The Trinity doctrine

[JoeMo]

I agree 100% with pk's comment above that our salvation does not depend upon us being a trinitarian or a "twinitarian". I believe that salvation comes from Jesus Christ; and I want to be in His Kingdom forever.  If, when I get to heaven, He tells me that He disagrees with my opinion on the trinity,  I would have no problem admitting my error and getting on with a glorious eternity.

Lori, I think you missed the point rudywoofs was trying to make.  She was simply demonstrating that "history" depends upon whose viewpoint you are looking from.  As an exwitch, she pretty much knows her stuff about pagan tradition.

[Gregory Matthews]

Lori, Hislop's thesis is that the source for the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is in ancient pagan religions which also had a trinity.   You accepted that.  Both Pam and I disagreed with that idea.

You responded to Pam and argued for a more recent Christian source.  Well, you may have been correct.  But, that was inconsistent with your application to the Trinity doctrine.

Again, you will do better to ground your arguments in the Bible rather than a faulty Hislop.

 

[Kevin H]

17 hours ago, phkrause said:

Personally I don't believe, believing in a trinity is a salvation issue! But than again it can be! I myself do believe in the Trinity! I see no reason not to, and on the other hand, probably no reason to believe. One of the reason's I do believe in a Trinity, and its my weakest reason! Where do the numbers 777 and 666 come from? or maybe why do we have those numbers? One thing I've heard , and this comes from a number of theologians that I know. The 777 stands for the Holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit! The 666 would stands for the unholy trinity, Satan or the Dragon, the Beast, and the false prophet. I can buy that! What would be a good reason not to believe in the Trinity?? Does it hurt someone to believe? Will it keep us out of the Kingdom???? Anyway, that's my thought's on the matter.

There are two ways how I see this. First, a number of our pioneers questioned the trinity and went to sleep as non-Trinitarians; our official pastors were encouraged to preach against the trinity, however it was not a point that would be listed in lists of what we believed and our members were free to be either Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian according to their understanding of the scriptures.

But on the other hand, both as we learn more about Old Testament imagery and thought processes, and even ancient imagery of the more eastern world and through processes  and Mrs. White's philosophy the trinity makes it clearer to understand.

A big part of our problem is that we are Greeks. We think metaphysically. We try to define God in metaphysically. What God is in and of God's self. And trying to fit the 3 in 1 is difficult when we are trying to make that define God in and of God's self as the good Greek thinkers that we are.

Hebrew though on the other hand is focused more on how we relate to someone or something rather than describing the thing or person in and of themselves. Sadly I don't know the rabbi's name, but one of my professors, Dr. Jim Fleming, taught in Hebrew University in Jerusalem Israel. One of his colleagues on the faculty of Hebrew University was a rabbi noted to be the world's leading scholar of second temple Judaism. Dr. Fleming said that this rabbi says that the concept of the trinity was developed by the rabbis of the second temple to explain the Old Testament to a more Greek and western thinking world. And that there was a way that the Jews and early Christians, until the year 135 AD understood  Monotheism and the trinity. In AD 135 the church and synagogue split into two different religions. This was a sad time in the history of God's people. It was very much like a divorce with both sides saying and doing things that pained the other and both sides being hurt in the process and many of our beliefs that we held in common were either divided up between us or split between us so that what the two religions had there after was not what we both had before. We kept some beliefs that the Jews gave up and we gave up some beliefs that the Jews kept, and others were divided in half. The trinity was one of those that were divided in half between us with the church latching on to the Threeness and the Jews latching on to the oneness.

According to Dr. Flemming we do find with in some of the understandings of the Eastern Orthodox church of the trinity remnants of the former Jewish view. What is interesting is that this view also reflects Mrs. White's view of the trinity. Sadly we try to fit in the Western Roman Catholic views of the trinity.

The Roman Catholic view is that the metaphysics of God is that we have one God in three persons. It is compared to how one clover has three leaves, or one rope with three strands. This is an incomplete view and thus confusing.

