The Trinity?

[Gibs]

Gerry you are being obstinate now, the Word is His Redeemer extended to be separate from Hinself to carry out the plan of Salvation. Is this impossible with God? No of course not!

Oneness of believers is far different than the one God who is Father of all.

"God" in John 1:1 is the Father Gerry and all, the wording proves they are one. The Word is the Redeemer!

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

"In the beginning was the Word", Redeemer. "The Word was with God", Yahweh! "and the Word was God", Yahweh!

If Jesus existed from all eternity and not the Father extended, His name couldn't be Yahweh, so what was His name then before Bethlehem?

Now since He is the Father extended, He is the eternal preexistant one, same as the Father. And so His name is rightly Yahweh!

The Father comes to us by Spirit, He is Spirit (1) And through Jesus Christ of whom He sent of Himself.(2)

Now there is but one Holy Spirit, - - Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

There is another person of course in the Redeemer from Bethlehem on, the man Jesus Christ whom is a mysterious union of the Divine Nature and our fallen nature.

The real you and me are spirit, when this body dies, the spirit awaits the first or second resurrection. Those of the second, those spirits and bodies will be consumed eternally!

Re 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

" He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God "manifest in the flesh." 1 Timothy 3:16. And to us He says: "I AM the Good Shepherd." "I AM the living Bread." "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life." "All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth." John 10:11; 6:51; 14:6; Matthew 28:18. I AM the assurance of every promise. I AM; be not afraid. "God with us" is the surety of our deliverance from sin, the assurance of our power to obey the law of heaven." {DA 24.3}

There we are being told, the Father gave Him All power in Heaven and earth. "God with us", yes for sure, no other than the Father could that God be!

Now we are going to see He, Jesus came "out from God",

Joh 16:27 For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Joh 16:28 ¶ I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Now here's one for you to think on.

"My Father is Greater than I" Jesus said and yet it is not robbery for Him to be equal with God.

Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Yes He was fully God in a body but subservient to the Father.

Read again 1 Cor 15:23-28 and that will clear it up. Yes it is reavealed that He has completed all that He was brought forth an extension of His Father to do.

He, Yahshua/Jesus was not in the very beginning born, created or formed. The one and only God there is and ever will be Possessed Him, Yahshua.

Time still goes on but is very short now, and the call is "Get Ready"

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world

[phkrause]

Excellent points John.

[phkrause]

Exactly Gerry. Not only that, but who was talking when he said let "Us" create man in "Our" image? And to whom was he saying that to?

[Ted Oplinger]

Exactly Gerry. Not only that, but who was talking when he said let "Us" create man in "Our" image? And to whom was he saying that to?

I posed that question earlier in the thread. It has gone unanswered so far. Likewise, Christ appeal to the Father to glorify the Son with the glory they had together before the world was (John 17:5)...and many other points that go unanswered by that perspective.

Blessings,

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Exactly Gerry. Not only that, but who was talking when he said let "Us" create man in "Our" image? And to whom was he saying that to?

I posed that question earlier in the thread. It has gone unanswered so far. Likewise, Christ appeal to the Father to glorify the Son with the glory they had together before the world was (John 17:5)...and many other points that go unanswered by that perspective.

Blessings,

Exactly Ted, it can't be answered. I think there are verses that can be spun to read the way we want to believe, but some can't be spun at all.

[Dr. Waite]

John:

If the trinity doctrine came into the SDA church 5 years before the death of Ellen White, then why did not the leaders of the church (including Ellen White) change the teaching of the church found in the published principles of faith?

This wording remained as the teaching of the church several years after Ellen White's death:

I. That there is one God, a personal, spiritual being, the creator of all things, omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, infinite in wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, truth, and mercy; unchangeable, and everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit. Ps. 139:7.

II. That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, the one by whom God created all things, and by whom they do consist; that he took on him the nature of the seed of Abraham for the redemption of our fallen race; that he dwelt among men full of grace and truth, lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood

he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in

Heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; c.

[ClubV12]

John says,

"We have to realize that Uriah Smith was growing spiritually, and like all of his contempories in early Adventism, he had many false views of certain doctrines, and this included the Godhead/Trinity."

It is "man", members of the Church, that have a problem with Uriah Smiths views on doctrine, NOT Ellen White, nor myself. She didn't have a problem with any of Uriah Smiths doctrinal view points, nor do I.

