Ellen White & the Trinity

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

THE SPIRIT ONE OF THREE PERSONS (REFERENCES WITH ALL THREE):

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (2 Corinthians 13:14, KJV)

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: (Ephesians 1:17, KJV)

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me; because the LORD hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; (Isaiah 61:1, KJV) [CAPITALIZATION OF "me" ADDED FOR CLARITY.]

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7, KJV)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19, KJV)

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Mark 12:36, KJV)

Joe addressed 1 John 5:7. 

The wording in Greek translations of Matthew 28:19 - is SUSPECT.

The baptismal formula "in the name of" the Holy Ghost" WAS NOT USED by the apostles.  Six references have them baptizing "in the name of Jesus Christ".  Did they disobey the command of Christ?  Or was this formula INSERTED into translations paid for and sponsored by Constantine?  Recent scholarship has revealed that every pre-Constantine Greek manuscript of the Book of Matthew has the last page missing - torn out.  One Aramaic manuscript remains.  In THAT manuscript, the formula reads "baptizing them in My name". 

The "holy ghost" who spoke through David, WAS "the Spirit of Christ who was in them" (I Peter 1:11). 

[8thdaypriest]

The spirit has no name.

The spirit has no throne.

The spirit is not glorified.

The spirit is not worshiped.

The spirit is not thanked.  It is the gift. 

The spirit is not prayed to.

Singular pronouns indicating possession, source, or relation, are used extensively with the word spirit throughout Scripture.  The Holy Spirit is called “His spirit,” “My spirit,” “the spirit of the Lord,” “the spirit of God,” “the spirit of Him” or “Your spirit.” This suggests that the Holy Spirit is the omnipresence and power of the Father and/or of Christ.  In Matthew 12:18,  Luke 4:18, and Romans 8:11, the Spirit is “the Spirit of the Father.”  1 Peter 1:10-11 refers to the “Spirit of Christ” as the inspiration of Old Testament prophets.

 

[Green Cochoa]

Regarding the so-called "Johanine Comma" I will simply say that careful research establishes the authenticity of the verse.  A good start into that research, at least for learning which names and words are central to the discussion, might come from a careful reading of the material to be found online by Pr. Keith Piper, available HERE.  I'll quote the relevant portion below.

Quote

13. The NIV denies the TRINITY and DEITY of CHRIST in I John 5:7,8. This is called ‘The Johannine Comma’.

 . . .

I John 5:7,8 is omitted by all modern versions. It is called the “famous Trinitarian Proof text”. Modernists claim that this passage ought not to be in the Bible, because it is not in most Greek manuscripts. Only 6 Greek manuscripts before the 7th Century omit v.7,8. (14 manuscripts before the 9th Century).

Background: Erasmus omitted it from his first edition of the printed Greek N.T. (1516), because it occurred in the Latin Vulgate and not in any Greek manuscript. To quieten the outcry that followed, he agreed to restore it if one Greek manuscript could be found containing it. Two Greek manuscripts, Codex 61 and 629 were presented, so Erasmus included it in his 1522 edition. Since these manuscripts are late (15th and 16th centuries) some think the readings are corrupt. What do we answer?

What early manuscript evidence exists for I John 5:7,8?

i) Early church writers:

• -  Cyprian 200-258 AD. “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is

  written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one’.” If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200-258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse. Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John.

  Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check.

• -  Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8.

• -  Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it.

• -  Varimadum 380 AD. - Cassiodorus 485 AD.

• -  Cassian 435 AD. - Victor Vita 489 AD.

• -  Jerome 450 AD. - Fulgentius 533 AD.

• -  Ps. Vigilius 484 AD. - Ansbert 660 AD.

  ii) Early Bible Versions: Old Syriac 170 AD.
  Old Latin 200 AD, in North Africa and Italy.

  Italic 4th and 5th century. – Italic - Monacensis 7th century. Italic - Speculum 9th century.
  Latin Vulgate 4th, 5th century.

  iii) Greek minuscule manuscripts:(UBS Greek NT, p.824; History of Debate over I John 5:7,8,p268).

