The Trinity?

[Gustave]

Hi Gustave,

Yup, you have it right.

I'd also add that being the born Son of God and thus acquiring divinity, while a finite being could only reflect agape finitely, I do believe the Son who alone could fully enter into counsel with His Father, is also the only One who could be "one" with the Father to a level reaching the Father, so to speak (infinitely).

Know what I mean?

Anyway, yeah, Gustave.

Take Care...

Tony

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying...

...So, would I be safe in saying you also believe what Ellen and the SDA pioneers.

...Taught in relation to the Holy Spirit?

I.E. that it was a personality that LACKED 'Being'...

...That 'IT' wasn't a Personality in the sense that God the Father, the Son and Lucifer were 'Beings'.

[Gibs]

If He, Jesus was the Son of God before Bethlehem, let us have that scripture please!

But No, emphatically No, "ONLY BEGOTTEN" means, sole, none other, and here on this earth is where only a son can be born, of woman and in this case Yahweh the Father in Heaven is the Father.

God the Father don't have a wife and woman is of man, the only entities able to procreate and the animals here with him to continue life or soon there wouldn't be any.

No son was born in Heaven or none was created or none was formed. If so, produce the scripture please!

It was Yahweh-Redeemer who came in Jesus at Bethlehem and so was God the Father with us. Emmanuel. There is no other God to be in Him remember and also remember.

Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

We don't have to concoct any theories on this as the Son has revealed this, in just a few easy to understand scripture!

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

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]

If He, Jesus was the Son of God before Bethlehem, let us have that scripture please!

Here ya go.

1 John 4,9

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

If you are sent somewhere you are NOT there before you arrive!

...God the Son has ETERNALLY been the Son.

[phkrause]

Excellent post Gustave. He's probably read that verse thousands of times, just chooses not to see. Here's how the CJB translates that verse: 9 Here is how God showed his love among us: God sent his only Son into the world, so that through him we might have life.

[Gibs]

Yes He sent His "ONLY BEGOTTEN" Son at Bethlehem, He didn't have one before. He also came in Him, God with us.

Where is your verse a son was "before" Bethlehem?

The verse states, "ONLY BEGOTTEN" and means, "sole" "no other", so Jesus of Mary was it!

No, in no way does that verse make Him a Son before but cinches He, Jesus was it by the words, "ONLY BEGOTTEN".

Not hard to fathom is it?

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:

...Are you also Anthropomorphite?

No, I'd be very surprised if God had a body like a human. Of course, we share similarities - God can think, so can we (albeit not on the same level), God can communicate, so can we.

Our knowledge of God is not detailed.

There are a few things in the Bible hard to explain and sometimes seeming to be contradictions. E.g. somewhere it says no man ever saw God. How do you account for the following?

Quote:

ACV: Exodus Chapter 24

[9] Then Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up.

[10] And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under his feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and as it were the very heaven for clearness.

[11] And he laid not his hand upon the nobles of the sons of Israel. And they beheld God, and ate and drank.

Speculation is not a valid way of solving problems. I can't account for it and the Bible gives no explanation. The despicable theologians do what they do best, bs, and come up with lots of verbose explanations sucked out of their thumbs. So error gets its foot in the door.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Did He exist before the incarnation? If yes, how so and what was His nature?

I am kind of perplexed that you don't see begotten as applied to Christ as naturally linked to "Son" - by this I mean, all children are offspring and the word begotten, at least to many, naturally denotes the process wherein the proceeding forth (birth) of an offspring occurs.

That link: begotten Son for me leads to such a natural and seamless interpretation.

Of course Jesus existed before the creation of the Earth:

Quote:

ACV: John 17:5. And now, Father, glorify thou me with thyself with the glory that I had with thee before the world was.

If it's in the Bible and it's plain and simple, I believe it.

What the nature of Jesus was, if by nature you mean what he was composed of, I don't know. If you mean what his relationship to the Father was, the relationship used over and over and over, and then some more, in the Bible to explain that relationship, is a father-son relationship. I'll go with that.

How Jesus came to be? In some way the Father is responsible for the existence of Jesus. I don't have the details. Don't get too hung up on "begotten." It is a word used as a magic word by the trinitarians. In their warped world someone who had no beginning could have been begotten. He could not have been created, they say, oh no. But he could have been begotten. So better step away from begotten and deprive the trinitarians the opportunity to pounce on it.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

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

Now I get it - one of the two is the real one and the other one is the mirror reflection. So, despite the two images, there is really only one and they're both God.

