The Trinity?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Is it possible to translate Col 1: 15 as "The Son is... the firstborn over all creation"?

I would suggest that both translations, "firstborn of all creation" and "firstborn over all creation," signify the same thing about Christ.

They are completely different. In one case (of all) the one is necessarily part of the group, but in the other case (over all) the one is not necessarily part of the group. In Latin it would have taken the word "super" and the accusative declension.

Even in English it's totally different. Belonging is signified in one case and not in the other

In any case, this involves too many uncertainties to bend it the way you want it. The by far clearer translation is "of all creation."

This passage is at best useless to trinitarians, at worst harmful. Unless it has been doctored, stay away from it.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

"There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons".

Oh, yeah? What about:

Quote:

ACV: I Timothy 2:5. For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ,

How do you get past that? Or is Jesus a mediator between himself and himself? And there are many others as clear as this.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Dr. Waite, my beliefs are entirely consistent with the World Church of Seventh-day Adventists, which in turn, is entirely consistent with the Spirit of Prophecy.

What about with the Bible?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Tony, this is a good approach - to examine the evidence.

It's better than good - it's the only approach if one wants to get to a fact based, therefore true conclusion. And remember, examine all the relevant evidence, not only the convenient evidence. And be critical about what you accept as evidence.

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: John317

Some bad translations ignore this and render the last clause, "and God was the word." That is precisely what the apostle John is NOT saying.

Or, "the word was a god."

A verbatim translation from the Greek with every "the" (as in the Greek) in place and every "a" supplied (no "a" in Greek, but implied where "the" is not used), is: "in a beginning was the word and the word was with the God and a god was the word."

The Greek word order is maintained in the above verbatim translation.

OK, now you've got the raw data. Start doctoring it to fit the trinitarian mould.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The Greek word may be translated in the passive or in the active. In the passive, it means something that is grasped or held on to. In the active, it means something to be stolen or seized by violence. See the standard Greek-English lexicons.

The context appears to require the passive, since it's unlikely that the Apostle is saying we ought to copy Christ because he didn't steal something. His message, rather, is that we should copy Christ because He left His position as God in order to come down to this earth and die for us.

I've looked at this on the web and it's very iffy. Some say it's active (no, not all Jehovah's Witnesses) and some say it's passive. And just the idea to have a word derive its meaning from something which is not clear, is a very bad idea. Human language is by far not capable of unambiguously transmitting information in every case.

And why should Paul not say "don't aspire to be upwardly mobile socially, but rather humble yourselves?"

If this is the best you can do the trinity is on very shaky ground. On the other side the ground is much firmer.

[epaminondas]

From the last few trinitarian posts it really looks as if the trinitarians are abandoning the Bible to make their case and rather appealing to Ellen White and the SDA church. Maybe they'll have better luck with those sources.

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

With man you mean human. This is an oxymoron - God is not a human and a human can't be God. Is suppose this is again one of the deep mysteries of the Bible.

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.

They don't mean literally. Jesus, in the flesh, was a representative of God. Anybody disagree with that?

[epaminondas]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

Does anyone know how the Revised English Bible translates this verse? I think it's from 1989.

Philippians 2: 6 in the Revised English Bible (1989)reads, "He was in the form of God; yet He laid no claim to equality with God..."

This is the same translation that gives the following readings:

John 1: 1-- "In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was."

Col 1: 16, 17-- "... [the Son's] is the primacy over all creation... He exists before all things, and all things are held together in him."

Titus 2: 13-- "... our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

2 Peter 1: 1-- "... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

John 8: 58-- "Jesus said, 'In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Compare Exodus 3: 14, "God answered, 'I AM that I am. Tell them that I AM has sent you to them.'"

According to all these texts in the REB, Christ was/is certainly "God,"-- even "our great God."

That means those are all contentious passages open to more than one interpretation. I'm willing to abandon them in the interest of accuracy, are you? I still have many not contentious passages supporting my point.

[epaminondas]

By the way, I am pretty sure that the belief that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have independence of consciousness is not trinitarian, rather is tri-theism.

Yes, they can't get away from three gods. But still they're monotheists. I'm getting dizzy just trying to think about it.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

So what's your problem with the trinity?

It's not in the Bible. 1 + 1 + 1 is not 1

[ClubV12]

Ellen Whites commentary is an excellent source of insight, I for one, will accept her interpretation of scripture over yours, epaminondas.

As it concerns doctrinal issues Ellen White is ONLY a guide to the Seventh-day Adventist Church and IF your not a former or current member of that Church she has no greater value than any other commentator or source for interpretation or insight.

