The Trinity?

[Gibs]

The Son of God did have a beginning, at Bethlehem, the Son had to be a man as the Redeemer must overcome as a man, not as God.

It was at Bethlehem and not before that His ONLY BEGOTTEN Son was born. ONLY BEGOTTEN, means "SOLE" one and only!

The gift of the Word, Thoughts, of Father named Yahweh of Hosts came in the Son of Mary and the Father. Before Bethlehem the Father had him do all visible creation and the Hosts.

This was a projection of the Father Himself to accomplish redemption and all heaven was emptied of Him when He came in Jesus Christ, God then the Father with us covered with the flesh of the body prepared Him.

There was never ever any other God formed or created or born. There is no 3 persons in the Godhead. God the Father is the Head and His extended Redeemer is equal but is subjective to the Fathers will. Jesus as a man called His Father God.

The Word of God trumps all else and that is solid ground, the Rock to build on!

The Holy Spirit is what God is, not another God or person.

It is the indwelling of the Father in all fullness in Christ made Him God the Father with us!

Now notice who your Saviour is, verse 11 here,

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.

[John317]

The Son of God did have a beginning, at Bethlehem, the Son had to be a man as the Redeemer must overcome as a man, not as God.

Sure, the human Jesus of Nazareth did have a beginning of his human personality, but the "eternal, self-existent Son of God" and "absolute Godhead" did not have a beginning. He has existed in close fellowship with the eternal God from all eternity.

[Gibs]

ClubV12,

EGW is referring to the Redeemer who was possessed of Himself before anything in those quotes you posted above. Yes you see if He was not of one and the same substance as the Father at that time He could not have been the pre-existent eternal one.

Same thing when Christ stated "I am the First", well he could not make that claim unless He and the Father are truly one and the same substance.

Jesus flat out tells you all and you make something else of it,

"I and may Father are ONE"!

God the Father in Christ makes him the eternal pre-existent one!

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]

Do you agree with this translation of John 1: 1--

"In the beginning the Word already was, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God Himself"?

[John317]

...Christ stated "I am the First", well he could not make that claim unless He and the Father are truly one and the same substance.

They are indeed of the same substance, but remember they are also distinct and separate Persons.

Again, the "eternal Godhead"-- (which has no beginning and does not change)-- consists of three living persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Or do you believe the "eternal Godhead" has changed or had a beginning?

[Gibs]

No they are not! There is not two Gods, forget that! God is but one person. He is the ONLY God, that means 1, ONE, no other!

And the translation of Joh 1;1 is poor you posted,

Joh 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the beginning before anything The Word, The Thoughts of God the Father were what He extended from Himself and sent to do all the creation and the Hosts, therefore His name Yahweh of Hosts.

Of one substance, so of course he was also the eternal pre-existent one.

I believe Jesus when He tells me, "I and my Father are one!" You can't wrest it to mean any thing but what he flat out states, read the two verses before Joh 10:30

Your Heavenly Father in Jesus Christ is your Saviour my friends,

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]

Gibs, your ideas and interpretations are miles away from mine. Were not in the same ball park on these concepts. I don't think your even in the same town were so far apart.

Which is strange because of your professed belief in Sister White as a prophet. I can understand the confusion of those who reject her outright, but the confusion of one who accepts her? Very strange indeed...

[epaminondas]

I can't believe Socrates said that!

I just read it in a book about Christianity and Rome. One of the Roman elite, clinging on to times gone by, said it, aimed at the ruling Ostrogoths at the time. The book says he quoted Socrates. The Ostrogoths apparently led the Romans live their own lives, as long as there was something in it for the Ostrogoths, as well.

The Germanic invaders were Arians. Many took their success in invading the Athanasian Roman world as God's displeasure with the trinity theory.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

I believe the Bible evidence is that the Godhead-- i.e., YWHW-- is comprised of Three living, eternal Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

When God said "apart from me there is no God," He was signifying that the only true God is the living God, Yahweh. All others are false gods.

Then it should be easy to quote that Bible evidence. So, where does it say YWHW is composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

And was it YWHW who said "apart from me there is no God?" If so, was it a chorus of three voices or is YWHW really a fourth entity, so a single voice, composed of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

It should be easy to answer this. All the numbers we work with here can be counted on one hand. The final year theology class doesn't have to take of their shoes and socks to work with the really big numbers, you know, those over ten.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The pioneers often noted NOT created, but "begotten". Whatever that means, I don't accept the commonly used definition of the word "begotten". It is at this point the debate falls into chaos.

You are right, 'NOT created, but "begotten"' has no clear meaning. I can also see why you say 'I don't accept the commonly used definition of the word "begotten"'. It doesn't live well with the trinity. Yes, to be a trinitarian one has to be able to make words mean whatever one wants them to mean.

