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

[Gustave]

The whole problem here is that Ellen White affirmed that Christ's "Nature"....

...Was "on loan" from the "real God" & if Christ screwed up He would have lost His deity.

...And Christ would have rotted in the tomb, eternally annihilated.

This is a classic "Pinocchio crist" - Ellen was anti-Trinitarian, period.

[Dr. Waite]

The whole problem here is that Ellen White affirmed that Christ's "Nature"....

...Was "on loan" from the "real God" & if Christ screwed up He would have lost His deity.

...And Christ would have rotted in the tomb, eternally annihilated.

This is a classic "Pinocchio crist" - Ellen was anti-Trinitarian, period.

I agree that Christ laid down his "life, original, unborrowed, underived" that it might take it up again and by coming to this earth he risked loosing this "life, original, unborrowed, underived".

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:4). It is not physical life that is here specified, but immortality, the life which is exclusively the property of God. The Word, who was with God, and who was God, had this life. Physical life is something which each individual receives. It is not eternal or immortal; for God, the Life-giver, takes it again. Man has no control over his life. But the life of Christ was unborrowed. No one can take this life from Him. "I lay it down of myself" (John 10: 18), He said. In Him was life, original, unborrowed, underived. This life is not inherent in man. He can possess it only through Christ. He cannot earn it; it is given him as a free gift if he will believe in Christ as His personal Saviour. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17:3). 1 SM 296-297.

If this "life, original, unborrowed, underived" had not been given to Him (John 5:26), He could not have laid it down that He might take it up again. If He had sinned, He would not have had the power or authority from his Father to take it up again.

[Gustave]

I agree that Christ laid down his "life, original, unborrowed, underived" that it might take it up again and by coming to this earth he risked loosing this "life, original, unborrowed, underived".

[Kevin H]

If Jesus failed the entire universe would have been destroyed and God would have been a lier that he could not be all that he claimed to be. Richard Rice's book "the openess of God" is half the truth (sadly used against the rest of the truth) While there is an aspect of God that transends time and space and is therefore able to expirence the end from the begining. There is also that personal aspect of expirencing moment by moment. Before the trinity went through the cross event the trinity did not expirece the fact beyond a theory that God's nature would continue to be in a righteousness by faith expirence with the other members of the trinity and stay faithful to self sacrificing love. If Jesus had failed the entire universe would have been destroyed

[Kevin H]

One of my professors, Dr. Jim Fleming, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel talks about one of his coleagues. I have not heard on the recordings him naming this coleague, but he describes this coleague as a Jewish Rabbi who is the world's leading authority on second temple Judaism.

Dr. Fleming points out that this Jewish professor has discovered that the trinity was held by second temple Jews, designed to teach a Jewish consept that is in Jewish Eastern Thought to western Greek thinking people.

The way he describes the Jewish discription of the trinity is like a mountain with the tops above the clouds. and we live below the clouds and can only see what is under the clouds. Now one shortfall pointed out here is that with a mountain you see most of it while what is above the cloud is completely infinite and that we cannot comprehend it and to only know that it is there and leave it with the words "Glory, Glory, Glory" What we know about that is what we expirence below the clouds, and below the clouds is three individuals like three different slopes to the mountain, each slope distinct from the other two slopes, yet they are the mountain that goes up beyond the slopes into the clouds of holy, holy, holy.

Now it is one thing to argue the trinity if you are baised on the out of date information that sees it as having been developed by Christians after the Bible Writers died off. However, now that we know this was incorrect information, and that the doctrine of the trinity was indeed a Jewish doctrine from the time of the second temple, why would not Jesus or the apostles correct the error instead of using the language of that doctrine that the critics of the doctrine need to keep tap dancing over to try to prove there point?

[Gustave]

If Jesus failed the entire universe would have been destroyed and God would have been a lier that he could not be all that he claimed to be.

[Overaged]

Ellen White was directed by the Anti-Trinitarian Pioneers...