Continued in Part 2

[8thdaypriest]

20 hours ago, phkrause said:

Personally I don't believe, believing in a trinity is a salvation issue! But than again it can be! I myself do believe in the Trinity! I see no reason not to, and on the other hand, probably no reason to believe. One of the reason's I do believe in a Trinity, and its my weakest reason! Where do the numbers 777 and 666 come from? or maybe why do we have those numbers? One thing I've heard , and this comes from a number of theologians that I know. The 777 stands for the Holy Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit! The 666 would stands for the unholy trinity, Satan or the Dragon, the Beast, and the false prophet. I can buy that! What would be a good reason not to believe in the Trinity?? Does it hurt someone to believe? Will it keep us out of the Kingdom???? Anyway, that's my thought's on the matter.

If the Spirit (of God) is NOT a third divine being, then to worship the Holy Spirit as such, is to break the first commandment. 

Satan's aim has been to insert himself into the godhead. 

[Kevin H]

Part 2: What is the Bible/ second temple Judaism/some Eastern Orthodox/ and Mrs. White's view of the trinity.

In the view that appears to be the old Jewish view, similar to what we find in some parts of Eastern Orthodox churches and in Mrs. White this is NOT the metaphysics of God. This is NOT God in and of God's self. We cannot go to a Greek metaphysical description of God. The Hebrew thought can only use the words "Holy, Holy, Holy" for what we want to understand and know. The Biblical view of trinity is how we relate to this God and how God manifests himself to us. Dr. Fleming describes it as either a mountain covered by a cloud that is too thick for us to see the top of the mountain, that the only way we can understand this is by the parts of the mountain under the cloud that we get to experience, It is the ridges of the mountain, the different aspects of the mountain.  The analogy of the mountain falls short because the mountain gets smaller as you go closer to the top, while God is infinite.

Another description looking specifically at Mrs. White as was taught at Atlantic Union College in the 1970s and 80s is that we have a God who is infinite, outside of time and space. We are finite, inside of time and space. We can sort of understand forever into the future because so far we have lived part of forever and we can make plans for tomorrow, next week, next year and can just imagine going on farther and farther like that. It is harder but we can also sort of go backwards forever. But the whole idea of infinite, being outside of time and space transcend time and space is incomprehensible to our minds (This is what I thought up just now, but it is easier to fit the ocean into a thimble than the concept of God's metaphysics into a finite mind. All our debates on the trinity comes from wanting the trinity to either define God in a metaphysical description and talking about how inadequate it is.) The real issue is that if we only had the metaphysical God, we would all be atheists, because we cannot comprehend. Yet life is dependent in how we relate to this God. The only way we can know that God exists is through God's entering time and space and revealing portions of God's self with us.

The trinity is nothing more complicated that that it is revelations of this otherwise incomprehensible God to us. It is three things that we need to know about God it is three ways we need to relate to God. This are illustrated through out the Old Testament and Old Testament people would have had an understanding of this but in a different way than we This the second temple rabbis translated this Hebrew experience into Greek thought.  

The first thing that we need to realize is that God is God, an idea of an all powerful being. The creator and ruler of the universe, so we have God the Father, the unapproachable light, the deep darkness, the one whom angels must veil their faces when approaching. We need this to have some idea as to who we are relating to and to realize our dependence upon this God.  But if this is all there was of God, God would be much to scary. Being scared is not love and what ever is not love is sin and thus created beings would not be able to live if this was the only revelation and relationship we had with God. Thus God the father is necessary but insufficient.

A second revelation of God that we need as God as relationship, our friend, our buddy, someone who we can hang out with. Thus we have God the son. Why we say that this aspect of God appeared to the angels as another angel, Michael. To early man, unless a situation were another form was better, God revealed himself as another human. From this the indication is to the beings on other planets he would appear to them as one of them. C. S. Lewis is correct in having this aspect of God in a world of talking animals as another talking animal. Now if this was the only revelation we had of God, we could say that this buddy is a good guy and a fun person to be around, but why do we need to depend on him for life? What make's his opinions better than ours? This can lead to sin and the destruction of  creatures. This revelation of God is necessary but insufficient. First of all we need to hold a tension between this great power on the throne and this buddy of ours. We need to know that this buddy is important to us because this is that great God who is sitting on that throne, and we need to know that this awe inspiring God is our precious friend. But even the two of them while both  necessary are again insufficient...

The next illustration was that there was once in Europe a conference for trial lawyers dealing with the nature of evidence. On the opening night one of Europe's top trial lawyers was getting ready for his keynote address. Someone who apparently was unhappy with him started yelling at him and pulled out a gun shooting him and killing him in front of everyone. Instead of the lecture the had to give depositions as were gathering the information on the murder of this lawyer.

The following night as the lawyers got together there was the who they thought was murdered lawyer sitting up front and reviewed the events of the night before. The man who shot him was not a disgruntled person but an actor. There was a very carefully step by step script that they had practiced. They reviewed with these lawyers what had actually happened which was right according to script and what the lawyers reported in their depositions. It was to teach about the nature of evidence.  There is both objective facts and subjective understanding of these facts. No one who is reading this post is reading exactly what I am trying to say. No two of you are reading the exact same thing. We are writing and reading the same words but we all have different backgrounds, levels of intelligence, knowledge and backgrounds that we bring to all that we see. God the Father and God the Son are objective revelations of the infinite God inside of time and space. We are both objective and subjective. If God was only objective God would be ignoring a big part of us, our subjective. Thus we need a PERSONAL revelation of the infinite God to our subjective as well. Now if the infinite God only revealed himself to us in our subjective, in our existential experience, our experiences are all different. Eastern religions, new age movement and Spiritualism has as the final authority the subjective events. At best we'd be Buddhists and at worst Spiritualists. Leaving my class notes, I remember hearing on the news how at this one natural place that was popular with people involved with the new age that the park rangers had trouble with people doing things like carving their initials into the land scape or breaking off a piece as a souvenir etc. Their defense was "The God who lived in the [rock or tree etc.] told me that they wanted me to do that to them. Thus the Holy Spirit is necessary but alone insufficient.

All of these alone or a combination of only two of them are necessary but insufficient. But as we hold in tension the greatness of God, the intimate friendship of God and hold in tension the objective revelations and the subjective revelation we have things that are both necessary AND sufficient. Notice I did NOT say necessary and complete. It is far from complete. If the infinite God wanted to God could have reveled God's self to us in dozens, hundred, thousands even an infinite number of revelation. But God does not want to confuse us, yet needed to give us revelations that were not only necessary but enough for it to also be sufficient.

In part 3 I will talk about the importance of this for Seventh-day Adventism, but it's late and my mom had a stroke, currently in rehab I wrote this as she was in therapy but I have to work with her for a while and get ready for my sister and son to visit her so not sure when I'll get to part 3. But I hope you find these first two parts useful.  

 

[8thdaypriest]

I do not believe that the Spirit is Jesus' "godstuff" that He left in heaven when He incarnated. 

What I do believe is that "God IS spirit" (John Chapt 4).  That is His nature.  He can take a form, to sit on His throne, but He IS spirit. 

God - as spirit - could dwell IN His son.   "The Father who dwells in me, does the works" (John 14:10).  

"that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him" (John 10:38).

This is what Jesus meant when He said, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30). 

This is how Jesus described the salvation experience:  "You [Father] IN me, and I IN them, that they may be one IN us."  (John Chapt 17).   No third divine being is mentioned, or needed. 

God the Father IS spirit, and dwells in His own Son, who then pours this spirit out to us.  We experience this spirit as the presence of Jesus. 

The Father sends the spirit THROUGH Christ. 

Here is John 14:26 again:

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." 

Compare 15:26.  Who sends the spirit helper? 

"But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. 

"if I depart, I will send Him to you."  (John 16:7). 

"Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

[John the Baptist]  "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." 

So - who does the baptizing with the Spirit?  Answer:  Christ

Who sends the spirit?  Answer:  Christ

But who is the SOURCE of that Spirit?  Answer:  The Father

No third being needed. 

PS:  The personal pronouns "whom" and "He" can just as accurately be translated as "which" and "it".    Mrs White referred to the spirit as "it" for 50 years.  Only much later, the Review and Herald Press went through her writings and changed "it" to "He", to reflect the churches teaching on 3 divine persons. 

Ephesians 4:4-6  "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling;  one Lord, one faith, one baptism;  one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." 

 

[8thdaypriest]

I have studied this Trinity issue and the nature of the Spirit, since about 1994.  I spent some 4 years looking at every statement from EGW.  I finally gave up on looking to Mrs White, because I found that she changed on this issue, some 50 years after she began her ministry.  I really could not determine whether to use early statements or later ones.  So I just stick with Scripture. 

There is a study on my website that deals with the Spirit.  http://www.prophecyviewpoint.com/htdocs/44e-Part 5 TR-HS.pdf

There is really one one passage, which could be used to prove the existence of three divine beings.  There is the baptismal formula.   (1John 5:7 having been rejected as tampered with.)

Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The PROBLEM is that the command - as translated - conflicts with the later actions of the disciples. 

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Romans 6:3 “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

1 Corinthians 6:11 “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

It kinda makes you wonder - doesn't it.

    The Emperor Constantine commissioned and paid for a copying and compilation of the Scriptures now known as the “New Testament”.  [Yes - the same Constantine who changed the Sabbath to Sunday]. 

The resulting Greek text is known as the “Byzantine”.  New Scholarly work by those familiar with the ancient manuscripts has revealed no Greek manuscript older than the time of Constantine, which contains Matthew 28:19.  The page containing Matthew 28:19 was torn from every pre-Constantine Greek manuscript.  One Aramaic manuscript survives.  In that manuscript, Matthew 28:19 reads, “baptizing them in my name.”  In other words, Christ commanded them to baptize in HIS name.  And many other passages confirm that the disciples did just that.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote during the 4th century.  He was a “friend” of Constantine.  In his work “Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Cpt 5, Section 2", he quotes Matthew 28:19 as “make disciples of all the nations in my name”.  He quotes the passage in the same way in “Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Cpt 16, Sect. 8" .  He quotes the passage in the same way some 18 times.  He finally, near the end of this life, quotes the passage once, as “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (This is the one which is always quoted.).  He may have been influenced by his loyalty to the Emperor, or by fear of the Emperor.

No other NAME

    Acts 4:12  “by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole.  This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.  Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[Gail]

This discussion is way better than I expected!  

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I do not believe that the Spirit is Jesus' "godstuff" that He left in heaven when He incarnated. 

 

 

Of course not. The problem with your arguments is that you do not enough see that it is only one God when we get outside of time and space, but the 3 beings of the trinity are just 3 simultaneous self revelations of that one God, just as if you had a glass of water that represents time and space and you are outside of time and space and put 3 fingers in the water. You are guilty as to what I said earlier about us trying to define God metaphysically, instead of leaving the metaphysical be simply "Holy, Holy, Holy" and that this "Holy, Holy, Holy" manifests him/her self to us in relationship through the trinity, two objective and one subjective manifestation.

[Stan]

I have never seen a conversation, on this or other forums, on the trinity end well. 

[Gerr]

The first and the last chapters of the Bible mention the Holy Spirit and all throughout Scripture.  One has to be willingly ignorant to deny his existence!  Just my opinion.  

[Gail]

7 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

May I ask where you get this idea from, and what prompted you to post this?

We have had members here that deny the deity of the Spirit, but the idea has cropped up in my workplace, too- not from colleagues but others we come across. 

[GayatfootofCross]

This a HUGE thing for me.

This TRINITY  thing.

The way I understand God is all about the Trinity.

1 John sums up God's Being as pure 100% Selfless Love.

In 1 Cor13 ( the love chapter) you literally see a piece by piece layered description of  God's Character.

And it all about selflessness and giving and serving another.

Love is defined in that chapter .... as   but there is at least One Other Person in the room.

Being Love in action.

As long as God has been alive ( ) for eternity past beyond the eons.. God has had a Love.

You just cant sit there alone and love and serve and give to yourself in a vacuum ( naturally not speaking of self esteem or well regard for own welfare. )

The exercise of love gives  depth and focus and purpose.

It is shared giving and it being returned between the two.

But wait! That can be selfish too!

Ever have a single or divorced friend suddenly fall googly eyes over someone and you suddenly dont hear from them?

Or when the new couple invited over (in the fresh newly both smitten kind) ..esp when young - are locked into each other to the exclusion of the world.

Wearing matching  tops? Always holding each others hands/won't leave each others side! Brag about a trinket/ring or showing off hickeys as a sign of ownership.

Talk about the Other all time when Other is away.

It can be like no one else existed.

BTW ..all adorable and cute and expected.

As love as love is .. it can be pretty exclusive. At least for awhile.

 

Ahhh.. But what of a Third Party?

 

It is not just a set of eyes lovingly staring at another set of eyes.

The eyes are bouncing around in a Perfect Triune Circle. All ways giving and passing  and receiving.

 I believe for Eternity there was/is/always be Three in complete harmony and devotion.

This love was so good and so hot that it had to be expanded and Creation was naturally born from it.

It had to give and serve more beings.

Actually when all is said and done .. All will be included in the Godhead!!!

It's the actual Good News to all of humanity.

We are included in this Inner Wholly Circle.

And this love..this precious precious Love ..will compel us to LENS every person as part of The BELOVED.

In this we actually do really share the Gospel.

 

 Three connected like One Body.. yet separate Entities.

God names us as part of the Body.

His Body.

(Which btw was also given to us literally  in the Symbol of The Las Supper)

 

I hope I'm making sense.

I love talking about my God.

Everyday i hope to catch this Image ..An ultimate selfless all serving all forgiving all sharing God.

 

I fail miserably but Gods got it covered with His LOVE..

 

 

[debbym]

i believe there is powerful eternal love that passes between all three members of the Godhead, each one self existent.  then there is  matchless pure giving love from all three towards all creation.  

To imagine how selfishness developed in the heart of a created being in the presence of such love is beyond comprehension.  it is called the mystery of iniquity.  Then the response to the deception, lies, and misrepresentation of such love called upon love to express itself in ways never seen or heard or known,  or could be known in any other way.

Love is completely selfless, and willing to suffering and deny every comfort to bless those suffering from the power of selfishness.

After a few billion eons of eternity the revelation of divine love towards the undeserving will not have lost any of it's luster.

To think we are called to be in such so close relation to the trinity by one of the members of God  becoming human and still being divine.  The head of the human race is a member of the divine God head.  God joined himself to us, at great cost to save us, there could be found no other way.  And in this lofty position he stoops to comfort, wash, and serve the humblest, degraded, fallen members of His creation, with joy.

[FLO]

I found this attached article an interesting read.  It'll definitely make you think.  
WARNING though: it does open up a huge can of worms that most people might not be comfortable with.
So yeah, do read it with an open mind.   Whether it's true or not, I'm sure we'll find out when we're in heaven. 
Until then...  back to studying and debating...  lol...   

FoodForThought1and2.pdf

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/3/2016 at 3:01 PM, Kevin H said:

Of course not. The problem with your arguments is that you do not enough see that it is only one God when we get outside of time and space, but the 3 beings of the trinity are just 3 simultaneous self revelations of that one God, just as if you had a glass of water that represents time and space and you are outside of time and space and put 3 fingers in the water. You are guilty as to what I said earlier about us trying to define God metaphysically, instead of leaving the metaphysical be simply "Holy, Holy, Holy" and that this "Holy, Holy, Holy" manifests him/her self to us in relationship through the trinity, two objective and one subjective manifestation.

Kevin,  I disagree wholeheartedly. 

1 John 4:9 "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." (NKJ)

Jesus the Christ is NOT simply another manifestation of God.  He is God's only begotten Son.  Either God beget a Son or He did not. 

Both the SDA current teaching (3 co-equal, co-eternal divine beings) and the Catholic/Baptist teaching (3 manifestations of one divine being) DENY that God ever literally beget another divine being - in His "express image".  An "image" is a copy.  An "express image" is an exact COPY. 

Why call Jesus the "only begotten Son of God", if He was not really God's Son.  Why use those terms?  Why call Him "God our Father" is He is not really the source of all life? 

And by the way, the "Holy, Holy, Holy" is for the past, present, and future.  [ "who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8) ].  It is not one "Holy" for each of 3 beings. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 11/3/2016 at 4:31 PM, Stan said:

I have never seen a conversation, on this or other forums, on the trinity end well. 

The nature of God has been debated since Arius and Athanasius duked it out some 1800 years ago.  It is doubtful our "conversation" will devolve into murder.   It is also very probable that all parties will never agree.  Doesn't mean we are wasting our time, by conversing. 

    The disciples of Christ, scattered by persecution, spread the gospel of the kingdom.  In Egypt, these missionaries found a ready acceptance of the new religion and as usually happens, the growing numbers of believers began to gravitate toward certain charismatic leaders.  The two most famous of these men were Arius and Athanasius, both of Alexandria.  

    Arius (c.250-336) held that Christ is the Son of God, and that because He is the Son He therefore had a beginning. “It is a necessary condition of the filial relation,” He wrote, “that the Father must be older than his Son.”   The Father and the Son are of “like substance” (or nature) and therefore Christ is divine and worthy of worship.  (A century before Arius, another believer named Novation of Rome held a similar view.)

    Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, headed the opposing  party which held that the Father and the Son are of “one substance,” and are coeternal. They asserted that the doctrine of Arius lowered the Son making Him less worthy of worship than the Father.  It is worth noting here that the Egyptians had worshiped a triune God (Isis-Horus-Set, otherwise known as Amum-Maut-Khonso) for thirty centuries.    

    Such heated debates took place between these two factions that the citizens of Alexandria amused themselves with theatrical satires and plays depicting the protagonists, and not many years went by before it could be said that nearly every Christian man or woman had an opinion concerning the nature of Christ.  The Jews and Pagans freely insulted Christianity with their mocking derision.

    The emperor Constantine was at first very amused by all the squabbling.  It kept the people occupied.  But as the controversy dragged on and on, he finally called a council of nearly 300 bishops to settle the matter.  The first ecumenical council of the Christian church took place in Nicaea (now in modern Turkey) c.325 - 294 years after the death of Christ. The presence of the emperor added to the vehemence of the arguments.  He would listen to all sides and then rule.  His verdict would decide truth.   

    As to the main point, the Son was declared to be of the “same substance” with the Father.  Arius was branded a heretic and banished to one of the remote provinces of Illyricum. “I am persecuted,” He cried, “because I have taught that the Son had a beginning and the Father had not.”  

    The ruling of the Emperor was clear.  He quickly issued letters denouncing Arius and ordered that anyone found with a copy of his writings must burn it or be put to death.  

    Concerning the nature of Christ, the first Nicene Creed reads: “The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not; and that before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of another substance or essence, and is created, or changeable, or alterable.”

 
    At the Council of Nicaea, the debate was over the nature of Christ (begotten vs unbegotten).  The nature of the Spirit was not an issue.  It would be another fifty-six years before the church would decree worship of the Holy Spirit.

    Now the Emperor Constantine was a base and vile criminal.  He had murdered his son Crispus, his nephew Licenius, and suffocated in a steam bath his wife of twenty years - Fausta, mother of three of his sons. The public abhorrence of his deeds could not be concealed.  A plaque comparing his reign to that of Nero was affixed to the palace gate.  Constantine threatened to massacre the Roman populace who had insulted him.

    This is the same Constantine who feigned a “conversion” to Christ, but not wanting to antagonize the pagan element, waited until he lay on his death bed to be “baptized” (just in case there is indeed a judgment).  He is the same who decreed that Christians and pagans should “rest” on the same day - Sunday.

    The favorite sister of Constantine, a supporter of the disrepute teacher, prevailed upon her brother and barely three years after the date of the council Arius was restored to favor.  He was treated by the whole court with the respect which would have been due to an innocent and oppressed man.  His faith was approved by the synod of Jerusalem; and the emperor seemed impatient to repair his injustice. He issued a royal command that Arius should receive the holy communion in the cathedral of Constantinople, but on the same day which had been fixed for His triumph, Arius  died very suddenly and under strange  circumstances.  The opponents of Arius said that God had answered their prayers and saved the church from the worst of her enemies.  The three principle leaders of the Catholics - Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Paul of Constantinople were deposed, accused by numerous councils; and were afterwards banished to distant provinces.  The believers were left to choose what they would believe with regard to the death of Arius - be it miracle or poisoning.  

    The council which took place in Nicaea (c.325) was only the first of nine “world” councils in early church history.  Creed followed creed.  The seventh ecumenical council, the second to take place in Nicaea (c.787) was convened by the Byzantine empress Irene to rule on the use of saints’ images and icons in religious devotions.  The council declared that the veneration of images was “legitimate” and the intercession of saints “efficacious,” yet their veneration must be distinguished from the worship due to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Gail said:

We have had members here that deny the deity of the Spirit, but the idea has cropped up in my workplace, too- not from colleagues but others we come across. 

I do NOT "deny the deity of the Spirit".  "God IS spirit" (John Chapt 4).  OF course the spirit is divine. 

I deny the separate 3rd divine personhood of the Spirit.   

[8thdaypriest]

I read through the articles.  Many interesting questions, but (in my opinion) went off the deep end in several places. 

God the Father is the SOURCE of all life .  There is no "mother element" except what exists in the ONE God,  who is the source of all. 

1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Co 8:6 NRS)

I see the Son of God fulfilling the female/wifely role.  He submits to the Father's will.  The Father created all things THROUGH His Son, just as a man creates through woman. 

Even the heavens declare that there are TWO divine persons.  The sun gives light, and the moon reflects that light.  The moon disappears for a time (corresponding to the time Jesus spent in the tomb) at the end/beginning of each month.

[Gail]

On November 3, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Stan said:

I have never seen a conversation, on this or other forums, on the trinity end well. 

I wonder why that is. Who are we to debate the nature of God? Interesting!

[Ron Amnsn]

3 hours ago, FLO said:

I found this attached article an interesting read.  It'll definitely make you think.  

I think one of the questions asked is quite misleading:
"In the sacrifice of the two turtledoves, why was the male killed...but the female released to fly away after being dipped in the blood of the male?"
I couldn't find anywhere in Scripture a sacrifice that matches what the question asked. Leviticus 14 does mention sacrifices that involved two birds for cleansing lepers and two birds for cleansing houses.  But it does not specify that the birds were turtledoves, nor does it specify the sex of the birds.

[phkrause]

Pr David Ascherick has an interesting talk/sermon on the Trinity! If I can find it, I will post it. Also there was a book written by a non-Adventist Pr that had a interesting explanation of the Trinity. When I get a chance I'll try to find the book. As of right now most of my books are still packed in boxes.

[Dr. Waite]

The bottom line is the three angel's messages. Who are we to worship? If we worship the wrong person or wrong god, will we receive the mark of the beast and the plagues? Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, became one of us and he gave us an example to follow. Who did he worship? Did he worship a trinity? Did he worship a third being call "god the holy spirit"?  Did he worship a being called "god the son"? So, who did he worship? Of. course, he worshiped his Father and his God who is one person and one being. This is who I worship. This is what Jesus Christ taught. This is his doctrine. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."  2nd John 1:9-11. 

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

Pr David Ascherick has an interesting talk/sermon on the Trinity! If I can find it, I will post it. Also there was a book written by a non-Adventist Pr that had a interesting explanation of the Trinity. When I get a chance I'll try to find the book. As of right now most of my books are still packed in boxes.

It's a 5 part series

1. The Mystery of God Singularity Plurality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsk-YLIKzTM

2. The Holy Spirit's Divinity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wEjl6uYGzk

3. The Holy Spirit's Personality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bamDoSCuxww

4. The Holy Spirit's Difficulty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ8TLcjIaMY

5. The Holy Spirit's Victory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMY8oTQD464

 

[GayatfootofCross]

9 minutes ago, phkrause said:

It's a 5 part series

 

 

thanku

I will listen to this this weekend.

I have much material by this man.

Love it.