The Trinity?

[o2bwise]

Hi John 317,

Quote:

John317

Only God has the nature or essence of God, and only three Persons in all the universe share that identical nature: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is the Godhead, the Deity.

Questions for ya:

1. Why in P&P does Ellen White state that God had one with whom to counsel?

2. Why in Zechariah is it stated that the counsel of peace was made between two?

3. Why do so many, myself included, behave in the most foundational manner inconsistent with the HS being a person? (By this, I refer to NOT conversing with "him" even though "he" is nigh?)

Can you please elaborate on 1-3 and explain how in practice (including the biblical record, White's plain record, and the practice of most Christians) the HS is correctly regarded to be a literal person?

Blessings,

Tony

[Gordon1]

While many argue that Christ could not be Divine if He was literally begotten by God the Father,

instead this Bible promise guarantees His Divinity.

How could God the Father beget anything NOT Divine? Impossible.

His Sonship to YHWH was His chief credential when the Father said to Him,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.." (Genesis 1:26)

[Dr. Waite]

Well put Tony.

Jesus is Divine by inheritance.

"He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they [the angels]." (Hebrews 1:4)

The life of an angel could not ransom mankind,

Jesus "being made (gennao = begat, begotten) so much better than the angels." (Hebrews 1:4)

He was not created, He was begotten by the Ancient of Days.

(in the ancient of days ~ the days of eternity ~ Micah 5:2 margin)

His credentials are established before the foundation of the world.

[Gordon1]

If a person denies that Jesus is Divine by inheritance, are they the same as "antichrist"?

John is the Bible authority on antichrist.

[Gibs]

Why is the Father able to counsel between His Redeemer and Himself?

Because the Father extended from Himself a go between which would be separated from Himself for a purpose and so there was counsel as to the program and way that would be laid that sin when risen up for guilty man of which Yahweh in His foreknowledge knew would arise.

What I see here is that some want to come up with something impossibe to Yahweh.

We must know right off first hand that only God Himself could be the Redeemer!

The council was between the Elohyim, Yahweh of Hosts and Yahweh King of Israel.

Deu 6:4 declares Elohyim to be ONE Yahweh, YHWH.

At Bethlehem Yahweh of Hosts became Yahweh Messiah, our Redeemer, Saviour and one of us but was fully God in a body!

He declares to us as Deuteronomy does, Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one!"

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

The day is fast coming that Yahweh of Hosts will return back into the Father that Yahweh the King of Israel will once again be ALL IN ALL.

All the puzzle pieces fit!

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.

[Gordon1]

Jesus: "I am the Christ" (the Anointed one of God).

The world: "You're not the Christ" (Anti-Christ).

[Gordon1]

Gibs, in a general sense the Father is also our Redeemer.

But the Father should not be mistaken for the Son,

they have always been two distinct persons.

The Father is immortal;

but Christ will always bear wounds in the palms of His hands.

[Gibs]

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

And notice John317 that Spirit is in Christ, yes the Father, Fully!

2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

And so Christ in you is the Father in you.

Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

And so trinitarians, Yahweh our Father is our Redeemer dwelling in Jesus Christ fully by Spirit as that is what He is, Spirit!

So now you rightly know who your Redeemer is!

Didn't you realize that is why He is Emmanuel! God, Yahweh the Father fully with us in a body, by Spirit. How else could He come, as He is Spirit!

That is why He must be worshipped in Spirit and more, that is in truth!

Why in truth? Nothing else is acceptable.

Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

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

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.

[o2bwise]

Well, before going on to other things, I will share what I believe to be a pillar method of arriving at truth with respect to the Godhead.

Pick the NT. Read the whole thing. Every single time you see a passage that SEEMS to you to have ANYTHING to say about the Godhead, assign to the passage its most apparent meaning.

Take a piece of paper and toss it into a bucket where the bucket represents a theological view of the Godhead.

There may be several buckets and don't worry about it! After all...who can think to understand the entire Bible?

Bucket 1 - Father only is God.

Bucket 2 - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.

etc.

Here is an example:

1 Thessalonians 1:1-2

1 Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. a 2 We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers, 3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father,

Do you see where verse 1 mentions God as Father only? Put a piece of paper in a bucket where God is father only. Do you see where the same verse also mentions Jesus, but as someone OTHER than the one it had just mentioned as being God? Put another piece of paper in that same bucket.