- 221 in the 10th century.(variant).
- 88 in the 12th century.(margin).
- 629 in the 14th century.(Ottobanianus) - 429 in the 14th century (margin).

- 636 in the 15th century. (margin).
- 61 in the 16th century.(Codex Montfortianus) - 918 in the 16th century. (an Escorial ms).
- 2318 (a Bucharest manuscript).

iv) Early writings: Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. Council of Carthage 415 AD.
v) Greek grammar rules demand its presence. NIV has mismatched genders in v. 7,8.

Question 1: If the NIV is right in omitting the Johannine comma, then why do we have a masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 (oi marturountes = that bear record in heaven) wrongly agreeing with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in v.8?
Spirit, water and blood are all neuter Greek nouns with neuter Greek articles, which would dictate a neuter Greek article in v.7, (if the Johannine comma was never in the original), but we have masculine articles (oi) in v.7,8. Why?

Question 2: What is it that causes the masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 and (oi) in v.8? Answer: It is the two masculine nouns (Father and Word) of the Johannine comma in v.7. These control the gender of the article connected with them to be a masculine article (oi) which is what we have.

Hence the problem is solved if the Johannine comma is part of the Greek text.

Therefore, the NIV and NWT have wrong Greek grammar by omitting the Johannine comma, as seen by them having a masculine article in verse 7 wrongly agreeing with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in verse 8.

Question 3: Why would the Johannine Comma be absent from some Greek manuscripts, but present in the Latin manuscripts?
Firstly, because of a similar ending in v.7 and v.8, a scribe may have been distracted in v.7, but when resuming his copying, his eye fell on v.8 from where he continued copying, thus accidentally omitting the Johannine Comma.
Copies of this would have multiplied the mistake.

Secondly, between 220-270 AD, the heresy that Greek Christians were fighting was not Arianism (denying Christ’s deity) as this had not yet arisen, but Sabellianism (named after Sabellius) which taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were identical, and that God the Father died on the cross when Christ died on the cross. The statement in the Johannine comma that “these three are one” seemed to support the Sabellian heresy that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identical. If, during the course of this controversy, manuscripts were discovered which had accidentally lost the Johannine Comma as described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to be the true text.

In the Greek speaking east, where the struggle against Sabellianism was most intense, the Johannine comma came to be unanimously rejected.
However, in the Latin manuscripts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was not so great, the Johannine Comma was retained. This explains why the Johannine comma is strongly represented in the Latin manuscripts, and why we should retain it today. Source: “KJV defended”. E.F. Hills, p.204-208. 

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[8thdaypriest]

Matthew 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly." (NKJ)

God the Father can be IN THE SECRET PLACE because He is spirit.   What need of another divine being to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent? 

There had to be one another being.  God the Father could not continue to uphold all things, while at the same time setting aside His divine power to become a man, and then to be "obedient unto death". 

Ephesians 4:6 "one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (NKJ)

 

[8thdaypriest]

15 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Regarding the so-called "Johanine Comma" I will simply say that careful research establishes the authenticity of the verse.  A good start into that research, at least for learning which names and words are central to the discussion, might come from a careful reading of the material to be found online by Pr. Keith Piper, available HERE.  I'll quote the relevant portion below.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course I disagree Green Cochoa.  Many heresies were coming into "the church", as the first century messages in the Revelation attest.  

I personally NEVER say that a person will be saved or lost, because he believes, or disbelieves, something that I teach.  The most I will say is that from my study, at this point in time, this is where I feel the weight of the evidence falls.   I strongly feel the weight falls to TWO divine "persons" - God our Father and Michael His Son - who became Jesus the Christ. 

Ephesians 3:14 "For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (NKJ)

Revelation 5:13 "And every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!"

What?  No blessing, honor, glory, or power, to the holy spirit?  No. 

