The Trinity?

[o2bwise]

Hi joeb,

Quote:

What do you mean by "independence of consciousness"?

This is an example where I wish there was simple terminology. I literally mean conscious existence itself. Like if you and I were in a room looking at a dining room table and counting how many chairs there are about the table.

You and I would deliberate on that separately. Independently of each other.

Even my dog has her own independent consciousness, more limited though it be.

Here check this out to see how a more thorough description of Trinity resonates with your soul.

Quote:

http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and_More/100%20and%20More%20Mysteries%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

The definition of the Trinity given below relates only to the orthodox definition, which is ratified in the Niceno Constantinopoliton and Athanasian creeds formulated by the Roman Catholics, and subscribed to by all Protestant churches who teach the Trinity. All other definitions must therefore be regarded as being held out of the mistaken notion that the particular definition is the one universally subscribed to, or the mistaken idea that the word Trinity is Biblical in the same sense as the word millennium (which we have already seen is not the case), and therefore subject to different interpretations as individuals understand it.

The substance of the correct definition is as follows:

(a) God is One yet at the same time He is three Persons.

( The One means one nature, essence, or being, which or who is essentially the Father.

© God and His nature are synonymous.

(d) The Oneness is not generic based on likeness, but rather is numeric based on sameness.

(e) Three persons means three expressions, extensions, manifestations, or modes otherwise theologically called hypostases or prosopons.

(f) The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.

(g) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son by a mediate procession.

(h) The Three Persons are truly distinct from each other by virtue of the processes of filiation and spiration, which however, does not make them separate Entities with independent self consciousness.

(i) The Father is neither begotten nor does He proceed from anyone else since He is the Source from which all else flows.

(j) Although the Son and the Spirit are derived from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal with the Father

(k) The theological word which explains the Trinity is consubstantiality (homoousious).

(15) Is it not a mystery that intelligent Christians who would recoil from such a concept, still feel bound to use an unscriptural terminology which has been long established to describe such a false concept of God?

(16) Is it not a mystery that most persons in these denominations are not even aware of what it is they precisely believe, and are therefore unwittingly subscribing to something false even while they strenuously hold onto the term Trinity?

Blessings,

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

And the fact that Christ is not the mediator in the Roman Church demonstrates that the Trinity destroys the truth that Christ is the one, the only mediator. The so-called Christian Church, the Papacy, that originated the doctrine of the Trinity, does not recognize him as the only mediator but substitutes a multitude of ghosts of dead men and women as mediators. If you hold the Trinity doctrine, in reality, Christ is no longer your mediator.…

[joeb]

Hi joeb,

Quote:

What do you mean by "independence of consciousness"?

This is an example where I wish there was simple terminology. I literally mean conscious existence itself. Like if you and I were in a room looking at a dining room table and counting how many chairs there are about the table.

You and I would deliberate on that separately. Independently of each other.

Even my dog has her own independent consciousness, more limited though it be.

Here check this out to see how a more thorough description of Trinity resonates with your soul.

Quote:

http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and_More/100%20and%20More%20Mysteries%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

The definition of the Trinity given below relates only to the orthodox definition, which is ratified in the Niceno Constantinopoliton and Athanasian creeds formulated by the Roman Catholics, and subscribed to by all Protestant churches who teach the Trinity. All other definitions must therefore be regarded as being held out of the mistaken notion that the particular definition is the one universally subscribed to, or the mistaken idea that the word Trinity is Biblical in the same sense as the word millennium (which we have already seen is not the case), and therefore subject to different interpretations as individuals understand it.

The substance of the correct definition is as follows:

(a) God is One yet at the same time He is three Persons.

( The One means one nature, essence, or being, which or who is essentially the Father.

© God and His nature are synonymous.

(d) The Oneness is not generic based on likeness, but rather is numeric based on sameness.

(e) Three persons means three expressions, extensions, manifestations, or modes otherwise theologically called hypostases or prosopons.

(f) The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.

(g) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son by a mediate procession.

(h) The Three Persons are truly distinct from each other by virtue of the processes of filiation and spiration, which however, does not make them separate Entities with independent self consciousness.