Man, you trinitarians are clever. I never thought John 1:1 was talking about one looking in a mirror. Now it all makes sense. And this is the only way it can make sense. Clever trinitarians.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

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.

Not if you're a trinitarian. If you're a trinitarian a text doesn't say what it seems to say but says what it doesn't seem to say. Does that make sense to you? If not, you won't pass trinitarianism 101.

I'm also simple-minded and totally agree with you, but then, we're not trinitarians and we don't share in the secret knowledge and magical mysteries of the trinitarians.

[Gustave]

Excellent post Gustave. He's probably read that verse thousands of times, just chooses not to see. Here's how the CJB translates that verse: 9 Here is how God showed his love among us: God sent his only Son into the world, so that through him we might have life.

That is a good translation.

[Arwen]

If He, Jesus was the Son of God before Bethlehem, let us have that scripture please!

Hi Gibs

The prophet, Micah, (Micha 5:2) is famous for prophesying the birthplace of the Messiah (cf.Matthew 2:1-7):

But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity.

Yet this prophecy made it clear that the One who was to be born in Bethlehem did not in fact begin in Bethlehem, but has been in action since eternity past.

Jesus Himself was most aware of His pre-existence. In John 8:58 He says of Himself:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am”

By this statement, the people who were listening knew perfectly well that Jesus was claiming divinity, which is why they planned to stone Him.

The Greek, I AM (ego eimi) is important, because the Greek verbs already had information on the person— eimi means “I am” on its own. There are a number of these I AM statements. This one would have brought to mind God’s revelation of his special name to Moses in Exodus 3:14 :

”I AM THAT I AM” (Hebrew ‘ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh),

because the Greek Septuagint has ego eimi ho on ; (I am the being/the one).

Furthermore, Jesus contrasts Abraham’s as genesthai, denoting that Abraham came into existence at some point in the past, with His own “am”, which is in the present tense because Jesus just exists.

It is very clear that Jesus is claiming not only to have pre-existed Abraham, who died long before He was born in Bethlehem. But even more: Jesus is saying that He didn’t even come into existence.

Jesus is, was and shall be I AM

[Gerr]

Gib's mind is sealed so tight it cannot process new information.

[phkrause]

Gib's mind is sealed so tight it cannot process new information.

Exactly Gerry! I've sometimes wondered what EGW meant by new light. It can easily mean someone seeing new light from what is old to someone else and not necessarily meaning something all together new that's never been there before.

[Gibs]

Brothers, it is not Gibs mind that is sealed on this. This doctrine came in around 300 yrs after Christ and the Apostles.

Trinitarians actually do not realize how Christ is God with us and ultimately who their Redeemer is.

These two verses tell you clearly,

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.

You all don't see that the pre-existence of Jesus is of The Father, who before all things He extended of Himself His Redeemer, Isaiah states He was called Yahweh of Hosts and named so because He was one substance and extended from The Father to do all visible creation and the Hosts.. Then latter to be given to any that would fall to be Redeemer for them.

And yes it happened, Adam and Eve fell in sin. And so Yahweh of Hosts came in Jesus Christ at Bethlehem and was God the Father with us in the body prepared for Him to come in. Yes in His foreknowledge Yahweh knew all this and Mary and Jesus both and Joseph.

He came in the fullness of time exactly as planned.

No trinity, no three persons in the Godhead, only the Father is the Head.

Yes our Redeemer is Yahweh of Hosts in Jesus Christ, a union beyond our understanding.

Remember this is all proven as when the sin problem is all taken care of, then the Father becomes "all in all again"!

1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

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

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

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

And so,

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

Christ in you is the Father in you! Yes, because the Father is in Christ!

Now notice who we are of, verse following,

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:

By this statement, the people who were listening knew perfectly well that Jesus was claiming divinity, which is why they planned to stone Him.

If you'd care to read John 8 you'll find that the Jews planned to kill Jesus long before verse 58 - your "I am" verse.

Quote:

ACV: John Chapter 8

[37] I know that ye are Abraham's seed, yet ye seek to kill me, because my word has no place in you.

