The Trinity?

[o2bwise]

Quote:

Actually, Tony, if you think you've got it all figured out after 1600+ yrs of hot debate on the point, kudos to you.

What I think at the moment, Ted, is you sometimes take upon yourself province that is God's alone - and at my expense.

And I rather don't like it.

[Gustave]

Quote:

Just to make sure I understand you - you are claiming...

...That Ellen White and her fellow SDA leaders were WRONG.

...When they said that God was NOT a compound "Being".

...But that God was to be understood as a "UNITY" of two Personalities.

...With ONLY the Father being 'God' in the ultimate sense.

Do I have that right?

What you are saying is that God is the Father ALONE, period...

...No "unity", "no compound Being".

Jesus said it. His word is good enough for me. So, yes, that's my position. Hardly original, as Jesus said it first.

And as for the first bit, the two possibilities I mentioned are the only existing ones - there are no other. So, either your god is a committee of three or a fourth entity.

And I've never been near the SDA archives. I read the Bible. There's no doubt, the SDA church is right about the Sabbath. That's why I'm an SDA.

Ok, that's a starting point and the same 'belief' Ellen White and the other Arian SDA's had...

...Are you also Anthropomorphite?

[John317]

...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 the Word already was, and the Word was face to face with God, and the Word was God Himself"

There's nothing wrong with the KJV translation, either, Gibs, but can you show or explain how the other translation is incorrect?

I'm not giving it as merely my opinion, but I'm saying that this is what the original Greek of the text is saying.

There's no contradiction at all between the KJV translation of John 1: 1 and the translation I submitted.

[John317]

The following is pulled from a Seventh-day Adventist Apologetic article...

...That was crafted by John Harvey Kellogg.

...PRIOR to him accepting the truth of the Trinity.

...And subsequently being expelled from the SDA Church.

In other words the following is John Harvey Kellogg's apologetic...

...At a time when he was acting under the direction of Ellen White.

...And her husband James White.

John Harvey Kellogg, page 4

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18801125-V56-22__B.pdf#view=fit

[color:#663333]Our reviewer then goes on at some length to show that according to our view the death of Christ was but a human sacrifice, and finally concludes, " Hence the Doctor's theory claims that the essence of God, the Supreme Being, who created and upholds all things from the beginning, was made into corruptible flesh, was killed by men," etc. The above statement is entirely correct, with a slight addition; the insertion of the words, " does not " just before the word " claim "will make the statement correct. As it stands, it is as wide a departure from the truth as it can be. The

only grounds upon which our reviewer could be justified in making such a statement would be the supposition

on his part that we believe in the doctrine of the trinity; but he very well knows, from positions taken

and arguments used in previous articles, that we do not agree with him on this subject any better than on that

of the nature of the soul. WE BELIEVE IN BUT ONE DEITY, God, who is a unity, NOT a compound 'being. We think the Bible as well as common sense sustains this view. Says Eld. W., "'His trinitarianism' seems to shackle him much." We repel the charge of " trinitarianism " without the slightest hesitation. We do not

believe in a triune God, as before remarked. And we will not, as did our reviewer in a. former article, leave the reader in doubt as to our position on this point. We are utterly at a loss to comprehend how our reviewer could have blundered so strangely as to suppose us to share in so gross an. error as we believe the orthodox doctrine of the trinity to be.

Just to make sure I understand you - you are claiming...

...That Ellen White and her fellow SDA leaders were WRONG.

...When they said that God was NOT a compound "Being".

...But that God was to be understood as a "UNITY" of two Personalities.

...With ONLY the Father being 'God' in the ultimate sense.

Do I have that right?

No, you don't have it right.

It's unfair and untrue historically to claim that Ellen White either agrees with or is responsible for what other people wrote and published in the Review & Herald. She didn't see it as her role or work to correct other people's doctrinal beliefs. She very rarely corrected people's teachings, and only when she was convicted that God wanted her to, as in the case with John Harvey Kellogg during the first decade of the 20th century.