[Green Cochoa]

2 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

What?  No blessing, honor, glory, or power, to the holy spirit?  No. 

And, using that logic, Eve had nothing to do with the conception of sin on this planet either.  The Bible mentions only Adam in terms of responsibility (one man's sin).  I'm not saying this merely to argue, but rather to point out the existence of other interpretive options from the one which you have chosen.

Mrs. White is clear that there are three persons in the Godhead.  Why was she so explicitly clear about that if there are only two?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[8thdaypriest]

21 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

THE SPIRIT MOVES:

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2, KJV)

By quoting this verse, you are saying that a third divine being called "the Spirit of God" created this earth.  But Scripture credits the creation of this earth to the will of God the Father, executed by His Son. 

1 Corinthians 8:6 “ ... yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.”

No mention of ANOTHER divine being here.

Revelation 4:9-11 “Whenever the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before Him who sits on the throne and worship Him who lives forever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying: ‘You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.’”

Credit for existence and creation is given to  "Him who sits on the throne".    

    Ephesians 3:9 “ ... and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;”

    Hebrews 1:1-2, 8, 10  “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person [singular], and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,”... “And: [to the Son He says] ‘You LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands;”

John 1:3  [the Word who was "with God"]   “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

John 1:10  “He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.”

    Colossians l:12-16 “ ... giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.”

I don't see credit for creation being given to a THIRD DIVINE BEING.  Only Father and Son are credited with creation.

 

[Green Cochoa]

2 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

By quoting this verse, you are saying that a third divine being called "the Spirit of God" created this earth.

Don't jump to conclusions so hastily.  First of all, I'm not saying anything that the Bible doesn't itself say when I'm simply quoting it.  Secondly, to me it simply demonstrates that the Holy Spirit was present.  It doesn't, and I don't either, make a case for the Holy Spirit creating anything.  Personally, I would have no problem believing that He could create.  I also have no problem accepting that such may not be His role.

Having begun with this false premise, the rest of your post was moot.

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

[8thdaypriest]

5 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

And, using that logic, Eve had nothing to do with the conception of sin on this planet either.  The Bible mentions only Adam in terms of responsibility (one man's sin).  I'm not saying this merely to argue, but rather to point out the existence of other interpretive options from the one which you have chosen.

Mrs. White is clear that there are three persons in the Godhead.  Why was she so explicitly clear about that if there are only two?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Because she was human, and she was WRONG.  She never mentions having a vision or an angel visitor, to tell her that God is actually THREE persons of a Heavenly Trio.  For 50 years she was also amendment that there are only two divine beings.  In your view, she was WRONG for 50 years?  And the LORD waited 50 years to CORRECT His prophet.

I do not accept the writings of Ellen White as without error.  I read her as I would any other Bible commentary.  Many, many other writers were "inspired", but they were not infallible.  Neither was Ellen White. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 minute ago, Green Cochoa said:

Don't jump to conclusions so hastily.  First of all, I'm not saying anything that the Bible doesn't itself say when I'm simply quoting it.  Secondly, to me it simply demonstrates that the Holy Spirit was present.  It doesn't, and I don't either, make a case for the Holy Spirit creating anything.  Personally, I would have no problem believing that He could create.  I also have no problem accepting that such may not be His role.

Having begun with this false premise, the rest of your post was moot.

Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

I've gotta go for now Green.  Busy day.  Blessings.  Rachel

[Green Cochoa]

4 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Because she was human, and she was WRONG.  She never mentions having a vision or an angel visitor, to tell her that God is actually THREE persons of a Heavenly Trio.  For 50 years she was also amendment that there are only two divine beings.  In your view, she was WRONG for 50 years?  And the LORD waited 50 years to CORRECT His prophet.

I do not accept the writings of Ellen White as without error.  I read her as I would any other Bible commentary.  Many, many other writers were "inspired", but they were not infallible.  Neither was Ellen White. 