Here we are well over a 100 years after Uriah Smith discussing the "trinity" and the "nature of Christ". The issue has never been fully resolved to the satisfaction of all, then, now or will be in the future. What Uriah Smith had to say on the subject remains as valid today as it was then. The prophet has never said otherwise, never disagreed with him. Uriah Smiths book stands alone with it's recommendation from the prophet. A recommendation far above that of any other man living in her time. A recommendation that prophesied the book Daniel and the Revelation was to remain relevant to the close of probation. I am doing my part to sustain that prophecy!

[Enabled]

According to SOP you answered your own question,and also Pkrauses when you list John 17:3

Quote:

Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing great intelligence. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. But when God said to His Son, "Let us make man in our image," Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man, and because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy, and hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God. {EW 145.1}

Could this be (the jealousy of Satan): because God is one and his Son is the only one next to him, this position Satan desired for himself. What of the holy spirit where is he in this picture. Why was Satan not jealous of him? Why did she say Satan was next to Christ? (According to the Statement)

By the way I have followed this topic here for some time and don't agree with Gibs conclusions. As some have noted plurality is there but not necessarily 3 if we accept all she had to say.

[Enabled]

John317 since you mentioned earlier versions of D&R, have you noted in reading them that they have removed all references to a non-Trinitarian perspective? Don't you find it just a little curious that she recommended it and commented on it's sustained value that they would expunge a teaching that he was firm on and that she never corrected him on. Your thoughts maybe? If they have freely edited his works, what else might they be editing? Just thoughts that have crossed my mind!

[Ted Oplinger]

According to SOP you answered your own question,and also Pkrauses when you list John 17:3

Quote:

Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ. His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, showing great intelligence. His form was perfect; his bearing noble and majestic. But when God said to His Son, "Let us make man in our image," Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man, and because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy, and hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven next to God. {EW 145.1}

Could this be (the jealousy of Satan): because God is one and his Son is the only one next to him, this position Satan desired for himself. What of the holy spirit where is he in this picture. Why was Satan not jealous of him? Why did she say Satan was next to Christ? (According to the Statement)

By the way I have followed this topic here for some time and don't agree with Gibs conclusions. As some have noted plurality is there but not necessarily 3 if we accept all she had to say.

Perhaps it is because God in His grace allowed the angel who became Satan, to grow up to his fullest potential.

The only thing this angel could not do, was to create ex nihilo - something from nothing.

Then, to have Deity turn to one he thought was a comparable ranked angel, and find out this "angel" was in reality Deity who could also create ex nihilo....turned his world upside down.

Meek and mild Deity, who thought equality with God wasn't an ambition to strive for, unassumingly holding the place of a Servant before Father. So unassuming in His Service the Son was, the angels thought He was one of them...else why in SOP would the Father have to declare and affirm the Son's Deity to the angels?

Satan thought Father was making a mere movement in rank that he thought was more deserving of himself - a conferring of Deity status upon an angel. This is what Satan wanted - Deity status. But to have Deity status, one must be Deity.

Satan did not want to admit he had reached the limits of creaturehood. The chasm between the Deity manifest in Christ and a created consciousness that is an angel is too great for a rank advancement to cover.

We are not told of the grace Father and Son lavished upon this angel, to win his heart back to love. We only know God's efforts were continually rebuffed, until the decision was final.

Yet we can take from this that Deity manifest as it is in Christ is the issue Satan stumbled over.

If I had to apply a Scripture to this - it would be 1 John 4:8 - "the one who does not love does not know God, for God is love".

The word "love" is agape - the selfless, self-sacrificing love.

Such love cannot exist alone. For Deity to be selfless love, Deity cannot be this without plurality.

There must be a lover. There must be a beloved. And there must be a spirit of love between them.

Deity manifests all three points. The Father loves, and calls the Son Beloved. There is a spirit between them testifying of the Father and Son.

Blessings,

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Notice Jesus revealing His equal of the Father, and then He tells us why,

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

He is telling us you can no more pluck them out of my hand than the Fathers hand as we are one!

Nowhere does this come even close to Jesus claiming equality with the Father. If the Father and Jesus literally "are one" then it is one entity with two names. To whom was Jesus praying when on Earth? Himself? Or did this one entity split into two, sending the smaller part (to explain Jesus claiming the Father was greater than himself) of itself to Earth as Jesus, and coalesce again after the ascension?

The trinitarian dogma is a weird dogma.