Seventh-day Adventists have always been known as a "people of the book". ALL our doctrine is soley bible based. You will notice that in direct reference to the Seventh-day Adventist fundamental beliefs, the Church uses no quotes from Ellen White to sustain the doctrines. It ONLY offers bible texts, which it and myself, use to clairify the doctrinal position.

Dr. Waite and many other persons disagree with the Churches interpretation of those bible texts, as you yourself seem to as well. In the case of those persons who DO use, rely on or consider Ellen White an authoritative commentator on scripture a discussion of her views is warranted. For those that reject her counsel or feel she is not a worthy source of commentary, for whatever reason, then the bible and the bible only is adequate to sustain the doctrine. How bible verses are interpreted remains an issue for all faiths, the methods employed have been debated among Seventh-day Adventist scholars as well.

Bear in mind this IS after all a Seventh-day Adventist sponsored forum. In that respect I certainly make no apologies for relying on the biblical expertise of this Seventh-day Adventist author of some fifty books, spanning decades. One of her books is considered the best one ever written on the life of Christ by many scholars outside of the Church, even non-Christians, "Desire of Ages". Her literary work stands on it's own, she is a note worthy scholar and respected bible commentator.

It is one thing for a person who is not and has never been a member of the Church to seek knowledge and have a sincere desire to find truth. It is quite another thing for one who used to be a Seventh-day Adventist and now has an "agenda" to attack the Church in some way. I have no interest in a "debate" or "argument" about the Churches fundamental beliefs as it concerns the triune God. My personal position is clear and simple, I belive the Seventh-day Adventist Church is correct in their analysis and interpretation of the scripture to support a triune God belief.

I believe your interpretation is fundamentally flawed and innaccurate, therefore, I reject it on that basis.

The thread is over a 100 pages, I submit the matter has been resolved already. Some believe, others will not, the evidence has been presented, time to get off the merry go round.

[Gerr]

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.

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

They don't mean literally.

Here's the rub, the crux of the whole issue. You and others are presented with very explicit Bible passages and what is your response? "They don't mean literally!"

The Bible says that Jesus is "God manifest in the flesh," and your say, "they don't mean literally." A cherry not picked, a hoop jumped through.

The Bible says of Jesus, "Immanuel - God with us." And your response? "They don't mean literally." Another cherry not picked and a hoop jumped through.

God Himself declares of the Son, "Your throne oh God is forever and ever." And your response? "They don't mean literally!"

The Bible says, "The Word was God." And your response?

Like I said before, I would have to be more selective cherry picking and jumping through hoops to escape the trinitarian conclusion!

Quote:

Jesus, in the flesh, was a representative of God. Anybody disagree with that?

Jesus is/was more than just a representative of God. He was God made flesh! I may have missed your response to the question - if Jesus Christ is not God, why would men & angels worship Him?

[Gerr]

Quote:

So what's your problem with the trinity?

It's not in the Bible. 1 + 1 + 1 is not 1

Oh, shall we go over the oneness of Adam & Eve again? And the oneness of believers?

[Gerr]

Philippians 2: 6 in the Revised English Bible (1989)reads, "He was in the form of God; yet He laid no claim to equality with God..."

This is the same translation that gives the following readings:

John 1: 1-- "In the beginning the Word already was. The Word was in God's presence, and what God was, the Word was."

Col 1: 16, 17-- "... [the Son's] is the primacy over all creation... He exists before all things, and all things are held together in him."

Titus 2: 13-- "... our great God and Savior Jesus Christ..."

2 Peter 1: 1-- "... the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

John 8: 58-- "Jesus said, 'In very truth I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"

Compare Exodus 3: 14, "God answered, 'I AM that I am. Tell them that I AM has sent you to them.'"

According to all these texts in the REB, Christ was/is certainly "God,"-- even "our great God."

[Gerr]

From the last few trinitarian posts it really looks as if the trinitarians are abandoning the Bible to make their case and rather appealing to Ellen White and the SDA church. Maybe they'll have better luck with those sources.

I would never ever quote EGW except to SDAs who believe in her inspiration. Every belief I hold on religious matters must be sustained by Scripture alone.

[o2bwise]

Hi Club,

Quote:

Will you join with me, o2bwise, will you connect yourself with Gods chosen people? He has not abandoned His people, whom He loves deeply.

First off, Club, I don't believe God abandons anyone and I don't believe He is a respecter of persons. God loves all just as deeply - even prodigal sons.

When Jesus said the church would stand, its institutional level was basically nonexistent while the institutional level of the church that crucified him was about as lofty as it can possibly be.

I understand the basic logical flow that causes one to equate an unconditional allegiance to any organization as synonymous with an allegiance to God and His truth. Now, I believe this to be error and it is most binding.