[38] I speak what I have seen from my Father, and ye therefore do what ye have seen from your father.

[39] They answered and said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus says to them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

[40] But now ye seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.

[41] Ye do the works of your father. They said therefore to him, We were not begotten from fornication. We have one Father, God.

[42] Therefore Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I came forth and have come from God. For, neither have I come for myself, but he sent me.

[43] Why do ye not understand my speech? Because ye cannot hear my word.

[44] Ye are from the father, the devil, and ye want to do the desires of your father. He was a man-killer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

[45] And I, because I speak the truth, ye do not believe me.

[46] Which of you convicts me about sin? And if I speak truth, why do ye not believe me?

[47] He who is of God hears the sayings of God. Because of this ye do not hear, because ye are not of God.

[48] Therefore the Jews answered and said to him, Do we not say well that thou are a Samaritan, and have a demon?

As you can see, this was not a friendly meeting between Jesus and the Jews. They brought up his parentage - the religious hierarchy had disseminated a story that Jesus was illegitimate, this story is still around today - and Jesus said to them their father was the devil. They countered by calling Jesus a mad Samaritan.

To say the Jews wanted to stone him just because of verse 58 is clearly false. Yet the drongos still persist with this story. Can't they read? Everyone claiming verse 58 to be the sole cause of the Jews wanting to stone Jesus should be ashamed of himself.

Ego eimi is found 35 times in John. But only this once is it said to be a claim to being God. Now isn't this something?

Exodus 3:14 is also not a straight-forward verse. How to map something said in Aramaic, translated into Greek to an unclear passage written in Hebrew is something only a trinitarian can do. The more I come into contact with the stupidity inherent in the trinitarian dogma, the thinner my patience with it wears.

[Gibs]

They wanted to stone Him as He claimed to be God,

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

With what firmness and power he uttered these words. The Jews had never before heard such words from human lips, and a convicting influence attended them; for it seemed that divinity flashed through humanity as Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." The words of Christ were full of deep meaning as he put forth the claim that he and the Father were of one substance, possessing the same attributes. The Jews understood his meaning, there was no reason why they should misunderstand, and they took up stones to stone him. Jesus looked upon them calmly and unshrinkingly, and said, "Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of these works do ye stone me?" {ST, November 27, 1893 par. 5}

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]

Hey Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying...

...So, would I be safe in saying you also believe what Ellen and the SDA pioneers.

...Taught in relation to the Holy Spirit?

I.E. that it was a personality that LACKED 'Being'...

...That 'IT' wasn't a Personality in the sense that God the Father, the Son and Lucifer were 'Beings'.

Yes, though I came to it before I was aware of the position of the pioneers.

Blessings,

Tony

[Gustave]

Hey Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

Yes, I think I understand what you are saying...

...So, would I be safe in saying you also believe what Ellen and the SDA pioneers.

...Taught in relation to the Holy Spirit?

I.E. that it was a personality that LACKED 'Being'...

...That 'IT' wasn't a Personality in the sense that God the Father, the Son and Lucifer were 'Beings'.

Yes, though I came to it before I was aware of the position of the pioneers.

Blessings,

Tony

That's interesting, through your own Bible study you're theologically a Historic Seventh-day Adventist...

...And this prior to reading Ellen White and the other SDA pioneers.

...Thanks for your honesty Tony.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

1 Timothy 6:15-16: "Which in his times he shall show, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom [be] honour and power everlasting. Amen."

Who is the "he" in verse 15 who "shall show"? Who is the person "who only hath immortality" that the "he" in verse 15 reveals?

Both references reference the title, King of kings, and Lord of lords, and Scriptures tell us plainly who bears that title:

Revelation 19:16 "And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "King of kings and Lord of lords". All in the context of the chief figure of the Second Coming: Jesus Christ (Revelation 19:11-19).

Blessings,

[Gordon1]

Except that Jesus died (therefore not immortal - unless one denies His death & resurrection) and He was very approachable, seen & handled by many - ("..which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.." (1John 1:1)

The "blessed and only Potentate" must be "the only true God" (Jo. 17:3), "the Ancient of days" to whom "the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven.." (Daniel 7:13)

[Gibs]

Yes, the man Jesus Christ died, Deity did not, that would have been impossible.