...To promulgate a creature or Pinocchio christ that was able to mutate.

...This creature christ was required to possess a "conditional deity" which could be lost.

...In this way SDAism would be able to defend against the Trinity Doctrine.

[Overaged]

Quote:

1.Divinity

Several NT passages refer to Christ as God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Heb. 1:8, 9; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20). John not only teaches the preexistence of Christ (John 17:5), but also expresses it in an absolute way that belongs only to God (John 1:1, 2; 8:58; cf. Col. 1:17). Divine characteristics are attributed to Christ: eternity (Heb. 1:11, 12), possession of underived life in Himself (John 1:4; 14:6), and the divine power to create (John 1:3; Heb. 1:2, 10; Col. 1:16). The introduction to the letter to the Hebrews states that the Son “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature” (Heb. 1:3). Paul describes Christ as being “in the form of God” (Phil. 2:6).

The “I AM” statements appear to be another way Christ Himself pointed out His divine nature. By claiming for Himself the “I AM” designation, Christ used the same name that Yahweh, revealing Himself to Moses in a theophany, declared to be His own personal name: “I AM WHO I AM” (’ehyeh ’āšer ’ehyeh) (Ex. 3:14). This usage applies to pronouncements that underline divine attributes, such as omnipotence (John 6:20, 21), eternity (John 8:58), foreknowledge (John 13:19), the manifestation of divine glory and power (John 18:5, 6, 8), and Jesus as the source of salvation (John 8:24).

Finally, the NT affirms Christ’s divinity by identifying Him with the OT Yahweh. The song of praise that heaven sings to Yahweh for His redemption (Isa. 44:23) is applied to the worship of Christ in Philippians 2:10. The statement about Yahweh’s creative power and eternity recorded in Psalm 102:25–27 is quoted in Hebrews 1:10–12, where it is applied to Christ. To reinforce this line of argument, Hebrews 1:8, 9 identifies Christ with God (’elohîm) by quoting from Psalm 45:6, 7.

Paul summarizes the NT testimony to Christ’s divinity by plainly stating the mystery of God’s incarnation in Jesus Christ: “In him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). From the starting point, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23; cf. Isa. 7:14) as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:14), the incipient OT conception of divine plurality grows in specificity and complexity, unfolding the trinitarian nature of God’s being.

Dederen, R. (2001, c2000). Vol. 12: Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Commentary Reference Series (124). Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“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..."”

Evidently I need to clarify my view of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that God is Spirit and that God is Holy. The same can be said about Jesus and his Holy angels; they are Spirits and they are Holy sent to help us in our mission. The Holy Spirit is the presence and power of God manifested through God himself, through Jesus, or his angels.

This is why when the angel Gabriel was sent to Daniel assistance, he apologized to the prophet by explaining that there was nobody to help him except Michael [see Dan.10:21].

If the HS is a separate person and a member of the alleged Trinity, it would make no sense for Gabriel to say this, since the HS is supposed to be In charge of revealing the future and he is supposed to be omnipresent.

There would have been no reason for an interruption in the revelation of the future to Daniel when the angel Gabriel was busy in the Medo-Persian court for three weeks.

The text found in Luke 4:14 makes sense the way it is written, because Jesus took human flesh and was dependent on God’s power for the fulfillment of his mission. But following his ascension to heaven, he did not have this human limitation. This is why he could say what is described in John 14:

16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

As long as Jesus was physically present in human form, the disciples could not have access to this other counselor.

The question is: Who was this new counselor? Jesus clarified this when he stated: “But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.”

Who did they know? Jesus! Who was living with them? Jesus! Who would live in them? Jesus! Who would come back to them? Jesus! Jesus would be back with them but in an invisible manner.

