a necessary step in the historical achievement of God’s plan of salvation (verses 23, 24). Peter affirmed that “this Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear” (verses 32, 33). Peter referred to Christ’s heavenly enthronement (see VII. B. 4), which followed His victory at the cross and conferred on Christ “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18; cf. 1 Peter 3:22).

Since Jesus Christ was to be personally involved in the task of intercession in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1, 2; see Sanctuary II, III) the necessary, continuous, personal presence of God on earth required the revelation of the third person of the Godhead, God the Holy Spirit. The specific newness brought about by the historical coming of the Holy Spirit in the NT, then, is not to be seen in relation to the specific salvific tasks which the Spirit continues to perform as He did in OT times, but rather it is related to the new status of the Spirit as representative of Jesus Christ’s triumph on the cross and His work of intercession and lordship in heaven. Jesus Christ Himself underlined the characteristic harmony and unity in which the Trinity performs the activities pertaining to salvation by pointing out that the Holy Spirit not only was His representative (John 16:13, 14) but also, because of the delegation of the Father to the Son (see VII. B. 4), the representative of the Father (John 14:16, 17). For this reason the technical expressions “in Christ” (Rom. 6:11, 23; 8:1, 39; 9:1; 1 Cor. 1:4; 3:1; 2 Cor. 2:17) and “in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 9:1; 14:17; cf. Col. 1:8) are, in fact, equivalent.

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (132). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“He's not gonna allow his word to be perverted, sorry that I don't buy it.”

Do you mean that what Ellen White said happened did not take place? Notice that according to her changes were made to the original documents:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

Of course we are not told whether she relied on a vision for this information or on material which she copied from other authors. Nevertheless, we do have some information from biblical experts who have affirmed that on certain instances copyists have incorporated into some manuscripts comments which did not belong to the original.

We have about five thousand manuscripts of the New Testament or portions of it, and we do know that there numerous discrepancies between them. How do you explain this? Which are the manuscripts which we can rely on for authenticity? Are they all authentic?

Bible publishers have to guess which manuscripts are the most credible which explains the many Bible versions.

One of the Bibles versions I have includes numerous notes which read: “Not in many of the original manuscripts.” Doesn’t this tend to confirm what Ellen White said about changes made to the original manuscripts?

[Dr. Waite]

It is plainly declared regarding the Holy Spirit that, in His work of guiding men into all truth, "He shall not speak of Himself." John 15:26; 16:13.

Yet if the Holy Spirit and Christ are one and the same Person, of whom is the Holy Spirit speaking when He speaks of Christ? Wouldn't He be speaking of Himself in that case? That is one proof that the Holy Spirit is not Christ but is the representative of Christ. Ellen White says the Holy Spirit is the personification of Christ yet a distinct personality.

THE WORDS THAT CHRIST SPOKE WERE THOSE OF THE FATHER WHO IS A SPIRIT (see John 4:23-24), NOT THOSE OF A DISTINCT PERSON THAT WAS NOT THE FATHER OR THE SON.

John 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."

CHRIST DOES NOT SAY THAT THE WORDS HE SPEAKS ARE THOSE OF A DISTINCT PERSON DIFFERENT FROM THE FATHER.

[Overaged]

pkrause wrote:

“He's not gonna allow his word to be perverted, sorry that I don't buy it.”

Do you mean that what Ellen White said happened did not take place? Notice that according to her changes were made to the original documents:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

Of course we are not told whether she relied on a vision for this information or on material which she copied from other authors. Nevertheless, we do have some information from biblical experts who have affirmed that on certain instances copyists have incorporated into some manuscripts comments which did not belong to the original.

We have about five thousand manuscripts of the New Testament or portions of it, and we do know that there numerous discrepancies between them. How do you explain this? Which are the manuscripts which we can rely on for authenticity? Are they all authentic?

Bible publishers have to guess which manuscripts are the most credible which explains the many Bible versions.

One of the Bibles versions I have includes numerous notes which read: “Not in many of the original manuscripts.” Doesn’t this tend to confirm what Ellen White said about changes made to the original manuscripts?

So you are unable to credibly refute the Trinity doctrine; and now you must resort to denying the credibility of the Bible? That's been tried before. trouble is, that God's Word has enough in it to disprove your case anyways.

[Overaged]

John 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."

CHRIST DOES NOT SAY THAT THE WORDS HE SPEAKS ARE THOSE OF A DISTINCT PERSON DIFFERENT FROM THE FATHER.

Jesus here was not pointing to His nature, or the nature of God the Father, or of The Holy Spirit. He was pointing only to the source of His Words, and the fact that all 3 members of the Godhead worked closely together in one purpose. The point Jesus was making here was that of redemption, not the nature of Himself, or the other members of the Godhead.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“Nic, you said that Ellen White wrote that errors were introduced into the Scriptures, but that is not what she said. She said some people had changed words and had mystified that which was plain. That's not the same thing as introducing doctrinal errors. Some relatively insignificant words were changed or added, but by comparing all the manuscripts, we can almost always determine which words were in the original.”

I believe that you are reading into what Ellen wrote more than is actually there. Read her statement again:

"I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible, yet learned men, when the copies were few, had changed the words in some instances, thinking that they were making it more plain, when they were mystifying that which was plain, in causing it to lean to their established. views, governed by tradition." {1SG 117.1}

Notice that those changes resulted in “mystifying what was plain” and caused the meaning of certain passages “to lean to their established views, governed by tradition.”

This means to me that what we have is some passages where the original meaning tends to support human tradition instead of the original clear truth.

You believe, without any evidence to support this, that scholars “can almost always determine which words were in the original.” I have no hard evidence favoring your simple faith. The facts tend to deny this!

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

John 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."

CHRIST DOES NOT SAY THAT THE WORDS HE SPEAKS ARE THOSE OF A DISTINCT PERSON DIFFERENT FROM THE FATHER.

Jesus here was not pointing to His nature, or the nature of God the Father, or of The Holy Spirit. He was pointing only to the source of His Words, and the fact that all 3 members of the Godhead worked closely together in one purpose. The point Jesus was making here was that of redemption, not the nature of Himself, or the other members of the Godhead.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT JESUS INTENTIONS WERE HERE. WERE YOU THERE PERSONALLY? CHRIST HERE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ANY OTHER PERSON BESIDES HIMSELF AND HIS FATHER. IF YOU ADD TO THE WORD OF GOD, GOD WILL ADD TO YOU THE PLAGUES WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF REVELATION.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“You're right, pk. Allowing some people to make some insignificant changes in words or even adding a few verses, is not the same as allowing perversions into the Bible. The Old Testament contains instances where words which were originally in the margin eventually worked their way into the main text, and this sometimes also happened in the New Testament. I believe 1 John 5: 7 is a good example of this, as is John 5: 4. But those verses and others like them don't lead us to believe false doctrine.”

Yes! And the internal evidence tends to confirm what Eusebius wrote about the text found in Matthew 28:19. He had access to the original manuscripts which were intentionally destroyed by those supporting the Trinitarian doctrine. Entire libraries were set on fire.

Providentially, I believe, Eusebius did perform his careful study of those ancient manuscripts and concluded that the threefold formula in Matthew 28 was fraudulent. This is why he had the habit of citing said text without the three names.

The internal evidence seems to confirm my hypothesis. All the other baptisms cited in the New Testament use a single formula without the therefore names.

[Gibs]

Nic,

And besides 1 John 5:7 makes it clear the three are the one anyway.

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.

All that is left now for anyone to do is figure out how many "ONE" is. One stands totally alone don't it?

Then ya read verses like this and you still want to espouse trinity?,,

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.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

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.