The article was written in 1880, about a year before the death of James White. The SDA Church was still undergoing changes in its teachings, and Ellen White herself had not yet written most of her clearest statements about the Godhead, the nature of Christ, and the Holy Spirit. She didn't write on those subjects until she was shown by God what to write. She didn't write her own opinions about them. That is why Ellen White never had to go back to her writings and bring them into conformity with her current beliefs. She didn't write her own private beliefs. These she kept to herself because God didn't raise her up to give the Church her own beliefs. She was raised up as God's messenger to give God's messages, not her own. The only place where we will find the writings that she's responsible for is in her own published writings, not in the writings of other people in the church, and not even in her husband's or sons' writings.

[John317]

The Bible says that Jesus was chosen to be The Christ before Adam and Eve were even created RLH...

...If this is the case WHO made this determination.

...If as Ellen says, The Father caved in subsequent to Adam and Eve sinning?

The point you appear to be missing in Ellen White's writings on the topic is that it was not easy for the Father to give up His only beloved Son to die for the rebels of this world. In human terms, it was a struggle for the Father to say Good-bye forever to His beloved Son.

Read Counsels On Health, page 222. You'll see that she said that the Godhead-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-- were all involved in the making and working out of the plan of redemption, just as they also worked in complete harmony in the creation of the world.

[John317]

Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came from the Father we could see His person. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and trouble, and shone with a loveliness which words cannot describe. He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with His Father, and had obtained permission to give His own life as a ransom for the race, to bear their sins, and take the sentence of death upon Himself, thus opening a way whereby they might, through the merits of His blood, find pardon for past transgressions, and by obedience be brought back to the garden from which they were driven. Then they could again have access to the glorious, immortal fruit of the tree of life to which they had now forfeited all right.

Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled heaven, and the heavenly choir sang a song of praise and adoration. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than they had done before, because of the great mercy and condescension of God in yielding up His dearly Beloved to die for a race of rebels. Then praise and adoration was poured forth for the self-denial and sacrifice of Jesus, in consenting to leave the bosom of His Father, and choosing a life of suffering and anguish, and an ignominious death, that He might give life to others.

Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them. {Early Writings, pp 126, 127}

It's important to consider some other statements along with the above, such as CH 222, where Ellen White makes it clear that the Godhead-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-- felt pity for the human race and gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of Redemption. They did it together, not working at cross purposes, but in full and complete harmony and cooperation.

The Bible shows us:

The Father wills.

The Son executes the Father's will or commandments.

The Holy Spirit personally represents the Son and puts into effect the work Christ has accomplished.

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: Gustave

The Bible says that Jesus was chosen to be The Christ before Adam and Eve were even created RLH...

...If this is the case WHO made this determination.

...If as Ellen says, The Father caved in subsequent to Adam and Eve sinning?

The point you appear to be missing in Ellen White's writings on the topic is that it was not easy for the Father to give up His only beloved Son to die for the rebels of this world. In human terms, it was a struggle for the Father to say Good-bye forever to His beloved Son.

Read Counsels On Health, page 222. You'll see that she said that the Godhead-- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-- were all involved in the making and working out of the plan of redemption, just as they also worked in complete harmony in the creation of the world.

Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16-17) was the Son before Bethleham and before Bethleham He kept his Father"s commandments (the ten commandments) which included the 5th.

[Guest]

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

[Gibs]

If Christ was a Son before Bethlehem, who was His Mother, what is a Son? Who only was given the ability to pro-create?

Why did the Son have to be of man? Answer, He must overcome Satan as a man and not as God! It did happen that way, His Father was God and His mother, Mary and He was the son of man with a body and yet also the Son of God.

He also never used any more power than the first Adam had and with the deficit of taking on Himself our fallen nature.

Now Christ in you and we each can have the exact same power.

Mat 16:17,17 just don't make Him the Son of God before Bethlehem! Read it!

Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Sure! Jesus, at that time was 27 yrs or so old, Mary's Son.

Check out ONLY BEGOTTEN Son!

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.

The meaning of "only begotten",

3439. monogenes

monogenes mon-og-en-ace'

from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).

See Greek 3441

See Greek 1096

All entities except those born of man in pro-creation were created, not born.

We see from above Jesus Christ is our Fathers "ONLY-BORN" Son! Yes a MAN!

Yes our Father knew the end from the beginning and at times tells us what is future. The future to Him is as clear as the past!

Why do we limit our God so much, He has no limits, He is the Infinite One. He is Spirit and He is in the total of all His Creation which is endless in ALL directions, there is nowhere but He is there!

Our prayers don't ascend nowhere as He is here and reads silent prayer as easily as audible ones.