Yesterday Pastor Venden preached a sermon about abiding on 3ABN; I wish you would have heard him explaining this mystery of abiding. He cited many texts dealing with the term “abiding.” Here is one of them:

"If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you can ask for anything you want, and you will receive it.” [John 15:7]

How does Jesus live [abide] in us? Through his words! This is why Jesus said on one occasion that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and then in John 6:63 explained what this means: It meant eating his words.

“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

You also said:

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

Sorry to disagree! Gabriel was an angel; a created being, yet he did represent God as he opened the future to Daniel.

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

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

Yes, whenever her comments agree with the Bible. When she deviates from this, then I stick to the Bible. Her comments are subject to what Scripture says—not the other way around! Ellen always told us to study the Bible as a source of deoctrine.

“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.”

I have already answered this objection in my previous posting! Read my comment dealing with John 14.

“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.”

Read my previous posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

John317 wrote:

“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.”

John, you are very well versed in the Bible. Read the Gospels again, or simply jog your amazing memory, and you will find that Jesus referred to himself using the third personal pronoun more thaqn once. Do I need to make a list for you?

One example is found in John 14. Read my comments about this in the previous posting I submitted this morning.

[Overaged]

This is why when the angel Gabriel was sent to Daniel assistance, he apologized to the prophet by explaining that there was nobody to help him except Michael [see Dan.10:21].

[Overaged]

C.God the Holy Spirit

The trinitarian nature of the one biblical God is not complete without God the Holy Spirit. That the revelation of the Holy Spirit as the third divine person of the Godhead comes after the revelation of the Son and the Father does not mean that He is either less important or that He has been involved in salvific activities only since the time of His revelation. A proper understanding of the one Christian God and His personal plurality requires, therefore, a careful consideration of the biblical witness to God the Holy Spirit.

1.Christ’s Announcement

Even though God the Spirit appears from Genesis (1:2; 6:3) onward, the explicit concept that God’s plurality involves not only the persons of the Father and the Son but also a third person, the Holy Spirit, originates in Jesus Christ Himself. The revelation of the existence and specific salvific role of a third person of the one God was given by Jesus Christ as He tried to prepare the disciples for His departure from earth (John 7:33; 14:1–3). According to John, Christ hinted at the personhood and historical coming of the Holy Spirit at the Feast of Tabernacles before His death, when He promised “rivers of living water” flowing out of the believers’ hearts, to explain “the Spirit, which those who believe in him were to receive” (John 7:38, 39).

However, Christ clearly announced the coming of the Holy Spirit only a few hours before His crucifixion: “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth” (John 14:16, 17; cf. 16:4–7, 13).

After His resurrection Jesus again brought to the attention of the disciples the coming of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4, 5, 8). The existence of the Holy Spirit as a divine person was revealed at this time, because the Holy Spirit had to be revealed as a divine person to explain how the redemptive work of Christ would continue after His ascension, simultaneously on earth and in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1, 2). The revelation of God’s trinitarian nature is disclosed not with the speculative purpose of revealing the nature of God but rather so that human beings may understand God’s redemptive acts in history.

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.

[Gustave]

The stuff Kevin was quoting from, returning to does not reflect official Seventh-day Adventist doctrine; nor did it mention Ellen White...please note that the enclosed below is built by Scripture alone:

How could it not reflect official Seventh-day Adventist doctrine?

...When Ellen White was explicit that "if" Christ had sinned.

...His tomb would have never been opened & "God" would have eternally annihilated Christ.

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895

Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own ETERNAL existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption

Mr. Longacre, an SDA of note had this to say about what Ellen White meant....

...With her often repeated Pinocchio christ statements.

Longacre

IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His VERY existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed & His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It WAS possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would STILL have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth.

Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926

He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation

Ellen White

Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4

He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

Of course this is only a drop in the bucket of Pinocchio christ doctrinal statements made by Ellen....

...It was this doctrine that Ellen White, as well as every other person.