Here is where you and I may need to part ways.  I accept Mrs. White's writings as inspired.  She, as a person, was not infallible.  But her published writings are not merely human-derived.  She wrote about the Holy Spirit being the third person of the Godhead not once nor twice.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[JoeMo]

"This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me.   But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men." (Matt. 15:8-10; Is. 29:13)

I believe that the concept of a Triune God (3 distinct persons in one God); and the concept of the Holy Spirit is a distinct 3rd Person of the Trinity rather than the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of Christ is a time-honored "precept of men" dating back over a thousand years to some pronouncement by the Catholic Church.  I also believe that Mrs. White was heavily influenced (coerced?) into "approving" of the Trinity; and only then later in life.  I couldn't say for certainty whether or not Mrs. White died as a Trinitarian.

The preponderance of evidence in the Bible (not Mrs. White's writings or those of some pope from the distant past) if that the Father and the Son ALONE comprise the Godhead. Sure, you can find some verses referring to the Holy Ghost that make it sound like a person; but the overwhelming majority of scripture (when translated correctly) discussing the Godhead gives no indication of the Spirit being a separate and distinct entity.

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

 I accept Mrs. White's writings as inspired.  She, as a person, was not infallible.  But her published writings are not merely human-derived.  

Ok, let's work off of the hypothesis that EGW was just as inspired as some of the Bible writers - like Paul and Peter.  It's obvious from scripture that both Paul and peter were convinced that the second coming would be in their lifetime.  Since - as you have already agreed to - that Paul and Peter didn't have a clue that they were writing scripture when they wrote their letters, - that when they said stuff like:

" According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. ¹⁶ For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 1 Thess 4:15-17); and:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and wait eagerlyfor its coming." (2Pet. 3:10-11);

they were expecting the Lord to come during their lifetimes and the lives of those to whom they were writing.  Obviously, they were wrong.  Does that mean we should toss their writings out of the Bible?  GOD FORBID!!!  All true believers have strongly hoped that they would see the 2nd coming during their lifetimes.  If Peter and Paul were wrong, what makes us think that EGW had to be right, when stuff that she prophesied never came to fruition?

I was at a church meeting one day (years ago) that was teaching on the benefits of a veggie lifestyle.  Someone asked "If eating meat was a poor choice, why did Jesus and his disciples eat it?" the presenter answered that "They (referring to Jesus and His disciples, I assume) didn't have as much light as we have." I was floored.

[JoeMo]

Peter and Paul were good SDAs for their time:

They honored the 7th day Sabbath.

They believed in the imminent 2nd coming of Jesus.

They preached the Gospel and promoted healing wherever they went.

[Green Cochoa]

9 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Sure, you can find some verses referring to the Holy Ghost that make it sound like a person; but the overwhelming majority of scripture (when translated correctly) discussing the Godhead gives no indication of the Spirit being a separate and distinct entity.

So, let's look at some of these verses individually, so that we can examine them more easily and closely.  We have already seen that all three "persons" appear in the very first chapter of Genesis--well, at least two are named, but elsewhere we see that the "Word" was "God" as as well (see John 1:1).  Accepting that this might still be unclear to some, let us look at a few other "problem" texts for those who wish to deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit, one at a time.  I will start with this one.

Quote

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.  (Romans 8:26-27)

Now, if the Spirit makes intercession for us to God, this is significant.  Why would an intelligent God need to "translate" our prayers to Himself?  Why would He have to intercede on our behalf to His own hearing?  This clearly invokes a dual-personhood between the Holy Spirit and God (acknowledging, of course, that the Holy Spirit is also God, but a different person of the Godhead).

So, we have to ask ourselves, is the Holy Spirit a separate Person from "God" in the above passage?  I believe most scholars and theologians would readily agree that indeed He is.  Do you accept this, Joe?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

So, we have to ask ourselves, is the Holy Spirit a separate Person from "God" in the above passage?  I believe most scholars and theologians would readily agree that indeed He is.  Do you accept this, Joe?