Do you see that verse 1 does the same thing again? Two more pieces of paper in the same bucket.

Do you see where verse 2 mentions God and since in context, He had been referred to as the Father, place another piece of paper in that same bucket. Do you see how verse 3 is similar to verse 1? Place another 2 pieces of paper in that same bucket.

Here is another text.

Revelation 1:1-2

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants--things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw.

Interesting by the way that God gives the revelation of Jesus Christ to Jesus. If God is Jesus, that is some mighty strange language. But, anyway, the verse is similar to the Thessalonians verses 1 and 3 and so two more pieces of paper in that bucket. Is it surprising that verse 2 is the same? Two more pieces of paper.

So we have what? 2+2+1+2+2+2 = 9 pieces of paper in one bucket.

Quote:

James White, The Throne of Grace (sermon), March 5, 1870

Some men say that they will not believe anything till every objection is removed, and every point cleared up. But I believe wherever I see the weight of evidence. Just give me the weight of evidence and I am there. Judges, justices, and courts, have to decide questions upon the weight of evidence, and why not we? I dare not wait until every objection is answered, and every difficulty taken out of the way. It is a fearful thing to stand back mulishly until every possible chance to doubt is removed. Show me the weight of evidence, from the Bible, from experience, from the influence of the spirit of God, and I think I am always safest on that side. When I take a position like that, as it usually involves some self denial and cross-bearing, I believe I meet the approbation of my Lord. I may expect to meet the blessing of God, sufficient to see all things clearly.

I know of no better way to really go after a BIBLICAL pursuit of truth. Show me the WEIGHT of evidence. I need not be overly concerned with passages in other buckets, provided the relative number of such passages to the passages in the bucket holding the majority, is small.

And it is small. In fact, it is the proverbial SLAM DUNK. It is not even close. That one bucket is like Mount Everest standing next to a few ant hills.

Trinitarians are like mountain climbers with their backs to Mount Everest while they observe and exclaim about the incredible loftiness of their “beloved” ant hill. They will forever share those few pieces of paper in their beloved ant hill bucket and their silence as to the Mount Everest bucket?

Well, it is a case of either extreme blindness OR thinking some other approach to understanding God’s word (than paying heed to the preponderance of evidence) is superior.

My guess is, it is a case of being in bondage to the strength of preconception and tradition and an unattraction to be categorized a heretic. I further speculate that THIS precedes the inclination to espouse some other method of biblically pursuing truth.

Sort of like:

Well, the truth JUST HAS TO BE THE TRINITY and so the correct method of biblically pursuing truth MUST BE something other than seeing what the apparent meaning of the majority of texts on the subject is.

The correct method just must be one of being able to subjugate the vast majority to the trinitarian pet few!!!

Two thoughts.

ONE

I believe Jesus is divine. And so the bucket with the most verses? I confess to some manipulation so as to accommodate other verses. That manipulation is to understand the predominant biblical usage of HO THEOS as referring to the Father only perhaps in order to appreciate and recognize preeminence and a contrast between the Father and His only begotten.

Jesus is God, but is so on an exceptionally different basis. The very existence of the Father was not dependent on the prerogative of another. Not so the Son. His very existence was dependent on the prerogative of the Father to have a Son.

TWO

What of the exceptional few passages in OTHER buckets?

Well, let me give one example – John 1:1-2

John 1:1-2

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [HO THEOS], and the Word was [THEOS]God. 2 He was in the beginning with [HO THEOS] God.

In the Greek language, if the definite article is missing, the general interpretation is not that thing, but qualitatively like that thing. What are the odds that the definite article would just happen to be missing when referring to Christ and not missing the two times it refers to the Father?

And so…the day may come when one acquires this understanding and when he does, he is enlightened with the truth that he can now take THAT piece of paper out of one bucket and place it in the bucket containing the vast majority of the pieces of paper.

It’s just a case of advancing light which would tend to minimize the number of pieces of paper residing in the wrong buckets.

Quote:

Some men say that they will not believe anything till every objection is removed, and every point cleared up. But I believe wherever I see the weight of evidence. Just give me the weight of evidence and I am there…

I dare not wait until every objection is answered, and every difficulty taken out of the way…

Show me the weight of evidence, from the Bible, from experience, from the influence of the spirit of God, and I think I am always safest on that side. When I take a position like that, as it usually involves some self denial and cross-bearing, I believe I meet the approbation of my Lord. I may expect to meet the blessing of God, sufficient to see all things clearly.