...Had to embrace - to accept - to become a member of the remnant SDA church.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

The stuff Kevin was quoting from, returning to does not reflect official Seventh-day Adventist doctrine; nor did it mention Ellen White...please note that the enclosed below is built by Scripture alone:

How could it not reflect official Seventh-day Adventist doctrine?

...When Ellen White was explicit that "if" Christ had sinned.

...His tomb would have never been opened & "God" would have eternally annihilated Christ.

Ellen White, GCB Dec 1, 1895

Remember that Christ risked all; "tempted like as we are," he staked EVEN his own ETERNAL existence upon the issue of the conflict. Heaven itself was imperiled for our redemption

Mr. Longacre, an SDA of note had this to say about what Ellen White meant....

...With her often repeated Pinocchio christ statements.

Longacre

IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His VERY existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to work out for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ "risked all," EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph's tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered "eternal loss," the loss of ALL He ever possessed & His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It WAS possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, "God, the Father", would STILL have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth.

Ellen White, L5,1900 SDA BC Volume 7,page 926

He became subject to temptation, endangering as it were, HIS DIVINE attributes. Satan sought, by the constant and curious devices of his cunning, to make Christ yield to temptation

Ellen White

Though Christ humbled Himself to become man, the Godhead was still His own. His Deity could not be lost WHILE He stood faithful and true to His loyalty

Ellen White MS 99,1903 page 3,4

He had infinite power ONLY because He was perfectly obedient to His Father's will

Of course this is only a drop in the bucket of Pinocchio christ doctrinal statements made by Ellen....

...It was this doctrine that Ellen White, as well as every other person.

...Had to embrace - to accept - to become a member of the remnant SDA church.

I know that Roman catholic, and other apologists have been working hard at cherry-picking the quotes and lining them up to make their allegations appear to be "truth;" but their is no escaping the facts of what is offical Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, and not.

Your use of derision and defamations such as "Pinochio Christ" is an insult not just to Adventists, but to honest and sincere Roman Catholics as well. Kind of shows where your truth comes from.

[phkrause]

I know that Roman catholic, and other apologists have been working hard at cherry-picking the quotes and lining them up to make their allegations appear to be "truth;" but their is no escaping the facts of what is offical Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, and not.

Your use of derision and defamations such as "Pinochio Christ" is an insult not just to Adventists, but to honest and sincere Roman Catholics as well. Kind of shows where your truth comes from.

[Gustave]

I know that Roman catholic, and other apologists have been working hard at cherry-picking the quotes and lining them up to make their allegations appear to be "truth;" but their is no escaping the facts of what is offical Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, and not.

There is no escaping the brutal fact that any of the quotations I listed above...

...Could be put into ANY context that would make them suddenly right or "according to the Bible".

Can you imagine a context whereas "God", by hook, crook or any means...

...Could be annihilated, eternally? I.E. cease to be "God"?.

...I'm calling your bluff Overaged - put those quotes in any context you want.

...Get back with me after you've done so & I would be happy to look at them.

No Catholic Apologist ( or Trinitarian Apologist for that matter )...

...Would claim those quotes COULD BE placed in a context that would make them right.

...That is perhaps the most perposterous thing I've heard to date on this issue.

[Nic Samojluk]

Dr. Waite wrote:

“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."

Of course! I ask: How should we understand this abiding in each other business? God abides in Jesus; Jesus abides in his Father; Jesus abides in us; and we abide in him.

What does this mean? Does this mean that we are all one personal entity. This could never be! We are individuals, but we are all in agreement about the essential of Christian faith.

[Nic Samojluk]

Overaged wrote:

“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.”

I am not trying to refute the Trinity doctrine. If you are enamored with this Catholic dogma which was invented in the third and fourth centuries instead of believing what Jesus taught about this, then nobody can deprive you of this right. I am simply sharing with you and others my understanding of this issue.

I presented to you the clearest evidence both from the Bible and Ellen White, and you have elected to reject the simple understanding of Scripture and prefer to rely on tradition and the opinions of men.