Your post was very sincere and very well thought out.  I also appreciate the heartfelt appeal to believe like you.  My response for now is that I believe that Christ is the Mediator and Intercessor between God and man.  It follows (using the context of the entire Bible rather than a proof text) that the Holy Spirit referred to in Romans 8 is the Spirit of Christ.

In the same chapter, we find " But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."(Romans 8:9); and "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.

I also notice that (at least in the ASV and NIV), the term used is always "Spirit"; never "Holy Spirit". By inference, I can only assume this means the "Spirit of God" or the "Spirit of Christ"; not a third autonomous and distinct Person.

I will ask you the same - can you accept this GC? Can you at least understand where I'm coming from?

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.  And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what [is] the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to [the will of] God.  (Romans 8:26-27)

"There is ONE mediator BETWEEN God and man, the man Jesus Christ" (I Tim 2:5).   Christ has to be BETWEEN man and God.  If the Holy Spirit is God, you cannot put "Him" BETWEEN Christ and man.  That doesn't work.  

Matthew 6:8 "Therefore do not be like them. For your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him." (NKJ) 

The Spirit - in Romans 8:26-27 is "making intercession" FOR the saints - according to the will of God.  I don't believe the Spirit is pleading with God.  God's mind does NOT need to be changed towards the saints.  It is the saints minds, that need to be changed.  The MIND of the Father (who knows all hearts) communicates His will to Jesus, who then intercedes (mediates) on the Father's behalf - to change the hearts/minds of the saints. 
 

[8thdaypriest]

John Chapter 17 is Jesus' prayer at the last supper.  

I'm going to copy it here, because I think this prayer is a revelation of the relationship between God and His only Son. Jesus does not address ANOTHER being - ONLY His Father.   He calls His Father - "the only true God".  He says He taught the Father's words, and that His Father was "in" Him.  He says His Father gave Him a work to do.  His Father "sent" Him.  He says He kept the disciples "in Your name" - in His Father's name.  There is NO MENTION of another being either dwelling in Christ, or communicating anything to Christ.  There is NO MENTION that Christ represented another divine being. 

John 17:1 Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.  [That's only TWO beings.] 

4 "I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.  [So in John 1, where the "Word was with God" - that "God" would be the Father. The Father is the "only true God".] 

6 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 "Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 "For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

9 "I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 "And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 "Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 "While I was with them in the world1, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 "But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

[So we are "one" with the Father and His Son.  Which agrees with "we abide in the Son and in the Father", and "we have fellowship with the Father and the Son".  The omnipresent Father is "IN" Christ - enabling Christ to be "IN" us.  That's how it works.]

24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 "O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 "And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them." (Joh 17:1 NKJ)

 

[Green Cochoa]

Joe and Rachel,

It would appear that both of you are setting yourselves up as wiser than the Bible.  Joe is making assumptions from inferences and accepting a "context" over a "proof text."  Rachel is contradicting the text more directly to say she doesn't believe it at face value (that "the Spirit is pleading with God"), but rather that the Spirit is working on human hearts instead.

You may both be sincere, but I don't see how I can legitimately have an honest Bible study under these conditions.  By the way, it is impossible to prove some Christian doctrines from the NIV (Not Inspired Version, as I call it) which has deliberately made many changes in the text.  We need not sidetrack this thread over this issue, but one doctrine that is changed in the NIV is definitely that pertaining to the personhood of the Holy Spirit.  There are 76 verses in the Bible in which the KJV contains the word "spirit" and the NIV does not.  As one example, consider Isaiah 40:7 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: because the spirit of the LORD bloweth upon it: surely the people is grass." (KJV)  versus "The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass." (NIV)  Is the "spirit" merely a breath?  

As another example, 1 Peter 1:22 says "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:" (KJV) and "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart." (Footnote: Some early manuscripts from a pure heart) (NIV).  

Also Ephesians 5:9 says "(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)" (KJV) versus "(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth)" (NIV).  