(i) The Father is neither begotten nor does He proceed from anyone else since He is the Source from which all else flows.

(j) Although the Son and the Spirit are derived from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal with the Father

(k) The theological word which explains the Trinity is consubstantiality (homoousious).

(15) Is it not a mystery that intelligent Christians who would recoil from such a concept, still feel bound to use an unscriptural terminology which has been long established to describe such a false concept of God?

(16) Is it not a mystery that most persons in these denominations are not even aware of what it is they precisely believe, and are therefore unwittingly subscribing to something false even while they strenuously hold onto the term Trinity?

Blessings,

Tony

Trinitarianism is not something I have spent the time studying like Ted Oplinger has into the history of this belief, but I doubt I could go along with a several of the items on this list.

That doesn't mean I don't believe in a Godhead made up of 3 distinct persons who are one in character and purpose, and who have always existed. They may have different roles in how they have chosen to deal with mankind but all 3 are still equal and none have existed without the others.

If that makes me something other than a "classic" Trinitarian, so be it. I don't really care. I don't subscribe to creeds of any kind. It's what my Bible tells me about God, and that's good enough for me. Also, I accept Ellen White as a prophet, and her writings are very clear that there are 3 persons in the Godhead who are one in character and purpose, and all 3 have always existed.

So, from the authorities I accept the non-trinitarian viewpoint just doesn't add up.

[ClubV12]

Two people walk up, shake hands and then give each other a hug. Hands to shake or clasp and arms to hug. I would never considered the question of them having separate consciousness, what an odd thought, a strange concept.

This we are told through the Lords messenger is precisely what the Father and the Son have done at various times. The Holy Spirit was also present because we are told He to was in the counsels of God, that same counsel Lucifer could not join. But I will not speculate on the person or character of the Holy Spirit beyond that which has been revealed.

They clasp they're hands in agreement that the Son would be a sacrafice for sin, before sin entered. The Father "encircled His arms" about the Son on His return from earth, victorious of course.

Ellen White says she saw the "lovely person" of Jesus but could not see the Father (if she had, she would have ceased to exist). To which Jesus replied, He is exactly like me. Each having they're own "person".

Now thats very clear to me we have two separate distinct "persons" here. Beyond a likening to a marriage, so closely united in thought, character, emotion and action they act as if they are "one".

I talked about this just this morning with the Jehovah Witness who came to my door. He recognizes that the Father and the Son are two distinct persons,,, BUT,,, at some point he believes Jesus was "created".

HERE is the great divide between what Seventh-day Adventists believe and what those who oppose the fundamental doctrines of the Church believe. The aryan view point of how Jesus came into existence, a strict definition of which is "created as a being".

Many of our pioneers also pondered this concept of at some point Jesus coming into existence. The Church, myself and I believe Ellen White reject this premise.

Perhaps those who reject the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the triune God should consider joining the Jehovah Witness'?

Carry on...

[Ted Oplinger]

Hi joeb,

Quote:

What do you mean by "independence of consciousness"?

This is an example where I wish there was simple terminology. I literally mean conscious existence itself. Like if you and I were in a room looking at a dining room table and counting how many chairs there are about the table.

You and I would deliberate on that separately. Independently of each other.

Even my dog has her own independent consciousness, more limited though it be.

Here check this out to see how a more thorough description of Trinity resonates with your soul.

Quote:

http://www.smyrna.org/Books/100_and_More/100%20and%20More%20Mysteries%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm

The definition of the Trinity given below relates only to the orthodox definition, which is ratified in the Niceno Constantinopoliton and Athanasian creeds formulated by the Roman Catholics, and subscribed to by all Protestant churches who teach the Trinity. All other definitions must therefore be regarded as being held out of the mistaken notion that the particular definition is the one universally subscribed to, or the mistaken idea that the word Trinity is Biblical in the same sense as the word millennium (which we have already seen is not the case), and therefore subject to different interpretations as individuals understand it.

The substance of the correct definition is as follows:

(a) God is One yet at the same time He is three Persons.

( The One means one nature, essence, or being, which or who is essentially the Father.

© God and His nature are synonymous.

(d) The Oneness is not generic based on likeness, but rather is numeric based on sameness.