[epaminondas]

Exactly Gerry. Not only that, but who was talking when he said let "Us" create man in "Our" image? And to whom was he saying that to?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Exactly Ted, it can't be answered. I think there are verses that can be spun to read the way we want to believe, but some can't be spun at all.

Saying the Father was talking to Jesus, when the Bible doesn't say, is already spinning this verse.

Logic doesn't demand me to give an alternative explanation, just to point out that your take on the verse is based on your preconceived ideas and not supported by hard (and I mean black on white) facts. Like you, I can also just speculate about this verse. But I admit that I'm only speculating.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Jesus Christ was truly God and of the same essence or substance as the Father, but He wasn't the same Person as God the Father.

If what you say is true then we either have two gods or two half gods.

And of what essence or substance were they? Matter, energy of some kind, living tissue like in animals or plants? To talk about Jesus and the Father as being of some substance is talking about what you know nothing of.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father.

The above is smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

Colossians 1:15 who is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

This firmly places Jesus among the created beings.

And what does "begotten" mean? Just what you want it to mean, no doubt. Go to dictionary.com. If A begets B then A is responsible for the existence of B. It is impossible for A to beget B if B already exists. This is really grade school level.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

So His emphasis here is that the logos was just like God the Father.

Everyone believes that Jesus and the Father are very alike. But in which way? If you say in every way, they are clones. So, brother - brother, not father - son. Why is the relationship between Jesus and the Father consistently illustrated as a father - son relationship and not once as a brother - brother relationship? Jesus also didn't know the exact time of his second coming, but said the Father did. So, not alike in every way. And there are more examples.

Jesus also said that the message he preached was not his message, but came from the Father. Incidentally, Jesus also said that when the Holy Spirit came the Holy Spirit would also not speak out of himself. You may know that in some organized crime slang criminals refer to their lawyers as their mouth pieces. In the same way "the Word" does not mean that Jesus is the Father's voice or His larynx, but speaks His message. I.E., Jesus is the messenger of His Father. So, don't get too hung up on the expression "the Word." "The Word" is a metaphor.

Koine Greek, like all human languages, was not a totally unambiguous language with always a one to one mapping between syntax and semantics. Things got worse when people tried flowery language, like John in John 1:1 and Paul in many cases.

One day, when you meet John, ask him exactly what he meant. That will finally clear things up. Also chide him for all the problems he caused. Tell him people had three gods and one god consisting of three other gods, but making up only one god - enough to make the head spin.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Exactly Gerry. Not only that, but who was talking when he said let "Us" create man in "Our" image? And to whom was he saying that to?

The Bible doesn't say. Note that the creation account in Genesis 1 starts out with the Earth already present. So, God could have created countless other beings before that. It may be any of them, including Jesus, or it may be the royal plural. We just don't know.

Dig just a little deeper and you can know.

The "us" in Gen 1:26 cannot be just a royal "we", for the following reasons: 1) The God or "elohim" of Gen 1 is plural.

2) The third person in the Godhead is meantioned right there in Gen 1:2 - the Holy Spirit. So there are at least TWO persons in the creation story of Gen 1. If you add Jn 1:1-3 & Col 1:16 in which both say that "ALL things" were created by Jesus, then we KNOW that either Christ was one of the two persons or a third person in Gen 1.

Quote:

Note that the following talks about Jesus and calls him "the firstborn of all creation."

[15] who is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

[16] Because in him all things were created, things in the heavens and things upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or lordships or principal offices or positions of authority, all things have been created through him, and for him.

Whether "firstborn" refers to time or importance, or both, it still places Jesus firmly among the created beings.

Firmly? How could "firstborn" here refer to Him as a created being if "ALL THINGS" were created by Christ? Paul can only be referring to the preeminence of Christ. He does the same in Heb 1 where again He is referred to as the supreme "firstborn". He is also referred to as God by God, Heb 1:9, the One who "laid the foundation of the earth in the beginningm" 1:10. And if Christ was a created being, how could ONE finite being pay/atone for the sins of the WHOLE world?

Quote:

Note that this is again an example of Paul's unclear writing, but by far not the worst example.

It is perfectly clear to me.

[Gerr]

Quote:

So His emphasis here is that the logos was just like God the Father.

Everyone believes that Jesus and the Father are very alike. But in which way? If you say in every way, they are clones. So, brother - brother, not father - son. Why is the relationship between Jesus and the Father consistently illustrated as a father - son relationship and not once as a brother - brother relationship?