[Gibs]

The problem and the answer is there is a coupling word with begotten that clears the issue.

You must see it is stated "ONLY BEGOTTEN" that means "sole" one, and no other!

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]

Quote:

Did you get this quote from the 1888 Minn GC Session, or from the 1890 publication, Christ and His Righteousness, pages 21, 22?

The book is a shorthand account by Waggoner's wife, of what he spoke in Minneapolis.

[o2bwise]

I think I'm gonna bow out.

My sense is that I have repeatedly laid out what I see as by far the most powerful evidence that is contrary to Trinity...

and it is just ignored.

I guess that's how these things go.

Blessings,

Tony

[Gerr]

I think I'm gonna bow out.

My sense is that I have repeatedly laid out what I see as by far the most powerful evidence that is contrary to Trinity...

and it is just ignored.

I guess that's how these things go.

Blessings,

Tony

Don't feel too bad. I have posted some stuff that get ignored too. But I'll put some of them down again.

1. Jesus is explicitly called "God".

ESV | ýJn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV | ýHeb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Isa 9:6his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

2, He is to be worshiped - ESV | ýHeb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him."

3. Only God is to be worshiped - Mt 4:10

[epaminondas]

I think I'm gonna bow out.

My sense is that I have repeatedly laid out what I see as by far the most powerful evidence that is contrary to Trinity...

and it is just ignored.

I guess that's how these things go.

Blessings,

Tony

Tony, you just don't understand. Trinitarians "reason" in a very convoluted way. What they ignore doesn't exist for them. Look how they (hose, in this latest instance) repeatedly use John 1:1 even though it has many times been shown to be an inaccurate translation of the Greek, with even links to the transliteration from Greek. It has also been shown that, as they understand it, it violates basic logic, you know, grade school logic. I know that's highly advanced logic for trinitarians.

Say one asks the simple question, "why is a fire-engine red?" This is about how the mind of a trinitarian will "work:"

The most common agent used to put out fires is by far water.

On Earth most water is in the sea.

There are fishes in the sea.

Fishes have fins.

The Finns fought against the Russians.

Everyone knows the Russians are red.

That's why a fire-engine is red.

Nobody can get a stark, raving trinitarian to see the light. Maybe one can get someone not yet in the fully-blown state of the disease to see the light and therefore be cured.

And, of course, one can have some fun heckling the crazies, like in Borat. In 1973 one class mate had a nervous breakdown and ended up in the insane asylum. We visited him regularly. One day he was just gone and turned up where we lived. It turned out that he and another inmate had painted some signs saying "Don't tease the patients" and "Don't feed the patients" during group therapy. Pretoria zoo had many signs saying "Don't tease the animals" and "Don't feed the animals." The professor of psychiatry, who was not known to be excitable, apparently nearly had a stroke. The two were ignominiously expelled from the insane asylum. Now that takes some doing.

We made some jokes about how comforting it would be to his future patients to see a framed certificate against his surgery wall saying, "Inmate, Weskoppies Insane Asylum - 1973." He said he wanted to get a T-shirt saying that. He thought maybe it would increase his chances with the ladies. As it was, he wasn't having much luck.

This friend had to repeat third year. Strange thing is, after his stint in the insane asylum, he became a top student having previously been only a mediocre student. Now if we can only get some of these rabid trinitarians into Weskoppies...

[Gustave]

Gustave,

There are comparatively few "tests" which are declared by God to be used by His people. Isaiah 8:20 is one such. 1 John 4:1-3 is another.

[epaminondas]

Trinitarians, was Paul mad?

Quote:

1 Corinthians 8:6 American King James Version

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Clearly, whichever way one looks at it, here Paul says that the Father is the only God, just like Jesus said. These words are so clear and simple, they cannot be twisted.

Is it likely that the same Paul would say in another place that Jesus is also God? Not if he is sane and honest. Of course, Paul nowhere said that Jesus is also God. But trinitarians want to twist Paul's words to mean that Jesus is also God. That means trinitarians want to turn Paul into a mad man. Will trinitarians stop at nothing to establish a trinity of gods?

And to Gustave, to rely on one not so clear verse to turn Jesus and God into one doesn't really do it. Who did Jesus pray to when he prayed if he was/is God? Himself?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

If the pre-existent Christ had a beginning, He could not be either "infinite" or "the absolute Godhead."

Where in the Bible is the word "infinite" ever applied to Christ? There is a difference between "infinite" and "eternal" - English, second language, primary school.

[o2bwise]

Hi Gerry and Others,

I'll summarize the points I believe I made that have either never been responded to or scarcely been.

ONE

Biblical support for Trinity requires literally hundreds of texts to be interpreted in a manner highly unlike their most apparent meaning. This is a severe violation of the correct manner of deriving truth from Scripture.