(e) Three persons means three expressions, extensions, manifestations, or modes otherwise theologically called hypostases or prosopons.

(f) The Person of the Son is begotten from the Father by an eternal generation, a never ending process. This is compared to the rays of the sun that are never separated from the sun itself.

(g) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son by a mediate procession.

(h) The Three Persons are truly distinct from each other by virtue of the processes of filiation and spiration, which however, does not make them separate Entities with independent self consciousness.

(i) The Father is neither begotten nor does He proceed from anyone else since He is the Source from which all else flows.

(j) Although the Son and the Spirit are derived from the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal with the Father

(k) The theological word which explains the Trinity is consubstantiality (homoousious).

(15) Is it not a mystery that intelligent Christians who would recoil from such a concept, still feel bound to use an unscriptural terminology which has been long established to describe such a false concept of God?

(16) Is it not a mystery that most persons in these denominations are not even aware of what it is they precisely believe, and are therefore unwittingly subscribing to something false even while they strenuously hold onto the term Trinity?

Blessings,

Tony

The disclaimer at the beginning is problematic in and of itself. It proceeds on the premise the Trinity doctrine originated with the Nicene Creed, and was further embellished with the Athanasian Creed - extremely inaccurate, historically.

Further, it binds all Protestants into believing the exact same creed - when in fact there are several official variants to the Nicene Creeds held to within the spectrum of Protestantism. Most Protestants do NOT subscribe to the RCC form.

The disclaimer - by virtue of using the following words..."All other definitions must therefore be regarded as being held out of the mistaken notion that the particular definition is the one universally subscribed to" - sets up a straw man from the very beginning, by declaring every form of the "Trinity doctrine" to be, in fact, what the author wants to argue against, regardless.

(a), © and (i) appear to be the ONLY true statements to the list, Tony. All the other listings contain significant definition prejudices and misstatements.

( is a private definition to be used only by those agreeing to the article referenced. Stopping with the word "being", without the qualifying participle phrase, could have been deemed as true.

(d) is correct for the non-Trinitarian trying to regain a numeric 1 for monotheism.

(e) is categorically inaccurate. Extensions, hierarchies, and modes by God were rejected the early church over 100 years before the Nicene Creed was made. The word "manifested" is indeed Biblical, and is associated with God in no less than 16 places in the New Testament.

(f) never have seen "begotten" defined in such a way - again, another private definition to set up the straw man.

(g) The Old Testament demonstrates the Holy Spirit operating outside this definition, making this a false claim upon the Trinity argument

(h) Seeing how "filiation" and "spiration" are not Biblical terms, nor are they defined Biblically here...again, are we dependent upon the author here to use RCC terms to make a overgeneralized statement, in setting up the argument the author wants to oppose?

(j) Leaving this point as "The Son and the Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal with the Father" is a fair and accurate statement of the Trinity doctrine. The previous phrase is a literary tool designed to "lead to a desired conclusion" while trying to define the point of opposition. Standard usage in setting up a straw man logical fallacy.

(k) And the definition of the term is...? The RCC definition? or the definition used by various clerics of the early churches prior to 325 AD?

The inclusion of (15) and (16) into this list indicates the author is breaking (14) into components (a) through (k). (15) and (16) indicate the author, far from allowing facts to speak for themselves, is leading to a desired conclusion. While in and of itself not an evil thing, it does betray the prejudices of the author, as to why the author would frame the definitions in the manner seen.

I Googled Smyrna Gospel Ministries, I found what I suspected - an Adventist off-shoot that appeals to anti-Papal emotion to promote its version of "the Truth" and a desire to "return to the faith of the pioneers". While the effort to move forward to finish the work is commendable, I detect here the same isolationist/elitist "We only have the Truth" spirit I find in other SDA off-shoots. I could be wrong...but it runs strong.

Tony, I saw this method used in technical abstracts for decades: set up the precise conditions to prove/disprove, then present the findings accordingly. A lot of junk science has been published using that format; it is no different with respect to theological applications.

Blessings,

[o2bwise]

Hi joeb,

It seems to me you are tri-theist. I think it is cool you need not conform to tradition-laden terms or beliefs.