1) He was "begotten" when He came to this world, Heb 1:1-6; Son by appointment, 1:2.

2) He was pronounced "Son" when He was baptized, Mt 3:17

3) He was "declared to be the Son of God.....by His resurrection from the dead,: Rom 1:4.

If Christ were a created being, the angels could/would not be worshiping Him, Heb 1:6, Rev 22:9.

[ClubV12]

Enabled says, concerning the major editing of Daniel and the Revelation AFTER Ellen Whites death:

"Don't you find it just a little curious that she recommended it and commented on it's sustained value that they would expunge a teaching that he was firm on and that she never corrected him on."

I find it more than just curious, I find it's a serious mistake by the Church. A mistake that has been carried on for so long it has essentially become a lie that is accepted as truth. It's so deeply "inbred" within the membership few can even understand what or how it happened.

Uriah got it right, Daniel 11 up to verse 44 has been fulfilled, there is only one verse left, verse 45 and then the judgement. The King of the North is NOT the Papacy and the "glorius mountain" is NOT the U.S.A.

[Dr. Waite]

Quote:

The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father.

The above is smoke and mirrors.

Quote:

Colossians 1:15 who is an image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

This firmly places Jesus among the created beings.

And what does "begotten" mean? Just what you want it to mean, no doubt. Go to dictionary.com. If A begets B then A is responsible for the existence of B. It is impossible for A to beget B if B already exists. This is really grade school level.

"image of the invisible God"

Which "God"? The SDA unity of three co-eternal persons? GOD THE FATHER? OR "GOD THE SON? or "GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT? or the Catholic "one being three persons"?

Which God is "invisible"?

[phkrause]

The Bible doesn't say.

The point was to just show Gibbs that obviously there was more than one God talking to each other. He obviously wasn't talking to an Angel now was he. I believe most believe that God the Son (Jesus) created the earth, etc. So I would presume that it was God the Son talking to God the Father.

[ClubV12]

And as they were having this conversation the Holy Spirit was getting ready (brooding over, hovering over, considering the area in question) to help stretch a line across the heavens to measure and lay out this new solar system in what was, at that time, "deep space", uninhabited, void and without form.

All the heavenly hosts from all the previously created worlds as well as the angelic hosts were watching with wonder as the "triune God" was going about this wonderful new work!

[Dr. Waite]

Originally Posted By: epaminondas

The Bible doesn't say.

The point was to just show Gibbs that obviously there was more than one God talking to each other. He obviously wasn't talking to an Angel now was he. I believe most believe that God the Son (Jesus) created the earth, etc. So I would presume that it was God the Son talking to God the Father.

Colossians 1:13 talks about "his dear Son". Colossians 1:2-3 talks about the "Lord Jesus Christ".

Who is the Father of the "Lord Jesus Christ"?

Is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ a "unity of three co-eternal persons"?

[Gerr]

Colossians 1:13 talks about "his dear Son". Colossians 1:2-3 talks about the "Lord Jesus Christ".

Who is the Father of the "Lord Jesus Christ"?

Here are the possibilities: 1) God the Father 2) God the Holy Spirit, after all, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit 3) Both the Father & Holy Spirit, since they are also "one". Notice that at the baptism of Jesus, a voice from heaven was heard & the Spirit descended on Him like a dove.

Quote:

Is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ a "unity of three co-eternal persons"?

That's how I understand it.

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

Exactly Ted, it can't be answered. I think there are verses that can be spun to read the way we want to believe, but some can't be spun at all.

Saying the Father was talking to Jesus, when the Bible doesn't say, is already spinning this verse.

Logic doesn't demand me to give an alternative explanation, just to point out that your take on the verse is based on your preconceived ideas and not supported by hard (and I mean black on white) facts. Like you, I can also just speculate about this verse. But I admit that I'm only speculating.

Epaminondas,

The context of John 17:3 is that of Jesus talking to the Father as one being to another. The relational "together with" distinctly is not necessary if Jesus understood Himself to be solely an extension of the Father. Jesus knew exactly what He was with respect to the Father. It was a co-operational relationship between two manifests of Deity, not an exension of a singular entity.

That is logical, black on white.

Taking Christ's statement "I and the Father are One" to mean a mathematical one is indeed placing a construction of perspective on those words not in the context.

Blessings.