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:

John317:

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

This is a very poor translation. Just check the original Greek for the presence of the definite article with respect to the Greek theos and consider examining how that impacts right interpretation from Greek to english.

[Gibs]

Do you know that the Word in the beginning was possessed here,

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.

It was Yahweh's Word, Thoughts that He extended forth to do creation of the visible and all the hosts, hence named, Yahweh of Hosts, notice still Yahweh and of His substance, they are one.

Yahweh of Hosts came in Jesus Christ at Bethlehem and Heaven was emptied of their great commander!

So yes He was God the Father in Jesus Christ and so, Emmanuel, God with us, Yes the ONE AND ONLY GOD!

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]

Hi,

This got long and so I am breaking it up. It is addressed to Ted, but I think it worthwhile for others to consider.

Blessings and Happy Sabbath,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Ted,

Quote:

Ted:

Actually, Tony, if you think you've got it all figured out after 1600+ yrs of hot debate on the point, kudos to you.

It is easy to read something like the above and interpret it as a character-criticizing jab.

Tony may think he has it all figured out. I wouldn’t be so vain as to think I do.

That is just choosing one heck of a low road.

Correct me if I am wrong, Ted, you are failing to acknowledge another option. In that failure, it is easy to read into people’s hearts vile traits like vanity.

Quote:

Alexander:

The Son is immutable and unchangeable, all-sufficient and perfect, like the Father, differing only in this one respect, that the Father is unbegotten. He is the exact image of His Father. Everything is found in the image which exists in its archetype [original]; and it was this that our Lord taught when He said, ‘My Father is greater than I.’ And accordingly we believe that the Son proceeded from the Father; for He is the reflection of the glory of the Father, and the figure of His substance. But let no one be led from this to the supposition that the Son is unbegotten, as is believed by some who are deficient in intellectual power: for to say that He was, that He has always been, and that He existed before all ages, is not to say that He is unbegotten.

Eusebius of Caeserea:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, the First-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all worlds, by whom also all things were made. Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived amongst men, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come in glory to judge the quick and the dead… and to persuade you that in the past times also thus we believed and preached.

For as no one hath known the Father, but the Son, so no one on the other hand, can know the Son fully, but the Father alone, by whom He was begotten. For who but the Father hath thoroughly understood that Light which existed before the world was-that intellectual and substantial wisdom, and that living Word which in the beginning was with the Father, before all creation and any production visible or invisible, the first and only offspring of God,

Eusebius of Nicomedia:

We have never heard, my Lord, of two beings unbegotten, nor of one divided into two; nor have we learnt or believed that He could suffer any thing corporeal, but that there is one unbegotten, and another truly from Him,… We believe not only that His origin cannot be explained in words, but that it cannot be comprehended,…

to be continued...

[o2bwise]

continuing on…

I like that you referred to folks hashing this out and having difficulty for (as you put it) 1600 years.

I agree. Of course, why I agree is a different matter.

Here is why I agree:

Revelation 17:2

with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine [read: DOCTRINE] of her fornication."

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition,

First off, I am not entertaining the idea that I have it all figured out and so let’s clear that right now – PLEASE.

BUT, one need not have it all figured out without having strong conviction that:

Quote:

We have never heard, my Lord, of two beings unbegotten, nor of one divided into two; nor have we learnt or believed that He could suffer any thing corporeal, but that there is one unbegotten, and another truly from Him,

In other words, that Jesus is the literally begotten Son of God.

Fair enough?

to be continued...

[o2bwise]

Continuing on:

Quote:

Tony (me):

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.

To which you replied:

Quote:

Ted:

Personal interpretation stems from what strikes each of us as "the logical" way to treat a verse. That is a subjective approach, as each "approach" requires a certain number of assumptions and premises one must proceed on. This is true, no matter which side of the issue, or even which issue, one wishes to discuss. We approach every subject with such a manner - this discussion is no exception.

The following is an example of what I was referring to:

Quote:

Tony (me):

Hi,

I'd like to refer back to my "bucket" object lesson.

Philippians 1:1-6

1 Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops a and deacons: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

Now, my choice was random. I wasn't concerned.

Let's look at it for most apparent meanings...

Verse 1 mentions Jesus Christ twice. In each case not referring to Him as "God."

Verse 2 has the word "God" in it.

WHO? The Father only, that's who.