While I am not tri-theist, I sure like the doctrine a lot more than trinitarianism!

Take Care...

Tony

[o2bwise]

Hi Club,

Quote:

I would never considered the question of them having separate consciousness, what an odd thought, a strange concept.

Why do you think it an odd thought and a strange concept?

If they have the same consciousness, how can Christ say He knows not the time or the hour, only the Father knows? Or that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature?

That is separate consciousness. If they shared the same consciousness, they would know the same things.

Tony

[ClubV12]

"Tri-theism", sure sounds like another tradition-laden term.

The basic problem I see with Tri-theism is it can lead to thinking of three independant "gods". Buddhism could be (is?) tri-theism as they have three gods in they're system of belief.

There was never any question in my mind that the Father and the Son have separate and distinct consciousness (and persons).

I am reminded here of what Ellen White said about Dr. Kelloggs book. Some subjects lay so close to the truth and yet are very serious error it can be difficult for people to separate the error from the truth. She considered Dr. Kelloggs book so confusing in this regard she said we should not even read it! I think that is true EVEN FOR for those who feel they need to read it to understand whats wrong with it. NO, you don't, just put the book down and walk away. There is some knowledge not worth investigating. Tree of knowledge of good and evil comes to mind...

[o2bwise]

Hey Club,

Quote:

HERE is the great divide between what Seventh-day Adventists believe and what those who oppose the fundamental doctrines of the Church believe. The aryan view point of how Jesus came into existence, a strict definition of which is "created as a being".

Quote:

Christ Our Righteoueness, EJ Waggoner, 1888

The Scriptures declare that Christ is "the only begotten son of God." He is begotten, not created. As to when He was begotten, it is not for us to inquire, nor could our minds grasp it if we were told. The prophet Micah tells us all that we can know about it in these words, "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 the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. There was a time when Christ proceeded forth and came from God, from the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far back in the days of eternity that to finite comprehension it is practically without beginning.

But the point is that Christ is a begotten Son and not a created subject.

Please cite one single example of a being created at birth.

I do not subscribe to JW theology on the Godhead though I do subscribe to the above thought expressed in Minneapolis in 1888 by Waggoner.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Quote:

The basic problem I see with Tri-theism is it can lead to thinking of three independant "gods". Buddhism could be (is?) tri-theism as they have three gods in they're system of belief.

There was never any question in my mind that the Father and the Son have separate and distinct consciousness (and persons).

Well, I am fairly skeptical the Trinity is compatible with the idea the three have separate and distinct consciousness.

Oh, and Ted...I fully acknowledge lacking the scholarship with respect to the veracity of the orthodox Trinity definition I shared. It's all I know for now.

My primary angst with Trinity is on the point of number of separate conscious existences and its compatibility with "one God."

To me, there are three basic ways to go.

1) Maintain there is really only one separate consciousness and I think this point is alluded to here:

Quote:

The doctrine of the Trinity which was established in the church by the council of Nice, A. D. 325. This doctrine destroys the personality of God, and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The infamous, measures by which it was forced upon the church which appear upon the pages of ecclesiastical history might well cause every believer in that doctrine to blush. (J. N. Andrews, March 6, 1855, Review & Herald, vol. 6, no. 24, page 185)

Here we might mention the Trinity, which does away the personality of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, (James White, February 7, 1856, Review & Herald, vol. 7, no. 19, page 148, par. 26)

2) One God is made up of three Persons, each with his own separate consciousness, which I believe is a logical fallacy.

3) The view that Christ is the literal begotten Son of God, making Himself both God and equal with God and realizing the biblical terms "God" and "one true God" almost exclusively refer to Father only.

Blessings,

Tony

[Gibs]

Jesus Christ the Son of God was born of Mary here on this earth. Jesus Christ was not born before Bethlehem.

Also the Redeemer, extended from The Father who came in Him at Bethlehem was not a born creature or a created creature or was He another God formed.

He was the Father extended from Himself to be His Redeemer, as the Father saw down the road in time He would need one.

Then sin and rebellion happened here on the earth after the fall of Satan and the third of angels he convinced to be with him in rebellion. Satan was given a time to be reconciled and would not.