May God Bless,

Tony

[M. T. Cross]

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground

Genesis 11:7

New International Version (NIV)

7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other

[Gerr]

So the Father had a conversation with Himself?

[M. T. Cross]

So the Father had a conversation with Himself?

Well he either suffers from MPD or there is more than one it seems to me.

[o2bwise]

So the Father had a conversation with Himself?

He had a conversation with His Son.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

If a person denies that Jesus is Divine by inheritance, are they the same as "antichrist"?

John is the Bible authority on antichrist.

Don't forget Daniel & Paul!

[phkrause]

The test, or standard, is not who teaches something but whether a teaching is supported by Scriptures.

Absolutely

[phkrause]

Didn't God say Adam and Eve were "one flesh"? Yet they were two independent persons, or two independent consciousnesses. Therefore, "one God" does not refer to a single consciousness, but rather it refers to one nature, character, and purpose.

Exactly

[phkrause]

You ask for clear Bible statements and these are provided. Then you call them mistranslations! I have over a dozen major translations that are pretty much in agreement. I can plainly see the original Greek in 3 different interlinears, and see your explanations are way off. That's why we have so many different churches. Too many ignore the plain words of Scripture!

Exactly Gerry, it does seem like he has or is the only correct translation/translator.

[phkrause]

The Bible teaches that the Word-- who was God, i.e., of the same essence as the Father-- became human. John 1: 1, 14. This is precisely what other verses of Scripture teach.

1 Tim. 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

That is the reading of the vast majority of NT Greek manuscripts and is completely in harmony with the rest of Scripture. For instance, Hebrews 1: 3, 8,10; 2: 16-17; Titus 2: 13; 2 Peter 1: 1.

Hebrews 1:3, 8, 10--

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power...

But of the Son he says,

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,

the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom...

And [of the Son],

"You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,

and the heavens are the work of your hands."

Hebrews 2:16-17

"For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. [17] Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people."

Titus 2:13--

"...waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ."

2 Peter 1:1--

"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,

To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

Romans 9:5

"To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

Matthew 1:23

"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and they shall call his name Immanuel"

(which means, God with us).

God was made flesh and dwelt among us. He is still "God with us." He promises to be with us to the end of the age. Matt 28: 20.

Excellent post John, but than again, your translation might not be correct either.

[ClubV12]

The Father and the Son were closely connected, as it were "one", for many eons of time, UNTIL, Christ took on human nature. For the first time there was a "conscience" realization that the Son needed to submit to the Father for His own protection. A "thought" or "consequence" that before then was never a consideration.

In Gethsemane when Jesus asked this cup to pass from Him, it was a request the Father could not grant. Perhaps for the first time ever the Son was requesting something that was outside the Fathers will. How it must have broken the Fathers heart to deny that request.

[Gibs]

For more Club12 than closely connected, one substance is the right see of the Father and Redeemer extended from Himself. "One" as Jesus tells us, numerical 1 and no more.

Trinitarianism needs to get off the bandwagon, an early invention in Christianity. Adventism had it right before around 1950 and Satan got his way again.

We have no excuse if one will believe His Word and all the scripture on this and many plain ones have been posted. The following verse should be well understood but is not.

Lu 10:22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him

Yes the Son has plainly revealed it and most nowadays don't see it. Why? Let His Word be your teacher! He tells it like it is!

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.

[Gerr]

Ah, there is that convenient word "extended" again! You must have used at least 10x in this thread, and yet have not enlightened me as to what it means. If you did, I must have missed it.

[ClubV12]

"I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. I gazed on Jesus’ countenance and admired His lovely person. The Father’s person I could not behold, for a cloud of glorious light covered Him. I asked Jesus if His Father had a form like Himself. He said He had, but I could not behold it, for said He, "If you should once behold the glory of His person, you would cease to exist." . . .

Amazing Grace, Chap 63, "In the Most Holy Place" pg 71.

This was one of the very early visions Ellen White had, before 1846 if I recall correctly. From this early date we can see that the pioneers held to the same view the Church has today. A description of two separate and distinct members of the God head. Each with their own person.