I cited to you Ellen White, and you dismiss what she said about changes made to some of the original biblical manuscripts and conclude that I am denying the credibility of the Bible. If I am denying the credibility of the Bible, then it follows that Ellen White is guilty of the same crime? Do you accept this logical conclusion?

Did Ellen say or did she not that changes were made to some of the original biblical manuscripts? If she did, then your exaggerated conclusion against me makes no logical sense! You are jumping to an unwarrtanted conclusion. Ellen is the one who claimed that changes were made to the original Bible manuscripts. If I repeat what she stated, don’t blame me for repeating what she said.

[Overaged]

Lots of people have made note of changes made by various translators to various manuscripts; but this gives no one license to change doctrines more to their own tastes, independent of the church, and of other Christians. Nothing that we believe is of any "private interpretation."

I gave you quite a bit of BIBLICAL evidence, earlier in this topic, that the Holy Spirit is a personal entity, as is Jesus and the Father, and you have so far ignored the whole lot of it.

[Overaged]

I am not trying to refute the Trinity doctrine. I am simply sharing with you and others my understanding of this issue.

I presented to you the clearest evidence both from the Bible and Ellen White, and you have elected to reject the simple understanding of Scripture and prefer to rely on tradition and the opinions of men.

Lets get real here. You are directly attacking the Bible doctrine of the Trinity; which by the way is not "Catholic" or "Adventist;" it is Biblical.

[Nic Samojluk]

Gibs wrote:

“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.”

Bible experts seem to agree that this verse was a comment on the margin of the original manuscript, which Trinitarians incorporated into the original text. I invite you to consider the following note found in the NIV:

“Not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century.”

This confirms what Ellen White stated about changes made to the original manuscripts! Ellen was right on this. The Bible is reliable, but unauthorized changes were made to the original text In some instances. This is why we need to study everything found in the Bible.

This text should not be used in support of the Trinity dogma. We have only Matthew 28:19, and Eusebius' investigation of the original manuscripts--which were available to him--concluded that the text is fraudulent. The same thing done to 1 John 5:7 was done to Matthew 28:19, I believe. A marginal comment was incorporated into the original text to validate a non-biblical doctrine.

Ellen White did not attempt to destroy the credibility of the Bible! She was simply recognizing a fact which is recognized by experts who have spent their entire life comparing what we find in the Bible manuscripts. We have five thousand of them, and there are undeniably minor discrepancies between them.

[Overaged]

Gibs wrote:

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

This text should not be used in support of the Trinity dogma. We have only Matthew 28:19, and Eusebius' investigation of the original manuscripts--which were available to him--concluded that the text is fraudulent. The same thing done to 1 John 5:7 was done to Matthew 28:19, I believe. A marginal comment was incorporated into the original text to validate a non-biblical doctrine.

I did not once use this text to define or defend the trinity doctrine. I gave you a lot of other Bible texts that show it clearly, and that would support any supplied words in 1 John 5:7; and this is why the text actually can stand on it's own. Many texts in the Bible contain supplied words, and they are always OK when supported by other texts with no supplied words. Those kinds of changes in the Bible are not "wrong."

[Overaged]

I cited to you Ellen White, and you dismiss what she said about changes made to some of the original biblical manuscripts and conclude that I am denying the credibility of the Bible. If I am denying the credibility of the Bible, then it follows that Ellen White is guilty of the same crime? Do you accept this logical conclusion?

And yes; I do accept this conclusion, that you are denying the credibility of the Bible; and that Ellen White, in mentioning changes to the wording of some texts, did not.

[Overaged]

This text should not be used in support of the Trinity dogma. We have only Matthew 28:19, and Eusebius' investigation of the original manuscripts--which were available to him--concluded that the text is fraudulent. The same thing done to 1 John 5:7 was done to Matthew 28:19, I believe. A marginal comment was incorporated into the original text to validate a non-biblical doctrine.