So then Yah-Redeemer came in His one and only begotten Son Jesus Christ at Bethlehem. The Babe born of Mary she was to name Him Jesus. He was also to be called, Emmanuel, meaning God, Yahweh with us!

Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

As a man He was Jesus, and also He was Yahweh-Redeemer, Yahshua!

The fullness of the Godhead, the Father was in Him!

As He told Philip, when you have seen me you've seen the Father!

Folks the scriptures on this are straight forward, fifth grade level to understand.

Trinity? Where on earth do you get that?

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 like Waggoner, I like Jones. They were men, in both cases they made very serious mistakes of a personal nature in their own spiritual walk. It happens, with men and women, though God uses them anyway. Like Uriah and James at different times, they struggled to explain, to grasp this "begotten of God" concept as it relates to Christ. Looking closely at Uriah, and I would add Waggoner to this, I come to the conclusion they are not strictly aryan (Christ being a created being), as if so often claimed. I see these and other pioneers attempting to explain a mystery they cannot fathom, they cannot put into words.

As I've mentioned before, it is noteworthy Ellen White never engaged in this quest to understand the mystery. Nor will I. Jesus is eternal, always was, always will be, life unborrowed. At times I to dwell on the "what if's", from whence did this "unborrowed life" come? But I don't dwell on it long, it's Holy ground. A mystery I don't believe we will ever understand this side of eternity.

I would counsel others to be careful of the line between sanctified imagination and speculation. The former is admirable, the later is dangerous.

When an issue, like the "daily" or the "character of Christ" divides and causes strife that is a sure sign it needs to be put away.

Carry on, with caution...

Brother Gibs, if your primary reason for abandoning the organized Church is THIS issue, that testimony is the evidence of how dangerous this type of discussion can be. All though, I suspect for you, Gibs, this is only one of many issues that have caused your separation from the organized body of believers. I'll keep a chair open for you in my Sabbath School class, come, join us!

[ClubV12]

Waggoner says, "...practically without beginning." Which is to say at some point there was a beginning. To have a beginning means you have "time", something measurable. Waggoner apparently means we can't measure, but strongly implies that's because we don't have the right "clock" to figure it out.

I say TIME is irrelevant to God. Even science struggles with the concept of "time". What IS time? Without it, even Waggoner can't put into words whatever it is he is trying to say.

I do believe this is literally an impossible quest to try and figure out the mind of God. Dare I say, it is folly and foolishness! I would say that, but I understand some take it very (WAY TO) seriously.

[joeb]

Quote:

Tony, I saw this method used in technical abstracts for decades: set up the precise conditions to prove/disprove, then present the findings accordingly. A lot of junk science has been published using that format; it is no different with respect to theological applications.

It's the same thing lawyers do in court all the time to distract, divert, confuse, obfuscate, etc... the issues and bend the jurors' minds to their will.

[joeb]

Waggoner says, "...practically without beginning." Which is to say at some point there was a beginning. To have a beginning means you have "time", something measurable. Waggoner apparently means we can't measure, but strongly implies that's because we don't have the right "clock" to figure it out.

I say TIME is irrelevant to God. Even science struggles with the concept of "time". What IS time? Without it, even Waggoner can't put into words whatever it is he is trying to say.

I do believe this is literally an impossible quest to try and figure out the mind of God. Dare I say, it is folly and foolishness! I would say that, but I understand some take it very (WAY TO) seriously.

There's a verse in Psalms, at least that's what my memory is telling me, that is referencing Christ which talks about how He and the Father grew up together. I wish I could recall the exact phrasing but I can't. I ran across it while studying something else and only noted it in passing because of this thread.

[Gibs]

I think these verses are what you are referring to Joeb,

Pr 8:22 ¶ The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

Pr 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Pr 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

Pr 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

Pr 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

Pr 8:27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

Pr 8:28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

Pr 8:29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

Pr 8:30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

Pr 8:31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

The thing to keep in mind here is the fact He the Redeemer possessed of The Father in the beginning didn't come in Jesus Christ until Bethlehem.

Yes there was a time when no Redeemer existed! Notice above, "He"had not made the earth!