Most apparent meaning? The Father only is God. And not only that, but Jesus Christ is mentioned FOUR TIMES AND NOT ONCE AS "GOD." All in a passage that has no impediment with respect to mentioning God. And what of the HS?

Not mentioned at all.

If I was trinitarian, I would WANT the passage to read:

Grace to you and peace from God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

But, it doesn't.

And you know what?

IT NEVER DOES!!! NEVER!!!

I believe truth is found according to the preponderance of evidence. And that means TENSION IS MINIMIZED. And that means a meaning other than the most apparent is minimized, taking the Bible as a whole.

If the preceding paragraph is true, in order to FORCE FIT the Trinity doctrine, LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PASSAGES MUST BE GIVEN A MEANING OTHER THAN ITS MOST APPARENT.

That is the quintessential proof that it is ERROR. It does not subscribe to any semblance of right biblical examination.

to be continued...

[o2bwise]

Continuing on:

What I was referring to is simply:

Abiding by the process of simply allowing the majority of texts to carry its most apparent meaning and let the chips fall where they may.

So when you write:

Quote:

Ted:

Personal interpretation stems from what strikes each of us as "the logical" way to treat a verse.

I must agree. BUT, we likely DISAGREE as to what this then requires. If someone says, for example:

Thanks to Bob the mechanic and our friend Ted.

I submit to you that 99.9% of English-speaking folks of sound mind would NOT take the most apparent meaning to be:

Ted and Bob are co-equal and make up one mechanic.

I think it is more than plausible that the problem is that Trinitarians are intoxicated. Reason is impaired.

I believe the main impediments are the shackles of tradition and a non-recognition of the manner that truth ought be extracted from the Bible – minimization of tension where tension can be defined as needing to allow some texts to carry a meaning other than what would seem the most apparent.

John317 is a case in point. He is unable or unwilling to do it. And he is also able to posit that truth is attained via a manner that is absolutely erroneous.

Take pet texts and even completely bastardize them, ala John317's bastardization of John 1.

Blessings,

Tony

[Dr. Waite]

If Christ was a Son before Bethlehem, who was His Mother, what is a Son? Who only was given the ability to pro-create?

Why did the Son have to be of man? Answer, He must overcome Satan as a man and not as God! It did happen that way, His Father was God and His mother, Mary and He was the son of man with a body and yet also the Son of God.

He also never used any more power than the first Adam had and with the deficit of taking on Himself our fallen nature.

Now Christ in you and we each can have the exact same power.

Mat 16:17,17 just don't make Him the Son of God before Bethlehem! Read it!

Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Sure! Jesus, at that time was 27 yrs or so old, Mary's Son.

Check out ONLY BEGOTTEN Son!

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.

The meaning of "only begotten",

3439. monogenes

monogenes mon-og-en-ace'

from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).

See Greek 3441

See Greek 1096

All entities except those born of man in pro-creation were created, not born.

We see from above Jesus Christ is our Fathers "ONLY-BORN" Son! Yes a MAN!

Yes our Father knew the end from the beginning and at times tells us what is future. The future to Him is as clear as the past!

Why do we limit our God so much, He has no limits, He is the Infinite One. He is Spirit and He is in the total of all His Creation which is endless in ALL directions, there is nowhere but He is there!

Our prayers don't ascend nowhere as He is here and reads silent prayer as easily as audible ones.

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.

I John 4:9 says, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." Christ was the only begotten Son BEFORE He was set into the world. He did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation.

In John 10:36, our Saviour asks, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

As the Son of God He appeared in the fiery furnace along with the three Hebrew believers in the days of Daniel. In Daniel 3:25 king Nebuchadnezzar says: "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." Some object to the phrase "like the Son of God", and tell us this was not the Son. However, we see a similar phrase used in Daniel 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one LIKE the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven..." and in Revelation 1:13 where the apostle John is shown a vision of the ascended and glorified Lord of glory, and he says: "And being turned I saw...in the midst of the seven candlesticks one LIKE UNTO the Son of man." Was this indeed the Son of man and the Son of God? Of course it was.

The book of Proverbs makes mention of the pre-incarnate Son in 30:4. "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"

[Gibs]

Dr Waite,

How could He send Him until He was born and was ready, at about 12 I think He told His mom, Mary and daddy, Joseph that He must be about His Father's business!