I don't know the quite, but my friend used to quote a White text where she wrote "Not one in fifty" meaning that was a ratio of who would remain with God.

Institutionalism is necessary, I believe, in order to effectively distribute the light a people has been blessed with. However, I do not believe there is a single case where an institution, once established, was receptive to further light. I am not here blaming the institution. It's just a human thing. The majority just does not embrace any new light that comes along.

Two thousand years ago served as an example. The church does go through. In much the same manner it went through then.

In the last days as with then, there will be an outpouring of fresh light. The shaken will be the organized church when it finally excommunicates the remnant. White frequently paralleled SDA with Israel.

Israel is as Israel does.

I am sorry for your erroneous mental construct that equates "being one with the truth" with "an unbroken connection to such a posture with adherence to any organizational structure.

Lastly, Club, you have written things that have caused me to recoil. Your cowardice remark smacks of a sweeping generalization of the lowest kind. Thinking to know the heart by virtue of knowing an outward act (in this example, folks who have left the SDA church). There may be many reasons (the heart) for the outward act.

Furthermore, because you can write something like the following:

Quote:

I am as clear on the point of Christs eternity and unborrowed immortal life as is the prophet.

1 Corinthians 8:2

If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know.

My ability to glean any light from you is severely compromised. I hope you understand why.

Take Care...

Tony

[ClubV12]

I always find it strange when someone quotes Ellen White and then rejects her counsel at the same time.

In some cases I guess that means they are struggling to find their place in relation to the prophet. In other cases it is simply to avoid those parts of her counsel that convict them of truth.

Israels rejection took over a 1,000 years! There is no question the Seventh-day Adventist Church was raised up for these last days in 1844. It, like Israel of old, is the chosen messenger for the three angels message. In view of the long suffering of God for His chosen people it is inconceivable that His chosen people would be rejected within a few decades of being formed. If you want to compare Israel to the Church today, you must consider that time frame!

In fact Ellen White notes that there will never be another chosen people in these last days to give this message that will take the place of the chosen Church, Seventh-day Adventists.

Those who reject the Church, and pick and choose what parts of Ellen White to accept or reject, have brought the time of trouble upon themselves. That time has not yet come. One in fifty, one in twenty, one in a hundred, pick a number, it's irrelevant because it is not YOUR work to make those decisions. The angels bring about the shaking, not man.

Make no mistake, those who have removed their membership from the Church are in grave danger. It has been my experience that it is very rare for those who have to find their way back. It is a powerful delusion. For some it holds them with silken cords because they are convinced they are on the right spiritual path. It feeds their ego (pride) to think they are doing Gods own work. They are deeply sincere and sincerely mistaken. For this group the possibility of return is exceedingly remote, they are not even aware there is a problem! For others, they have all kinds of "good excuses" for leaving, someone hurt them, they didn't feel loved, mistakes were made, the list is long. While this is very sad, the work will go on, without them. They will, in the end, have no excuse to offer before the bar of God.

"I am as clear on the point of Christs eternity and unborrowed immortal life as is the prophet."

I simply echo the position of the prophet on this issue, this is what she says of Christ in Desire of Ages. By rejecting it, you reject her words, not mine.

[ClubV12]

What can you say to someone who has removed their membership from the Church because they believe it is in apostasy and has been rejected of God?

Such people already know all the pertinent Ellen White quotes and biblical referrences to Israel of old. Much of what they say is in fact true, much, certainly not all.

Their minds are made up for the most part, they have settled into what they believe is "truth".

What can you say they haven't already heard? This class is incredibly difficult to reach.

[o2bwise]

Well, Club, one thing I will NOT say is that they are all cowards.

I also believe there will be no other institution.

The church will excommunicate the last day movement and those excommunicated will be used to usher in the final events.

Those will be the Adventists.

The above hypothesis is consistent with White's counsel. No more organizational church used by God after this one.

Club, I am highly convicted of the view that Jesus is the literally begotten Son of God. I just am. I came out of trinitarianism. Among my steadfast views is that "one God" includes the characteristic of one single conscious existence.

Tony

[Gibs]

ClubV12, I think you discount what her views of the church began to be especially after 1904. She was heartbroken, there is a few of her statements still on the disc but not what used to be.

Her last yrs sfter 1904 changed her view and testimony of the church drastically

I sincerely believe she would to day if alive would be a come out one with us.

I must say for all to follow the Word and Jesus Christ and forget the denominations, all of them.

Christ's true church cannot be a denomination, He alone is it's head, not the conjured up teachings and theology of men.

Every thing taught these last days must be put under careful examination of the Word and ascertain as to where these teachings are leading and from where on earth are they coming from.