He had stated, I have power to lay down my life and take it back up again.

Yes The Father in Him and went to the grave with Him and according to Sister White when the angel announced, "thy Father calleth thee", that power vested in Him He then arose immortal.

Satan was beaten when Jesus died on the cross and had overcome him as a man taking our fallen nature, the power only of the first Adam, but remember with the deficit of our fallen nature which the first Adam did not have.

Was there a great liability? Satan sure thought so and he knew if he didn't get Jesus to fall he was a goner.

Now saints beware, as Satan is very angry and going about destroying all whom he can!

His time is so short now he is furious as a roaring lion for sure!

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]

Yes, the man Jesus Christ died, Deity did not, that would have been impossible.

He had stated, I have power to lay down my life and take it back up again.

Yes The Father in Him and went to the grave with Him and according to Sister White when the angel announced, "thy Father calleth thee", that power vested in Him He then arose immortal.

Satan was beaten when Jesus died on the cross and had overcome him as a man taking our fallen nature, the power only of the first Adam, but remember with the deficit of our fallen nature which the first Adam did not have.

Was there a great liability? Satan sure thought so and he knew if he didn't get Jesus to fall he was a goner.

Now saints beware, as Satan is very angry and going about destroying all whom he can!

His time is so short now he is furious as a roaring lion for sure!

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.

As Ellen White & the other pioneers said, it WASN'T His deity by nature...

...It was "on-loan" or Conditional deity from the Father that was His to keep.

...AS - LONG - AS He "remained loyal to His loyalty".

[Ted Oplinger]

Except that Jesus died (therefore not immortal - unless one denies His death & resurrection) and He was very approachable, seen & handled by many - ("..which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.." (1John 1:1)

The "blessed and only Potentate" must be "the only true God" (Jo. 17:3), "the Ancient of days" to whom "the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven.." (Daniel 7:13)

Yes, Gordon, I purposefully left those points to be addressed. The question was though, "Who was it?" that is described in that passage - and Revelation 19 answers plainly the WHO of that question. That Title does belong to Jesus, as seen at the portrayal of His second coming, both by imputation (His robe) and essence of being (His person - on His thigh).

Of course, that answer also does open up all sorts of cans of worms in trying to piece all the other puzzle pieces about God to that passage, doesn't it?

Blessings,

[o2bwise]

Hi Gustave,

Quote:

Gustave:

That's interesting, through your own Bible study you're theologically a Historic Seventh-day Adventist...

...And this prior to reading Ellen White and the other SDA pioneers.

...Thanks for your honesty Tony.

Yes, Gustave, and thanks.

Briefly, here is some of what happened.

Shortly after becoming a Christian and while quite ignorant of much of Scripture, I read a book that recommended praying to the HS since the HS is a literal person.

Unable to refute the logic, whenever I did my morning worship, I began with prayer to the HS as part of my prayer.

Every time I did, I felt weird. Just a really bad feeling.

After a couple weeks, I told myself I could not understand WHY I ought not talk to the HS, but I was not gonna do it anymore.

Perhaps 15 years later, I read the entire NT and referenced every text that discussed that which produces heart change. I saw that the word does it, the message of the cross does it, the blood does it, the HS does it. I also saw that Jesus says His word is spirit.

Sometime after that study, I was with a Christian friend and I said something that was entirely not premeditated. It just came out. I said:

Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for the Word.

My friend replied, "AMEN!!!"

I immediately realized I expressed a non-trinitarian view and felt really uncomfortable, but that was my initial step in the process of truly examining the doctrine.

It is important for me to emphasize that I believe the Holy Spirit is MORE than what I said to my friend.

I eventually came to the place of believing to hold a theological view that is compatible with my personal practice of NOT praying to the HS.

Thanks and Blessings,

Tony

[o2bwise]

Hi again, Gustave...

Quote:

As Ellen White & the other pioneers said, it WASN'T His deity by nature...

...It was "on-loan" or Conditional deity from the Father that was His to keep.

...AS - LONG - AS He "remained loyal to His loyalty".

I thought they believed Jesus acquired a divine nature in much the same way we acquired a human one.

That being said, my mom and dad did not "loan" me my human nature and have no ability to strip me of it.

As to God and His Son? I kind'a think it works the same.

Tony