In the fiery furnace it was Yahweh of Hosts as He had not come in Jesus Christ yet.

Yes the Father knew Him Jesus long before being born and would naturally be able to present a likeness, a projection an animation if you will of the coming son of man and God.

Yahweh of Hosts came in Christ Jesus at Bethlehem and so He was fully God in the body prepared Him.

Reaon alone, don't put "the cart ahead of the horse"!

Sons only come by man given the power of pro-creation and the Saviour had to be a man any way as He had to overcome as a man and not as God Himself!

[phkrause]

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.

Here's a better translation:

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.

[Dr. Waite]

Dr Waite,

How could He send Him until He was born and was ready, at about 12 I think He told His mom, Mary and daddy, Joseph that He must be about His Father's business!

In the fiery furnace it was Yahweh of Hosts as He had not come in Jesus Christ yet.

Yes the Father knew Him Jesus long before being born and would naturally be able to present a likeness, a projection an animation if you will of the coming son of man and God.

Yahweh of Hosts came in Christ Jesus at Bethlehem and so He was fully God in the body prepared Him.

Reaon alone, don't put "the cart ahead of the horse"!

Sons only come by man given the power of pro-creation and the Saviour had to be a man any way as He had to overcome as a man and not as God Himself!

Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." We have a different confession to make from that which we have made; and we shall have to make it under different circumstances. The three Hebrews were called upon to confess Christ in the face of the burning fiery furnace. They had been commanded by the king to fall down and worship the golden image which he had set up, and threatened that if they would not, they should be cast alive into the fiery furnace, but they answered, "We are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." It cost them something to confess Christ, for their lives were at stake. Then the king commanded that the furnace be heated seven times hotter than it is was wont to be heated, and the faithful children of God were cast into the furnace. "Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

How did Nebuchadnezzar know that the form of the fourth was like the Son of God? He had heard of the Son of God from the Hebrew captives that were in his kingdom. They had brought the knowledge of the living God who ruleth all things. Then Nebuchadnezzar called forth the servants of God, and they had not so much as the smell of fire upon them. If you are called to go through the fiery furnace for Christ's sake, Jesus will be at your side. "When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walketh through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee." {RH, May 3, 1892}

The pioneers, including Ellen White, taught that the Son of God existed before Bethlehem.

[Gibs]

But again Dr. Waite, did Jesus Christ the man actually exist before Bethlehem? No! and I didn't exist until 9 mos. before my birth day 10/10/1931.

When did you exist? How long before you were conceived in the womb? But God knew you and me before the creation of the world.

How great is our God then, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent

Yes He could declare anything far beyond the time of actual being!

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.

[Gustave]

No, you don't have it right.

It's unfair and untrue historically to claim that Ellen White either agrees with or is responsible for what other people wrote and published in the Review & Herald. She didn't see it as her role or work to correct other people's doctrinal beliefs. She very rarely corrected people's teachings, and only when she was convicted that God wanted her to, as in the case with John Harvey Kellogg during the first decade of the 20th century.

[Dr. Waite]

But again Dr. Waite, did Jesus Christ the man actually exist before Bethlehem? No! and I didn't exist until 9 mos. before my birth day 10/10/1931.

When did you exist? How long before you were conceived in the womb? But God knew you and me before the creation of the world.

How great is our God then, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent

Yes He could declare anything far beyond the time of actual being!

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.

So, in your opinion, who appeared with the 3 Hebrew youth in the furnace that was heated 7 times hotter?

[o2bwise]

We are told we can even understand the Godhead "through the things that are made" (Romans 1).

Of whom one is a son, one inherits his nature.

In eternity past, God had a Son and thus the Christ became the Son of God and inherited the nature of His Father.

~2000 years ago, Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" and thus inherited the nature of man and became the son of man.

Believing in A is not tantamount to a denial of B.

Blessings,

Tony

[Gustave]

We are told we can even understand the Godhead "through the things that are made" (Romans 1).

Of whom one is a son, one inherits his nature.

In eternity past, God had a Son and thus the Christ became the Son of God and inherited the nature of His Father.

~2000 years ago, Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law" and thus inherited the nature of man and became the son of man.

Believing in A is not tantamount to a denial of B.

Blessings,

Tony

No, man cannot fathom 'God'...

...God is a mystery.

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.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm