A John 3:16 Thought...

[Wingnut]

 

I have many more Jackson.   I searched the EGW database for years, collecting every statement I could find, on the Father and Son, and later (1900 to 1910) the "three beings". 

What I found was a CLEAR CHANGE from two divine beings, to three divine beings.  

In Scripture, there are only TWO beings - Father and Son.  What I found in Ellen White's writings caused me to realize that she was NOT infallible, and HAD made mistakes. 

Ellen herself when asked if she was infallible said "I am not infallible - only God is infallible".  Unfortunately, few believe her..

Ellen was very good in areas such as describing Christ.  Desire of the ages is masterful.  But nobody is infallible.

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit is not a third person, but the force or power of God the Father - how He exerts His influence throughout the universe.  The Father's power is channeled or directed through Christ.

The problem with theological error is that every truth unlocks further truth, and every error creates further error.  If a person is unwilling to change when shown their error (resists the Holy Spirit), then the Holy Spirit backs off from showing that person more truth.  Likewise when the Holy Spirit motivates us to do good, and we resist.  Notice that these last two sentences make sense if I were speaking of the Holy Spirit as a person or as a power.

I can attend a SDA church and it makes little difference to me that most around me believe that God is a trinity.  I am persuaded by scriptures like the Holy Spirit is poured out by measure (such as one can be full, or presumably half full, or empty).  The Holy Spirit is left out of all of Paul's greetings to the Churches in his epistles.

A big hint that the Holy Spirit is not a person is the use of the word "spirit".  It is "pneuma" in the Greek and "ruach" in the Hebrew, and both Hebrew and Greek consistently translate this word as "wind".  Wind is everywhere.  Wind is bodiless, formless.  Also the Son sits at the right hand of the Father, but no seating for the Holy Spirit. etc.

This trinity doctrine dates back to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.  SDA's have come out of the error of the Holy Roman empire during the Reformation, but some errors remain.  SDA's should also be keeping Gods annual feasts which are prescribed along with the Sabbath in Lev 23.

To get back to the errors of Ellen.  Her belief that earth will be uninhabited during the Millennium is easily contradicted by reading Zech 14 which shows the nations of those remaining on earth coming up, year by year, to keep the Feast's in Jerusalem throughout the millennium.

[teresaq]

The Papal/Protestant Trinity doctrine destroys the Sanctuary message in that it proclaims God to be immaterial. Building on that belief it is declared that we also will be immaterial upon death. If God is immaterial what need of heaven as His residence or the sanctuary in it. Now we are into immaterialism and spiritualizing away much of the SDA beliefs. No material God, no material heaven, no material sanctuary in said heaven,  no material resurrected bodies, no final judgment scene, no new earth, and on and on. 

All we have is a physical Jesus floating in space....

This is what our pioneers AND Ellen White were addressing.

With all due respect to everyone, once we stop reading and listening to whoever our favorite sources are and read both the pioneers and Ellen White for ourselves as well as the Trinity doctrine by the Papacy, the Baptist confession and Methodist we will more clearly see what the issues were. It was NOT Trinitarianism vs Arianism, more exactly, what we think those terms are and mean.

 

. Mrs. White told Eder Andresen that she had become a Trinitarian when he came to visit her expressly to find out if she became one and she convinced him to become one. Many of his friends were not happy that she changed him into believing trinitarianism. Also, James White wrote a letter towards the end of his life saying that he was finding the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it. So please be more honest in how you portray James and Ellen. Also a study of people who had known James found that all but one of them did not ever remember him talking about the trinity. That they assumed that he was anti-Trinitarian, but that he was very quiet if that topic came up. There was one man who as a little boy once had the White's over when he was something like 8 years old and he said that at that lunch James was talking against the trinity. But none who were closer to him every remembers him discussing the topic, and as I said he did write a letter saying that he was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than those against it.

Also, the trinity has turned central to the structure of Mrs. White's theology. If you remove the trinity then you only have a bunch of words that you can mold however you want and form all kinds of weird ideas and use her words to push these strange ideas.

As I read Andreason's account he never mentioned having spoken to Ellen White about her views. As he relates the circumstances he read a statement of hers and apparently jumped to a conclusion. If he ever discussed the statement with her he never mentioned the discussion anywhere.

The article on Immateriality I posted here was written by James White and specifically targeted the spiritism of the Trinity doctrine. I remember his statement was more along the lines that he did not believe that the Trinity doctrine was a hindrance with Seventh-day Baptists. 

I think the confusion for SDAs to a very large degree is not knowing there is a difference between what we believe and call "trinity" and what is believed for centuries and is the trinity doctrine is often very different. In fact I came across a discussion where the poor SDAs were trounced by those who did know the trinity doctrine. We were accused of hijacking the term and the accusers rightly pointed out that our FB is quite different from the doctrine.

Here is a statement from CCEL concerning theologians and Ellen White:

...Like the denomination she helped to develop, her book became the subject of much controversy. In it, she draws on mystical experience and comes to conclusions far different from the mainstream attitudes of her time. Theologians today still criticize her work on the basis of its potentially heretical views on such core doctrines as those of the Trinity or the Incarnation....

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/white/desire.html

 

[teresaq]

These are statements by SDAs themselves struggling, in my view, to have their cake and eat it too. To be a trinitarian yet not take on what they clearly knew to be erroneous to our own unique views. Unique views I value as truth and do not wish to discard for "immateriality" and floating in space as a spirit for all eternity. Not the least bit attractive. I'm looking forward to that new earth with all its physical pleasures for my senses to enjoy. A new earth where the (material) Father and (material) Son will be and I can see and talk to them.

Part of the Trinity Doctrine:

"In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as 'three persons in one God,' all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. [...]

Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds")

 

but one name for God^[54] because three persons exist in God as one entity.^[55] They cannot be separate from one another.

 

Trinitarianism affirms that the Son is "begotten" (or "generated") of the Father and that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father, but the Father is "neither begotten nor proceeds". The argument over whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son, was one of the catalysts of the Great Schism, in this case concerning the Western addition of the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, in the sense of the Latin verb procedere (which does not have to indicate ultimate origin and is therefore compatible with proceeding through), but not in that of the Greek verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι (which implies ultimate origin),^[58] the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, which teaches that the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father alone, has made no statement on the claim of a difference in meaning between the two words, one Greek and one Latin, both of which are translated as "proceeds". The Eastern Orthodox Churches object to the Filioque clause on ecclesiological and theological grounds, holding that "from the Father" means "from the Father alone".

 

Most Protestant groups that use the creed also include the Filioque clause. However, the issue is usually not controversial among them because their conception is often less exact than is discussed above^{[citation needed]} (exceptions being the Presbyterian Westminster Confession 2:3, the London Baptist Confession 2:3, and the Lutheran Augsburg Confession 1:1–6, which specifically address those issues)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trinity&oldid=148650755)

........................................................

Seventh-day Adventist writers which includes theologians, scholars, etc...

"A more substantial development [in Adventism] was the continued quest to articulate a biblical doctrine of the Trinity, clearly differentiated from the Greek philosophical presuppositions that undergirded the traditional creedal statements. [...] 

[...] 

"The long process of change from early Adventists' initial rejection of creedal trinitarianism to their eventual acceptance of a doctrine of the Trinity could rightly be called a search for a biblical Trinity. They were not so much prejudiced against traditional formulas as they were determined to hew their doctrine as closely as possible to the line of Scripture. In order to base their beliefs on Scripture alone, and to disenfranchise tradition from exercising any theological authority, they found it methodologically essential to reject every doctrine not clearly grounded in Scripture alone. Since the traditional doctrine of the Trinity clearly contained unscriptural elements, they rejected it. [...]" (From an article by SDA Seminary professor Dr. Jerry Moon entitled "The Adventist Trinity Debate Part 1: Historical Overview," published in Andrews University Seminary Studies in 2003, and available online at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm)

"This research has shown that: (1) Ellen White agreed with some aspects, but not with every aspect of the antitrinitarian views of other early Adventists. (2) Ellen White's view did change—she was raised trinitarian, came to doubt some aspects of the trinitarianism she was raised on, and eventually came to a different trinitarian view from the traditional one. (3) There is a basic harmony between Ellen White's earliest statements and her latest ones. Even on internal evidence, there is no reason to question the validity of her later, more trinitarian writings. They are completely consistent with the trajectory of her developing understanding of the Godhead, and there is every evidence that they represent her own thought. In her earliest writings she differed from some aspects of traditional trinitarianism and in her latest writings she still strongly opposed some aspects of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. (4) It appears, therefore, that the trinitarian teaching of Ellen White's later writings is not the same doctrine that the early Adventists rejected.11 Rather, her writings describe two contrasting forms of trinitarian belief, one of which she always opposed, and another that she eventually endorsed." (From an article by SDA Seminary professor Dr. Jerry Moon entitled "The Quest for a Biblical Trinity: Ellen White’s 'Heavenly Trio' Compared to the Traditional Doctrine," published in the Spring 2006 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society and available online at http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=241&journal=1&type=pdf)

[...] "She [Ellen G. White] taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct individuals, which is not true of the medieval doctrine of the Trinity. [...]" (From SDA Seminary professor Dr. Jerry Moon's presentation of the above paper at the Adventist Theological Society’s 2006 "Trinity Symposium", http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Moon_Quest_Biblical_Trinity.mp3)

[...] "What James [SDA co-founder James White, husband of Ellen White] and the other men were opposed to, we are just as opposed to as they were. Now, their solution to that, at that time, they didn't see any solution by retaining the Trinity concept, and getting rid of its distortions. But, in reality, we have been faithful to their commitment, and I know of nothing that they were objecting to, in objecting to Trinitarianism, that we have not also objected to. So I see a considerable fluidity and continuity." (From the Q&A session after Dr. Merlin Burt's presentation at the Adventist Theological Society’s 2006 "Trinity Symposium." The audio file from which the quote is transcribed can be found at http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Burt_Historical_Adventist_Views.mp3)

[...] "Secondly, as several of the gentlemen have pointed out, the doctrine of the Trinity that we teach is not identical to the doctrine of the Trinity as developed by the Roman Catholic Church. [...]" (A panel participant at the Q&A Session at the end of the Adventist Theological Society’s 2006 "Trinity Symposium," http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Participants_Panel_Discussion.mp3)

"I just wanted to comment, in line with what has already been said, but that there were several tribes that were identified by the Papacy as Arian. Ellen White warns us, however, about the fact that the Papal historical process has actually confused many issues. But I would like to say, I think there were seven non-orthodox, which means those who did not hold their brand of Trinitarianism, which we reject today, along with them. So, we probably would have been branded as Arian by the orthodox." (SDA scholar and author A. LeRoy Moore, at the panel Q&A Session at the ATS 2006 "Trinity Symposium," http://atsjats.org/site/1/podcast/06_Trinity_Participants_Panel_Discussion.mp3)

"It is true that the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople did make declarations that we must now reject because they disagree with Scripture. [...] 

[...] 

"A major development [in Adventism] since 1972 has been the quest to articulate biblical presuppositions grounding a biblical doctrine of the Trinity, clearly differentiated from the dualistic presuppositions that undergird the traditional creedal statements. [...] 

"In 1983 Fernando Canale set forth an analysis and radical critique of the Greek philosophical presuppositions underlying what Dederen had referred to as 'speculative thought.' Canale's dissertation, A Criticism of Theological Reason, showed that classical Catholic and Protestant theology took its most basic presuppositions about the nature of God, time, and existence, from a 'framework' provided by Aristotelian philosophy. He argued that for Christian theology to become truly biblical, it must derives its 'primordial presupposition' from Scripture, not from Greek philosophy (Canale, Criticism, p. 359; p. 402, n. 1)." (From pages 150 and 201 of the book entitled The Trinity: Understanding God's Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships, written by Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve (SDA theologians), and published by the SDA Church-owned Review and Herald Publishing Association (Copyright 2002). http://books.google.com/books?id=ym4Efps-ZuoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)

"The eastern Cappadocian fathers expanded on Tertullian's thought and tended to emphasize the distinct individuality of the three persons while safeguarding their unity by stressing the fact that both the Son and the Spirit derived from the Father.10 They spoke of one 'substance' (ousia) in three 'persons' (hypostases).'11 However, another issue for us today is that much of that vocabulary and thought assumed ancient Greek dualism and metaphysics, which are very distant and confusing to us now. 

[...] 

"Our own Adventist theological experience and history can make valuable contributions to this discussion. In many ways the philosophical assumptions and presuppositions of our worldview are different from traditional Christianity and bring different perspectives on some of these old issues. We do not accept the traditional Platonic dualistic worldview and metaphysics that were foundational to the church fathers' theology of the Trinity, one of these being the concept of the immortality of the soul." (From an article by Denis Fortin, Professor of Theology and Dean of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary (at Andrews University), entitled "God, the Trinity, and Adventism: An Introduction to the Issues," published in the Spring 2006 Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, and available online at http://www.atsjats.org/publication_file.php?pub_id=232&journal=1&type=pdf)

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2015 by teresaq(sda)

[Wingnut]

These are statements by SDAs themselves struggling, in my view, to have their cake and eat it too. To be a trinitarian yet not take on what they clearly knew to be erroneous to our own unique views. Unique views I value as truth and do not wish to discard for "immateriality" and floating in space as a spirit for all eternity. Not the least bit attractive. I'm looking forward to that new earth with all its physical pleasures for my senses to enjoy. A new earth where the (material) Father and (material) Son will be and I can see and talk to them.

 

You may be right that there is a difference between normal trinitarian views and SDA trinitarian views.  A table of similarities and differenced would help. I thought it was a clear-cut, boolean issue of whether the Holy Spirit IS or IS NOT a separate being with unique thoughts and personality and identity just as I see Christ and the Father as having.

[8thdaypriest]

 

To get back to the errors of Ellen.  Her belief that earth will be uninhabited during the Millennium is easily contradicted by reading Zech 14 which shows the nations of those remaining on earth coming up, year by year, to keep the Feast's in Jerusalem throughout the millennium.

Hi Wingnut, 

Luv your handle.  Anyway.  From Revelation 20:5 concerning "the rest of the dead",  they "lived not again" for 1000 years.  So how can they go up to Jerusalem for the Feasts DURING the 7th millennium?  "The rest of the dead" are the "nations which are in the four corners of the earth." 

Through the OT, "the nations" were NOT Israel.  Israel will be the redeemed.  Israel is gathered in at the Second Coming.  

I think it FITS better with prophecy, to believe that Israel will become "a kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:5; I Peter 2:5, 9, 10; Rev. 20:6).  Israel will remain "within the Tabernacle" (which is Heaven itself) until "the 8th Day" (Lev. 8:33-36).  The priestly ministry BEGINS on "the 8th Day" (Lev. Cpt 8).  The 8th Day is the 8th millennium, when "the rest of the dead" are raised. 

The LORD's plan for Israel from the beginning, was that they would teach His Law, and His way, to the nations.  I believe the LORD's plan and purpose for Israel redeemed, will become reality at the 8th millennium - NOT during the 7th millennium. 

The "nations" will be resurrected at the 8th millennium, and will "go up to the House of the LORD" to learn His ways (Isa. 2, Micah 4). 

Wingnut,

You may never have seriously considered these prophecies coming to pass during the 8th millennium.  PLEASE.  Read my book "The 8th Day".  It is posted at my website.  Pray about it. 

http://prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/8thdaybook.shtml

As I'm sure you already know, today IS the Feast of the 8th Day.  I so long for the appointed times in the Kingdom, when we will all "go up" to Jerusalem, to see the LORD, and friends, and family. 

Blessings, Rachel

[Wingnut]

Hi Wingnut, 

Luv your handle.  Anyway.  From Revelation 20:5 concerning "the rest of the dead",  they "lived not again" for 1000 years.  So how can they go up to Jerusalem for the Feasts DURING the 7th millennium?  "The rest of the dead" are the "nations which are in the four corners of the earth." 

 

 

Hi Rachel

Below I have posted Zechariah 14.  At Christ's second coming, after the battle of Armageddon, His feet stand on the mount of Olives (vs 4).  Verse 9 says that He (Christ) will be king over all the earth during the millennium.  Verse 16 says they keep the Feast during the Millennium.  Where is there any hint that this is NOT at His second coming?  Why would anyone think that this describes after the Millennium?  There are people around the globe who have survived the last 7 vial plagues of Revelation, and they are the seed who multiply as mortals throughout the Millennium.

The rest of the dead who have lived through past societies which have never heard the one and only name whereby they might be saved, are resurrected from the dead at the end of the Millennium as Rev 20:5 states.

I do not know if it is from verse 11 that Ellen figured that all people would be destroyed at His second coming.  But the rest of this chapter clearly shows that there is a remnant left alive at His second coming.  Only SDA's of all folks who believe in the second coming, believe in an uninhabited earth during the Millennium.

Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

4 4. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:

7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

9 9. And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

11 11. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

13 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.

14 And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.

15 And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.

16 16. And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

[pnattmbtc]

Regarding the glory of God:

The glory of God is His character.... This character was revealed in the life of Christ. That He might by His own example condemn sin in the flesh, He took upon Himself the likeness of sinful flesh. Constantly He beheld the character of God; constantly He revealed this character to the world. Christ desires His followers to reveal in their lives this same character.5Signs of the Times, September 3, 1902.

Given the glory of God is His character (Ex. 33:18,19), and Christ has the same character as the Father, their respectively glory is the same.  "When you've seen Me, you've seen the Father". 

[teresaq]

You may be right that there is a difference between normal trinitarian views and SDA trinitarian views.  A table of similarities and differenced would help. I thought it was a clear-cut, boolean issue of whether the Holy Spirit IS or IS NOT a separate being with unique thoughts and personality and identity just as I see Christ and the Father as having.

That's what happens when we listen to whoever on both sides.   I agree with you that a list would be helpful. I hadn't thought of that as I was just too flabbergasted for too long to think of that. In fact I was quite surprised that I was able to list the real issues so well.

God is good when we stay in prayer and surrender. He is SO good!

[8thdaypriest]

 

[8thdaypriest]

WHO WAS JESUS' FATHER???

IF the Son of God was co-eternal, that would mean he HAD no father.  He just always existed.  He simply took the ROLE of a Son.  I don't believe that. 

I believe that Proverbs 8:22-30 is Christ speaking of Himself, PRIOR to His incarnation as a human being.  Mrs. White agrees: Patriarchs and Prophets pg 34;  Signs of the Times Aug 29, 1900;  Selected Messages Book 1, pg 247;  Review and Herald April 5, 1906). 

In Proverbs 8, Christ says "I was brought forth."  (v. 24) and "I was brought forth" (v.25).  "brought forth" in the Greek (Septuagint translation) is "gennao" which means "born".  Heb 1:5, and Heb 5:5 use the SAME word, speaking of Christ.   The point is that Christ was "born" or "brought forth" BEFORE the earth was created. 

In Micah 5:2, His "goings forth" were from of old, from everlasting (meaning from the far distant past - not necessarily the past without beginning).  The word translated as "goings forth" is the word that means "origins (#4163).  God the Father HAD NO ORIGIN.  He has always existed.  His Son DID HAVE A BEGINNING.  He was "begotten".

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

All Trinitarians are NOT alike. 

The SDAs believe that God is three co-eternal divine beings.  The Baptists and most Evangelicals believe that God is ONE divine being, who MANIFESTS in three different ways. 

I am NOT a Trinitarian, of either flavor. 

[Wingnut]

Just hypothetically...

If Christ was cloned from the Father...

Would that not satisfy that He existed eternally as He came from the Father who existed eternally.

And he would be a Son (descendant)

And he would have been begotten.

And if He was the only one cloned from the Father, He would be the only begotten.

Just speculating.

[8thdaypriest]

Just hypothetically...

If Christ was cloned from the Father...

Would that not satisfy that He existed eternally as He came from the Father who existed eternally.

And he would be a Son (descendant)

And he would have been begotten.

And if He was the only one cloned from the Father, He would be the only begotten.

Just speculating.

I don't really like the term "cloned".  I like begotten.  Adam AND EVE were made in the image of God.  Right? 

So what makes us think that God could not "beget" a Son.  Jesus said, "I came forth from God AND have come into the world." 

 If the Son's mind was equal to His Father's, then the Father could have shared ALL information with His Son, prior to the creation of anything.  The amazing thing is that the Son was EQUAL with His Father, yet stepped down and down and down to become a man condemned. 

I personally believe that Eve was a clone of Adam, with ONE adjustment - X for the Y chromosome.  The Y is the sex determinative, and  accounts for all male characteristics, because it is responsible for development of the testis.  The Y was present in Adam, and was absent from Eve - even though SHE was made from tissue taken from Adam.   The Y is passed from Father to sons.

[pnattmbtc]

I don't really like the term "cloned".  I like begotten.  Adam AND EVE were made in the image of God.  Right? 

So what makes us think that God could not "beget" a Son.  Jesus said, "I came forth from God AND have come into the world." 

 If the Son's mind was equal to His Father's, then the Father could have shared ALL information with His Son, prior to the creation of anything.  The amazing thing is that the Son was EQUAL with His Father, yet stepped down and down and down to become a man condemned. 

I personally believe that Eve was a clone of Adam, with ONE adjustment - X for the Y chromosome.  The Y is the sex determinative, and  accounts for all male characteristics, because it is responsible for development of the testis.  The Y was present in Adam, and was absent from Eve - even though SHE was made from tissue taken from Adam.   The Y is passed from Father to sons.

Just having a "X" or "Y" chromosome does not account for all the differences between men and women.

[8thdaypriest]

Just having a "X" or "Y" chromosome does not account for all the differences between men and women.

From what I researched - it does. 

[pnattmbtc]

Just having a "X" or "Y" chromosome does not account for all the differences between men and women.

Rachel: From what I researched - it does. 

Could you explain your thought please?  There must be more to this.  If you took a man, and replaced all of his "Y" chromosomes with "X" chromosomes, you're saying you would get a woman? 

[8thdaypriest]

 

Could you explain your thought please?  There must be more to this.  If you took a man, and replaced all of his "Y" chromosomes with "X" chromosomes, you're saying you would get a woman? 

You'd have to do it when "he" was a one celled embryo.  After that the Y would begin to influence everything.  The Y provides for the formation of the penis, glans, and testis (rather than vagina, clitoris and ovaries).  Then the testis produce testosterone. 

If you took a woman (with only X) and gave that woman testosterone, she would begin to exhibit male characteristics (muscles, facial hair, etc. etc.).  She wouldn"t grow a penis.  That is something that has to happen during gestation, before birth.  The same would happen to a male, if you gave him the female hormone Estrogen, in large enough doses to override the male hormone testosterone.  It's called "chemical castration".  the male would become less aggressive, more like the female.  

The DIFFERENCE between males and females is hormonal.  The hormones are DIFFERENT because the Y causes development of the male testis, which generate testosterone. 

I've read studies about petroleum spills.  Petroleum is similar - chemically - to Estrogen.  Where the spills happened, the male alligators and frogs were hatched with very small penises that could NOT have sex or fertilize the females. 

[pnattmbtc]

You'd have to do it when "he" was a one celled embryo.  After that the Y would begin to influence everything.  The Y provides for the formation of the penis, glans, and testis (rather than vagina, clitoris and ovaries).  Then the testis produce testosterone. 

If you took a woman (with only X) and gave that woman testosterone, she would begin to exhibit male characteristics (muscles, facial hair, etc. etc.).  She wouldn"t grow a penis.  That is something that has to happen during gestation, before birth.  The same would happen to a male, if you gave him the female hormone Estrogen, in large enough doses to override the male hormone testosterone.  It's called "chemical castration".  the male would become less aggressive, more like the female.  

The DIFFERENCE between males and females is hormonal.  The hormones are DIFFERENT because the Y causes development of the male testis, which generate testosterone. 

I've read studies about petroleum spills.  Petroleum is similar - chemically - to Estrogen.  Where the spills happened, the male alligators and frogs were hatched with very small penises that could NOT have sex or fertilize the females. 

This doesn't match with what you wrote above:

I personally believe that Eve was a clone of Adam, with ONE adjustment - X for the Y chromosome.  The Y is the sex determinative, and  accounts for all male characteristics, because it is responsible for development of the testis.  The Y was present in Adam, and was absent from Eve - even thoughSHE was made from tissue taken from Adam.   The Y is passed from Father to sons.

What I mean is you're talking about two completely different things.  It would as if you said something like "an oak tree is just like a cherry tree, if you switch chromosome "A" for chromosome "B", when what you really mean is if you went back to the time of the seed, or pre-seed, when the preceed was just one cell, and did something to that one cell, then eventually when the trees developed, one would be an oak and the other a cherry tree.  But this is a very different then than considering switching the chromosomes of an already grown oak tree, and asserting that you if did such you would get a cherry tree. which is what a clone of Adam would be akin to.  A "clone" is an exact replica (here with the exception of switching chromosomes.

If one did what you would suggest, I'm pretty sure what you'd end up with would be a dead man. 

[8thdaypriest]

 

This doesn't match with what you wrote above:

What I mean is you're talking about two completely different things.  It would as if you said something like "an oak tree is just like a cherry tree, if you switch chromosome "A" for chromosome "B", when what you really mean is if you went back to the time of the seed, or pre-seed, when the preceed was just one cell, and did something to that one cell, then eventually when the trees developed, one would be an oak and the other a cherry tree.  But this is a very different then than considering switching the chromosomes of an already grown oak tree, and asserting that you if did such you would get a cherry tree. which is what a clone of Adam would be akin to.  A "clone" is an exact replica (here with the exception of switching chromosomes.

If one did what you would suggest, I'm pretty sure what you'd end up with would be a dead man. 

Well - no matter.  God created EVE from tissue taken from Adam's rib.  But somehow God adjusted the DNA of Adam's tissue, to produce a female.   We started out discussing how God the Father could beget a "son" in His exact image. 

[pnattmbtc]

Well - no matter.  God created EVE from tissue taken from Adam's rib.  But somehow God adjusted the DNA of Adam's tissue, to produce a female.   We started out discussing how God the Father could beget a "son" in His exact image. 

Are you familiar with what A. Graham Maxwell has said regarding μονογενής?

[8thdaypriest]

Are you familiar with what A. Graham Maxwell has said regarding μονογενής?

Nope.  Tell me. 

[pnattmbtc]

Nope.  Tell me. 

http://www.pineknoll.org/audio-book-by-book

Listen to the first lecture on John.  I think he should talk about it there.

[Wingnut]

... He would send it.  It was a representation of himself, and after he was glorified it was manifest."  Signs of the Times, May 17, 1899, pr.3

I AGREE completely with the quotes I just gave.  I believe that the Holy Spirit Comforter, is a manifestation of the presence of the omnipresent Christ.  It is Christ with us. 

 

 

I agree with what Rachel says here but add that I believe the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the Father as well as Christ with us.  Would you have a problem with that Rachel?

[8thdaypriest]

I agree with what Rachel says here but add that I believe the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the Father as well as Christ with us.  Would you have a problem with that Rachel?

No problem at all.   All the mystery is hidden in the Father and in the Son.   Our fellowship is with the Father and the Son. 

[8thdaypriest]

This thread was about God giving HIS "only begotten" (or uniquely begotten) Son. 

If "God" is three co-eternal divine beings, then "God" had no "Son".  One member of a Trinity simply took the ROLE of "son" and incarnated as a human "son".  He then became God's "son" when He incarnated. 

And if "God" is one divine being who manifests in three different ways, then God had no son.  HE simply manifest as a "son" while at the same time manifesting as Father, and Spirit. 

It's all about John 3:16.  Did God "give" His Son?   I believe He DID. 

For the first 50 years of her ministry Mrs White's writings agree. 

"Paul says, 'For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ'.  It is the Father who 'so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,' 'of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.'  The family is named after the Father (Eph. 3:14-15).  Those who enter the heavenly mansions will have the name of the Father and the name of the city of God written in their foreheads."  Review and Herald July 19, 1892, pr.7

"By Christ the work upon which the fulfillment of God's purpose rests was accomplished.  This was the agreement in the councils of the Godhead.  The Father purposed in  counsel with His Son, that he human family should be tested and proved to see whether they would be allured by the temptations of Satan, or whether they would make Christ their righteousness, keeping God's commandments, and live."  Manuscript Releases volume Twenty-one pg. 54 1898 

I have found no statement concerning the "councils of the Godhead" or the "covenant of peace" which includes another being called The Spirit. 

"(John 3:16 quoted) One wonderful in counsel was our Helper.  The Son of God left the heavenly courts and gave His life as the propitiation for sin.  He came to declare that altho the agencies of evil had created rebellion in heaven, and sin had entered the universe of God, yet Christ and the Father would redeem the fallen race."  Signs of the Times, Feb 17, 1909, pr 9