The NIV appears to have an agenda against the Spirit.  For purposes of this discussion, therefore, I will accept only the KJV as authoritative for doctrine.

Regarding "proof texts," Jesus used them, Paul used them, Peter used them (a lot), and Ellen White used them (extensively).  I also use them, as by these examples we are shown that such is a proper use of the text.  Now, to establish doctrine, I believe one should have two or three such textual witnesses, not merely one verse.  But to pit a "proof text" against a "context" is a "pretext."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[LifeHiscost]

On 2/20/2016 at 2:09 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

Jesus SPOKE of Himself in third person, several times.  Eg. "When He the Son of Man" or "The Son of Man has not where to lay his head".   Jesus received FROM His Father, the promised gift of the Spirit - His Father's spirit - without measure.  Jesus then, using this divine power - poured out His own Spirit presence upon His waiting disciples. 

He had promised, "I am with you always." 

1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." (1Co 15:45 KJV)

Jesus - the "last Adam" was made a life giving SPIRIT.  What spirit would that be, except the Holy Spirit of Pentecost. 

John said concerning the one to come AFTER, that "He will baptize you with the Spirit and fire"  (Matt 3:11, Lk 3:16).  This is the "fire" of Pentecost.  And Jesus is the ONE doing the baptizing - not a third divine being.

Sounds good. However the Scripture isn't defined exactly that way without accepting some points without specific pronouncements. i like all my T's crossed and  I's dotted before I accept something as verified Truth.

God is Love!~Jesus saves!         

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

 

Quote

Joe and Rachel,

It would appear that both of you are setting yourselves up as wiser than the Bible.

 

This is the kind of a personal attack that is not appropriate in this forum.

It appears to me to be the same kind of attack that Green has suggested violates Matthew 7:1,

Joe and Rachel are not setting themselves above the Bible.  They are simply proposing their understanding of what the Bible teaches.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

I don't see how I can legitimately have an honest Bible study under these conditions.

See my comments immediately above.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said:

 

Quote

By the way, it is impossible to prove some Christian doctrines from the NIV (Not Inspired Version, as I call it) which has deliberately made many changes in the text.

 

I acknowledge your sarcasm.

All translations of the Bible are imperfect as they are human.    But God has chosen to use such to proclaim his mess to we who are human.  I consider it quite inappropriate for Green to attack a translation that God is using to bring people to salvation as Green has attacked it.  But, perhaps (?) Green does not believe that God has ever brought one to salvation through the NIV?  I do not know.

The basic issues that involve translation issues are that of the selection of the text that is translated and how to translate that text.  As I understand Green, he has no (none) personal understanding of the Biblical languages.   In addition, he does not, as I understand it,   have any real knowledge of the texts (MSS) that are used in the translation of the Bible.  Yet, he has set himself up as one who is capable of translating the Bible and, as he has time, he is working of his own translation of the Bible, which he intends to publish and distribute.  [NOTE:  Perhaps he has already accomplished this/  I do not know.]

I happen to agree with Green's theological position on the Trinity, at least as I understand him.  I disagree with the position that Rachel has taken.  However, I can clearly state that Rachel is honest.  I have had honest discussions with her on this point. 

 

 Green also said:

 

Quote

For purposes of this discussion, therefore, I will accept only the KJV as authoritative for doctrine.

 

So, is your translation authoritative?

Is your translation available to any of us who might like to have a copy in order to see for ourselves exactly what value it might have?

 

 

[JoeMo]

Thank you Gregory,

I appreciate the way you disagree without being disagreeable.

[Gregory Matthews]

What I am attempting to do, perhaps imperfectly, is to refrain from attacking Green personally, but to deal with the issues that he raises, point to flaws in his posts and otherwise simply focus on his opinion and the facts, other than him.

I have respected Green in the past.  He does post some good stuff. 
So, I may acknowledge that.  The fact that I disagree with him on some points does not negate the fact that some of what he posts has value.