"Then I described the lovely person of Jesus, (an express image of His Father) his glorious appearance in the clouds of heaven, as he comes to earth the second time; with what majesty and power he rides forth upon the cloudy chariot, escorted by all the angelic host, and with the glory of the Father." Spiritual Gifts, Volume 2 pg 103

The prophet leaves no doubt about the meaning of "one". One in thought, in purpose, in mind set, separate, but equal. One who was the great lawgiver, the Father and UNDER HIM, the one who created all things, the Son.

Following the crucifixtion, all power in heaven and in earth was given to the Son, a gift from the Father. There is no need for confusion on the aspect of the relation between the Father and the Son, except as we are determined to make scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy bend to your own privately held interpretation of "one".

I believe exactly as the pioneers believed and as the Church believes today. To state the Church has changed it's view on the Father and the Son is introduce error, confusion. It is to take something simple and shroud it in mystery.

I understand how those who have removed their membership from the body of believers can form opinions that differ from the body. This is a prime example of the danger of removing oneself from that group, the organized, sanctioned, legal body of believers known as Seventh-day Adventists. That group to whom special light has been given to a dieing world. That same group who will endure to the end. Sister White is very clear there will be no other group raised up, organized and structured to do this work until Jesus returns. ALL such groups and individuals professing to be Seventh-day Adventists who have removed their membership are indeed "off shoots" and "fanatics". Sincere---ly mistaken. They represent the wolves Paul warned us about.

[Gibs]

Gerry, to me it means our Father made to us a gift of Himself in Jesus Christ in whom He came. The fullness of the Father was in Him, ALL power was and yet is His.

You might say He the Father extended more than even His right Arm, yes His Full Power. The Father put it all in His hands!

1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

Then when His fullness is returned,

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

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.

[John317]

The life of an angel could not ransom mankind,

Jesus "being made (gennao = begat, begotten) so much better than the angels." (Hebrews 1:4)

Are you positive that the Greek participle genomenos is from gennao?

Genomenos is actually from the verb ginomai (Strong's #1096), and is usually translated in Hebrews 1: 4 as "became."

Gennao is Strong's #1080, meaning "to beget, generate, to be born, be produced, to give birth to."

Please notice that in Hebrews 1: 4, genomenos is aorist middle deponent nominative.

What significance is this?

A deponent verb is one which is Middle and Passive in form, but Active in meaning, or function. (See The Essentials of New Testament Greek, Ray Summers, page 50; The Elements of New Testament Greek, J.W. Wenham, page 93; A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, page 163.)

Therefore in Hebrews 1: 4, it cannot refer to Christ's being "begotten" or "made" in the sense of being brought into existence. If that were the case, the Greek word would be gennao, not ginomai, and it would be passive, not middle deponent.

Notice that in Heb 1: 7 when it speaks of the angels having been made, it uses the Greek word, poieo, "to make, form, construct," the verb from which we derive the word, "poem."

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

He was not created, He was begotten by the Ancient of Days.

(in the ancient of days ~ the days of eternity ~ Micah 5:2 margin)

Micah 5: 2 says nothing about Christ's being "begotten"-- or coming into existence-- in the days of eternity.

Micah 5:2 (KJV)--

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

This is actually the very same language used of Jehovah--

Psalm 93:2

Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Habakkuk 1:12

Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One?

Genesis 21:33

And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.

[ClubV12]

This is basically where Uriah Smith erred. He, Uriah, was attempting to understand the mystery of Christ. It is noteworthy that Ellen White never made this attempt. I see Uriah not as other men see him, as an aryan, but as one struggling to find a worthy description of this mystery. By venturing into this he was standing on Holy ground. I will follow Sister Whites example here, not Uriahs (a man I have great respect for).

I see Gibs making a similiar mistake, shall we then say, "Gibs is aryan"? I don't think that is the case (but maybe it would be correct, I don't know for sure). I see Gibs making the same fundamental mistake Uriah Smith made, venturing onto Holy ground trying to explain the mystery of the Father and the Son.

The prophet has revealed enough for me to settle the matter. They are two distinct beings, with "persons" that are the express image of each other. They have always been, always will be. "Time" is meaningless to them, as there is no beginning, no end. It is enough, for me, to conclude, the Father and the Son have always existed since eternity. I don't pretend to understand that mystery!