No mystery, Yes the Redeemer was the Father extended, so it is "He"!

This is then is when He had delights with the sons of men.

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]

Joeb - are you thinking of Proverbs?

Proverbs 8:22-30 is Christ's description of growing up with His Father:

"Then I was by him, as one brought up with him;

and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." (verse 30)

[o2bwise]

Quote:

distract, divert, confuse, obfuscate, etc... the issues and bend the jurors' minds to their will.

I like the tract. I think the author has a keen sense of the Godhead and an extremely logical mind.

I detected none of the above. Moreover, the outward act is WHAT HE WROTE, the heart, something we cannot know.

I find the above to be most unfair.

[Ted Oplinger]

Well, I am fairly skeptical the Trinity is compatible with the idea the three have separate and distinct consciousness.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

John 17:3 was covered much earlier in the thread.

What about a nice, concise reply to the questions raised? I don't found John 17:3 covered except to claim the "and" does something wonderful, which it doesn't. Don't sidestep the issue.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

There's a verse in Psalms, at least that's what my memory is telling me, that is referencing Christ which talks about how He and the Father grew up together. I wish I could recall the exact phrasing but I can't. I ran across it while studying something else and only noted it in passing because of this thread.

And Solomon said there's nothing new under the sun. Here we have a verse in the Bible talking about how Jesus and the Father grew up together. Now I've heard everything. Nothing can surprise me, anymore.

You are covering the trinitarians with glory here.

[Gibs]

Numerically one or mathamatically one is correct of our one and only God! Yes the One and Only One that came in His One and Only Begotten Son at Bethlehem.

Yes there was no One and "Only" Begotten Son until Bethlehem!

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his "only" begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

There was no, Only Begotten Son before Bethlehem.

The Redeemer who came in The Only Begotten Son at Bethlehem, was not born, created or formed!

We must have scripture to show it if so. If so I for one want to see them.

The scripture states "Only" so it annuls more than one Son who combined at Bethlehem.

Now, if there was a Son before Bethlehem, how did He come about? Did Yahweh have a mate? Did Yahweh create Him? Did Yahweh Form up another God?

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.

The answer is no to all!

The one and only answer is Yahweh our Father extended Himself for His Redeemer Whom He forsaw would in time be needed. When He came in Jesus Christ at Bethlehem He became our and His Redeemer. He gave of Himself and His own Only Begotten Son!

Our Father in short gave all that Heaven had to give for our Redemption!

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.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Does she say ALL leprosy is spread by the consumption of pork? Check out Armadillo and leprosy in the SE USA.

An Armadillo and a pig are really two different animals. How does the fact that the Armadillo is a host to Mycobacterium Leprae in any way have anything to do with the fact that the pig is not and does not transmit leprosy?

Here is the link where you can download A Word to the Little Flock from the White Estate. I suppose you won't be able to find it in the file. What can I say?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

I respond not for you, epaminondas, but for those still checking in to this thread. John 17:3, parsed from its context, appears at first to lend support to your case. However, when placed back into its natural context as Christ's prayer progresses into verse 5, your position on Christ is not sustained. This is particularly true as Christ's prayer comes to its climax in verses 20-24.

In that natural context, Christ makes a pre-Incarnation claim of equality with the Father in verse 5, and a contemporary claim of united Deity with the Father in verse 21. For Christ to make these claims apart from being God Himself, is blasphemy.

I've read through all the chapter. Those verses don't even come close to Jesus claiming godhood. The angels were also with the Father before the world was created and they are also in full agreement with the Father.

Parse does not mean remove. John 17:3 is extremely clear, unlike the passages used by trinitarians to try and make their case.

What you say is that Jesus first says the Father is the only true God, and then goes on and claims to be a god himself, too. You turn Jesus into a fool who cannot make up his mind. And what about the Holy Spirit who is excluded from being god here, too?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Your bedrock proof text actually supports the divinity of Christ!

Oh, yes. The Father is "the only true God" actually means Jesus and the Holy Spirit are gods, too. This is so basic and simple. How can anyone not see it? Alford is a champion BS artist.

Obviously, you disagree with what Jesus said in John 17:3.