I shared this a number of times with examples.

Never got a reply. Not once.

TWO

Looking at the view that Jesus is the literal Son of God from the perspective of agape (love) and how it far surpasses the same with Trinity.

Never got a reply. Not once.

THREE

Comparing both views from the standpoint of reason, including how it is "one" can be composed of multiple independent consciousnesses. Also sharing how literal Son view has no such rational violations.

Closest I ever got was Club and Gail (thanks, Club and Gail!) replying that the subject is beyond our comprehension and that is why. To which I replied I felt that the matter BELONGS within rational expectations.

I appreciate that is MY conviction.

FOUR

After hearing a few times things like, "Just because the pioneers believed in a literal Son" or "Just because the papacy is Trinitarian" or "Just because the three horns were non-Trinitarian Sabbath-keepers," doesn't mean Trinity is not the truth...

To which I finally did up a list of "Just Becauses" and asked, "What are the odds?" About the same odds a quantum physicist might predict for a sledgehammer to go from one side of a 20 foot iron wall to the other side.

It really reduces to being able to employ rational assessment while also having a decent familiarity with the Word of God and with concepts like dad and son and multiple conscious existences and understanding that offspring naturally have the nature of their parent(s).

And the fact is, our Trinitarian friends lack the ability to employ anything close to adequate rational assessment and my guess is (to refer to the movie The Matrix), it is simply too hard to digest the needed red pills.

And in the absence of such digestion, a state of cognitive dissonance is the natural consequence.

Paradigms can be hard to traverse.

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

To the head of the class with you!

Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Hey Club,

Quote:

#1. His life is unborrowed, of Himself, He is fully divine, so says the prophet.

Twice I drilled into White's use of the phrase and it clearly allows that the Father could have given this attribute via His processes of begetting His Son in eternity past.

If you are meaning "of Himself" to be "co-eternal with His Father and NOT via the Father begetting a Son..."

You are disallowing White's use of the phrase to take on a meaning that is allowable.

White clearly states that WE can have the same qualifications and so the obvious implication is that since we do not have it in a co-eternal sense, there is an obvious allowance that the Father gave the very same qualification to His Son, which I believe happened when the Son acquired the nature of His Father in the general sense that all offspring acquire the nature of their parent(s).

You are being eisegetical with White's text and that cannot pass muster.

Blessings,

Tony

[Ted Oplinger]

Hi Gerry and Others,

I'll summarize the points I believe I made that have either never been responded to or scarcely been.

[Gustave]

And to Gustave, to rely on one not so clear verse to turn Jesus and God into one doesn't really do it. Who did Jesus pray to when he prayed if he was/is God? Himself?

Not so clear?

...You jest.

Christ's relationship with The Father & Holy Spirit "post-Incarnation"...

...Was identical to His pre-Incarnation relationship.

...So says Sacred Scripture.

Philippians 2,5

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name

This Scripture speaks of the mind of Christ before His Incarnation...

...Specifically that just because He was 'GOD'.

...Was not a reason for Him to deny the will of The Father because He co-owned the Nature.

Christ on earth, in human flesh, displayed the IDENTICAL relationship to His Father....

...That He had ETERNALLY.

...So is it a shock Jesus prayed to His Father?

...Hardly - it was simply a visible demonstration to us of what He had been doing ETERNALLY.

[Gerr]

ONE

Biblical support for Trinity requires literally hundreds of texts to be interpreted in a manner highly unlike their most apparent meaning. This is a severe violation of the correct manner of deriving truth from Scripture.

Not true. I just need a few.

1. Jesus is explicitly called "God".

ESV | ýJn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

ESV | ýHeb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Isa 9:6his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

2, He is to be worshiped - ESV | ýHeb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him."

3. Only God is to be worshiped - Mt 4:10

4. ESV | ‎Mt 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

5. ESV | ‎Ac 5:3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit ...... You have not lied to man but to God.”

Quote:

I shared this a number of times with examples.

Never got a reply. Not once.

TWO

Looking at the view that Jesus is the literal Son of God from the perspective of agape (love) and how it far surpasses the same with Trinity.

Never got a reply. Not once.

Frankly, I don't understand the question.

Quote:

THREE

Comparing both views from the standpoint of reason, including how it is "one" can be composed of multiple independent consciousnesses. Also sharing how literal Son view has no such rational violations.

This has been answered more than once. Their oneness has nothing to do with a mathematical one, just as the oneness of a husband & wife and the oneness of believers have nothing to do with a mathematical one.

[Gerr]

As I discussed with others on another thread, I stepped out of this thread a while back, because it has devolved down to boasts and demands to address points which, if one wishes to go back through the earliest portions of this thread with an honest eye, were indeed addressed and/or discussed at length already. Some points have been addressed three and four times already.