Never under estimate the enemy, especially Satan and his angels!

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.

[ClubV12]

I am well aware of her views around 1888 and later into the 1900's, very sad indeed Gibs. There is a storm coming,,, but it's not here yet. Lets not bring it upon ourself until that time.

We are told to "occupy" until He comes. To me that says stay the course, trust in Him, submit to my brethren (even when I disagree with them), love those in the Church and at the same time, speak the truth when it is needful. No question, the Church is a mess! Never the less, I will occupy as ordered by my Commander to do.

NO WAY Ellen White would remove her membership from the Church. She has given us excellent counsel on the steps we should take, individually when faced with this "conundrum" of membership. "Take the young people and place them where they will come in as little contact with the Church as possible" (not an exact quote but I'm sure you know it). There is other counsel along this line as well, but there is NO COUNSEL that compells or tells us to remove our membership.

HOW can we do that? We see many such examples in self-supporting work, work she said was not along the "regular lines". I have studied a few of these more well known institutions, Wildwood, Eden Valley, etc. and I see a pattern. They have not abandoned the Church or removed their membership, and yet they are following the counsel. "Take the young people..." This was a profound revelation to myself. I have determined to stay in the Church and as God gives me grace to grow into a resemblance of Him that will encourage that "one in twenty" to come to higher ground.

Even among the many self-supporting institutions attempting to carry out the "blue print" there is some strife. Some fanaticism. Not all agree on the fine points of the law with each other. In short, they too are human. I appreciate their efforts, it's not a work I am called to. I am called to a small local Church that has a ton of problems, to do what I can while I occupy. Live a quiet life, work with my hands and mind my own business. I put myself at some risk even posting on this web site, I'm not exactly "quiet" while I'm here. But some things need to be said, perhaps, some, one in twenty maybe, will hear.

My heart goes out to those familys with fewer options than I have. With children they don't feel comfortable putting in our schools and yet they lack the ability for home school. Or folks who live in the city and would do well to move to the country, but how? I DO understand the need in some cases for home church, I sympathize, it's heart breaking. For those who cannot leave, who have few options, I meet them in Church, to encourage and uplift them.

God has a Church indeed, and it to, as we read in the first chapter of Acts of the Apostles, is an organized effort. A well regulated and working together effort to spread the gospel. There will come a time when two or three will be all that will be able together. For most of us, that time has not yet come, but it is certainly true in Iran, Iraq and many other places right now.

[ClubV12]

Gibs says,

"...literally begotten Son of God."

Strange that you essentially reject the witness of the prophet on this subject. She never touched it, it's Holy ground. Her statements are very clear on this issue of Christs immortality, His existence without beginning. Uriah Smith and others just could not wrap their head around this and continued to struggle to find a way to "explain" it. Not so Ellen White, she left it alone. That is her witness on the matter. I don't understand it, I just accept it. Life unborrowed, no beginning, no end. "Time" is irrelvant to one with no beginning, no end. HERE is where human logic breaks down, we cannot conceive of a universe without "time". Thus we struggle to explain words like "begotten". Don't get hung up on the details Gibs, just believe what the prophet has said and you will find peace on this issue.

[Gibs]

I am not hung up on the subject at all Club. The Redeemer came in the Son of God born of woman, Mary and was His only begotten Son. Not difficult to see at all.

His Son the Prince and yet the Son of Mary was his Only begotten Son. This is who was prepared that He would come and dwell in fully, and sure enough did! God with us! Not another God, but the one and only!

God wasn't born, just the man Jesus Christ of whom Yah was the Father and dwelt in Him!

I have peace on this subject you can be rest assured, His Word is absolute, no hard to understand writings at all.

Many are hung up to believe Yahweh had a son before Bethlehem. If that is the case you have no scripture to support that!

Don't we know that it was Jesus Christ that died, the Son of God and a man. Don't we know also that Deity, the Father that was in him did not.

Rather we have many to denouce such, one,

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 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

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.

[phkrause]

Of course you know the answer to both questions Dr. Waite.

With COURAGE I proclaim my allegiance to that body of believers raised up by our Lord to deliver the last message of hope to a dieing world. That body of believers known as the Seventh-day Adventist Church, of which I am a member. They are my people, I will not abandon them. I will unite my efforts with them, support them with pen, voice, tithe and offerings that the good news may be proclaimed.

For an offshoot the question is not "can the Church save me"? The question is, can you find salvation when you have knowingly, willfully, removed your association from the Church?

Easy to be an offshoot, no courage required. No one you have to submit to, no rules, no tithe, no offerings, no boss. Your totally on your own to form your own ideas, make your own plans, have church in the comfort of your own home if you like. What kind of courage does THAT take??